DOJ defends outdated gun law in suppressor case, clashing with Trump’s pro-2A agenda
- The DOJ under Attorney General Pam Bondi is upholding the 1934 National Firearms Act (NFA), contradicting President Trump’s pro-Second Amendment stance. The NFA imposes burdensome registration, taxes and wait times for suppressors.
- Suppressors (often called “silencers”) are widely owned (over 3.5 million registered) and rarely used in crimes (fewer than 50 prosecutions annually). Despite this, the DOJ claims they’re prone to criminal misuse – a flawed argument that could extend to other accessories.
- The DOJ’s stance ignores NYSRPA v. Bruen (2022), where the Supreme Court ruled that firearms and accessories “in common use” cannot be banned simply because criminals might misuse them.
- If the Fifth Circuit sides with the DOJ, it could expand NFA restrictions to other accessories; criminalize honest mistakes (unregistered suppressors = felony); and justify further government overreach under “public safety” claims.
- Gun rights groups demand the DOJ drop its defense of the NFA and align with Trump’s pro-gun policies. The outcome of Peterson v. United States could either reinforce constitutional rights or entrench outdated gun control.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) under Attorney General Pam Bondi is actively defending the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934 – a nearly century-old gun control law – in a case that directly contradicts President Donald Trump’s pro-Second Amendment agenda.
The legal battle, Peterson v. United States, is currently before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. It centers on suppressor ownership and whether the NFA’s burdensome registration requirements violate constitutional rights.
BrightU.AI‘s Enoch engine explains that the NFA, enacted in response to the gangster violence of the Prohibition era, is a significant piece of federal legislation in the United States that regulates the possession, transfer and manufacture of certain types of firearms and firearm accessories. The NFA is enforced by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), a division of the Justice Department.
Suppressors, often mischaracterized as “silencers,” are widely used by law-abiding citizens for hearing protection, noise reduction at firing range and safer home defense. According to ATF data, over 3.5 million suppressors are legally registered in the United States. Yet fewer than 50 federal prosecutions annually involve suppressor-related crimes.
Despite this, the DOJ insists suppressors are “specially adaptable to criminal misuse” – an argument borrowed from California’s failed attempts to ban standard-capacity magazines. Legal experts argue this reasoning could justify restrictions on any firearm accessory, from scopes to magazines, threatening broader Second Amendment protections.
DOJ ignores Supreme Court precedent
The DOJ’s stance clashes with the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), which rejected “interest-balancing” tests that pit government concerns against constitutional rights. Justice Clarence Thomas explicitly stated that firearms and accessories “in common use” for lawful purposes cannot be banned simply because criminals might misuse them.
Trump has repeatedly vowed to roll back Biden-era gun restrictions and uphold Second Amendment rights. In February, he signed an executive order directing federal agencies to eliminate unconstitutional gun regulations.
Yet, Bondi’s DOJ continues defending the NFA’s registration, $200 tax and months-long approval process – requirements critics argue serve no legitimate public safety purpose. The department’s defense of the NFA – a law originally designed to discourage gun ownership through bureaucratic hurdles – directly undermines this agenda.
If the Fifth Circuit sides with the DOJ, the ruling could:
- Expand NFA restrictions to other firearm accessories.
- Maintain felony penalties for unregistered suppressors—turning honest mistakes into life-altering convictions.
- Set a dangerous precedent allowing government overreach under the guise of “public safety.”
Gun rights organizations, including the National Association for Gun Rights, are urging Bondi’s DOJ to drop its defense of the NFA and align with Trump’s pro-Second Amendment policies. As the Peterson case progresses, gun owners nationwide await a decision that could either reinforce constitutional rights or entrench outdated gun control. With public pressure mounting, the question remains: Will the DOJ finally uphold the Second Amendment, or continue defending a law from the era of Al Capone?
Watch this video about the Founding Founders’ Second Amendment strategy to stop invasion of Americans’ rights.
This video is from the Tenth Amendment Center channel on Brighteon.com.
Sources include:
ZeroHedge.com
BrightU.ai
CapWolf.com
Gun.net
Brighteon.com
Read full article here