Trump DOJ Says Suppressors Are Not Protected By 2nd Amendment

Published on March 18, 2025
Duration: 8:42

This video discusses the Department of Justice's stance that suppressors are not protected by the Second Amendment, as articulated in the case of United States v. Peterson. The DOJ argues against an en banc hearing for Peterson, who was charged with possession of an unregistered suppressor. The video highlights the legal definition of a firearm under 26 U.S. Code § 5845, noting that while suppressors are classified as firearms for tax purposes, the DOJ contends they are not 'arms' protected by the Second Amendment.

Quick Summary

The Department of Justice argues that suppressors, while classified as firearms for tax purposes under 26 U.S. Code § 5845, are not considered 'arms' protected by the Second Amendment. This stance was highlighted in the case of United States v. Peterson, where the DOJ opposed an en banc hearing to challenge this interpretation.

Chapters

  1. 00:00Sponsor: First Form Supplements
  2. 00:46DOJ Ruling on Suppressors & 2nd Amendment
  3. 01:16Key Figures: Michael Simpson & David Berman
  4. 01:35Case Overview: United States v. Peterson
  5. 01:53En Banc Hearing Explained
  6. 02:21Federal Law: 26 US Code § 5845 Definition of Firearm
  7. 03:23Plain English: Suppressors as Firearms for Tax
  8. 04:46Inconsistency: Firearms vs. Arms Protection
  9. 05:13DOJ's 'Have Cake and Eat It Too' Argument
  10. 05:23Clip: Biden's Gun Transfer Ban
  11. 05:48Trump Administration Promises
  12. 06:18Precedent & ATF General Counsel Firing
  13. 06:48Current Administration Actions
  14. 07:06Questions for DOJ/White House
  15. 07:48Restoring Justice Department Integrity
  16. 08:00Critique of Weaponizing DOJ/FBI/ATF

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the Department of Justice's stance on suppressors and the Second Amendment?

The Department of Justice, as represented in the United States v. Peterson case, has argued that suppressors are not 'arms' protected by the Second Amendment, despite being classified as 'firearms' for tax and regulatory purposes under federal law.

What is the significance of the United States v. Peterson case regarding suppressors?

The case involves an individual charged with possessing an unregistered suppressor. The DOJ's opposition to an en banc hearing in this case highlights their legal argument that suppressors do not fall under Second Amendment protections as 'arms'.

How does federal law define a 'firearm' in relation to suppressors?

According to 26 U.S. Code § 5845, the term 'firearm' explicitly includes 'silencers' (suppressors) for the purposes of federal taxation and regulation, requiring specific procedures like Form 4 submission and a tax stamp.

What is the core legal argument made by the DOJ regarding suppressors and the Second Amendment?

The DOJ's argument is that while suppressors are legally defined as firearms for tax purposes, they do not constitute 'arms' in the context of the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms, a position they are defending in court.

Related News

All News →

More 2nd Amendment & Law Videos You Might Like

More from The VSO Gun Channel

View all →