Hello again everyone. Welcome to Washington Gun Law tv. I am Washington Gun Law President William Kirk. Thanks for joining us. Well, normally when we're talking about the Fifth Circuit, we're talking about some really cool stuff because candidly, the Fifth Circuit's been authoring the best Second Amendment opinions for the last few years. That is until today because three Judge Panel out of the Fifth Circuit has made a terrible ruling as it relates to suppressors. And worse than that, it could actually be a very, very dangerous ruling as well, because this type of reasoning could spread like wire fire and it will disarm many, many more of you. We'll explain all in just a moment. So today, let's spend a few minutes and let's talk about a terrible and dangerous ruling on suppressors.
Okay, America, the case we're talking about today is United States v Peterson, a newly published opinion from a three judge panel out of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. I have always said that, Hey, listen, the fifth circuit's the place you want to be. Well, apparently, not always, however, because these three judges have found that suppressors standing alone do not constitute bearable arms and therefore are afforded no second Amendment protection. Don't believe me, the opinion of the court starts this way. Peterson first challenges the district courts the dial of his motion to dismiss. Specifically, he argues that the NFAs suppressor registration requirements unconstitutionally burden his Second Amendment rights. But because we conclude that suppressors are not arms within the Second Amendment's purview, we disagree. Now, I know too many of you, this will come as a huge shock because you're sitting there going, wait, wait, wait, wait.
Aren't suppressors regulated under the National Firearms Act? Yeah, in fact, they are. So one would think that since they're regulated, highly federally regulated as firearms, that the Court of Appeals would've found that, well, these do constitute bearable arms. But no, because if they would have done that, you see, it would've gotten 'em to the second part of the test, which means government would've had to justify it through historical analogs. And since none of those exist, well then Peterson would've prevailed, right? Well, suppressors constitute arms is an issue of first impression in our circuit. And so far as we can tell every court to have addressed it has decided the question in the negative. Now, the defendant, Mr. Peterson here, who had a search warrant served at his residence by A TF, who then found an unregistered uns serialized suppressor in his gun safe is claiming that, Hey, listen, this does fall under the definition of arms.
This is something that can be used either to strike out in another or to defend oneself. However, the Fifth Circuit countered with Peterson points that suppressors are an integral part of a firearm and therefore warrant Second Amendment protection in as much as a bullet must pass through the attached suppressor to arrive at its intended target. Suppressors are used for casting and striking and thus fit Heller's definition, but that is wrong. A suppressor by itself is not a weapon without being attached to a firearm. It would not be of much use for self-defense, and unless the suppressor itself is thrown, which of course is not how firearms work, it cannot do any casting or striking. Instead, we agree with the 10th circuit that a suppressor is a firearm accessory not a weapon, and while possession of firearms themselves is covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment, possession of firearm accessories is not.
That is one of the huge danger parts of this ruling because you take that line of reasoning, you hand it over to a few of these really blue states hell bent on civilian disarmament, and how many other attachments or accoutrements as they like to call it sometimes could they think about banning what happens if they start banning barrels? What happens if they start banning triggers? What happens if they just ban all magazines regardless of capacity? But the Fifth Circuit clearly was not convinced because they ruled, as the government aptly explains, an operable firearm will work perfectly well without a suppressor, but a suppressor will not transform an inoperable firearm into an operable one. But what the court misses here is many of the utilitarian purposes of suppressors including training, because especially for new shooters, the ability to shoot suppressed will help them to get much more comfortable behind the trigger of a firearm.
It will significantly reduce shot flinching and other things like that that really hinder a lot of new shooters. And candidly, based upon what I see at the range, sometimes even some supposed veteran shooters. And because suppressors are so effective in training, especially new shooters, suppressors in many ways fall into the same category as gun ranges. They are in fact necessary to assist and to train so that people are proficiently use of firearms. And in doing so, that furthers the cause of self-defense. But again, the three judge panel in the fifth Circuit, yeah, they weren't having any of it. The use of a suppressor, as we noted above, is not necessary to the use of a firearm. So it is not protected by the plain text of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment, therefore is not offended by the NFA regulation. So we affirm the District Court's denial of Peterson's motion to dismiss.
Okay? Think about that. It's not a firearm, and therefore, since it's not an arm, the Second Amendment's not implicated. And therefore federal government's ability to regulate it as if it were a firearm is not unconstitutional. Now have a change in political wins. Get a really crappy president, get a really terrible attorney general, get a really terrible A TF director, not like that would ever happen, right? What stops Congress from taking all sorts of other attachments or accoutrements and placing 'em all underneath the NFA at that point and completely regulating them into oblivion? As a matter of fact, if the Second Amendment is not implicated with suppressors at all, what stops all the states from becoming like Illinois where they just have a flat out ban on suppressors? As some of you may or may not know in Illinois, it does not matter how many hoops you jump through.
It does not matter how many federal background checks you go through. You are not allowed to own or possess a suppressor in the state of Illinois. And mark my word with this line of reasoning, if this is not overturned by an OMB bank panel of the Fifth Circuit, you're going to see that crazy line of reasoning pop up in all these other very blue civilian disarmament states. Listen, the Fifth Circuit usually gets it right, but they are human and they got this one wrong, but they got this one wrong in a manner which is incredibly dangerous moving forward, because if in fact suppressors are not protected at all in any way, shape or form by the second amendment of the Constitution, then what's protecting them at all? And if they're not protected at all, why not? Could every state just turn around and ban 'em for no other reason other than they just want to ban them?
So listen, we're very hopeful that an banc panel of the Fifth Circuit will accept review of this and reverse it, but we do not know where this is going at the current time. We're going to have to keep our eyes very carefully peeled on this. Okay, the case once again is the United States of America v Peterson. We're going to link up the ruling of the court below so that you guys can geek out on it for yourself. If you got any other questions about this or anything else related to what's left of our Second Amendment rights, you guys should know how to get ahold of Washington Gun Law by now. But if you don't, that's okay. That information down there in the description box, if you got an idea for a video we should be doing around here, you click on that link right there and tell us all about it. If you want to subscribe to our monthly newsletter, the ability to do all of that is right down there in the description box. And then finally, and most importantly, let's everyone remember that part of being the lawful and responsible gun owner, like we talk about all the time here, is to know what the law is in every situation and how it applies to you in any instance that you may find yourself. Until next time, thanks for watching and stay safe.
Credit: William Kirk, Esq., Washington Gun Law