Did the DOJ Just Flip on the Second Amendment?

Just days after a tidal wave of criticism hit the Department of Justice (DOJ) for doubling down on its claim that firearm suppressors – or silencers – are not protected by the Second Amendment, something strange happened. Pam Bondi, the current Attorney General, may be changing course. According to William Kirk, attorney and host of Washington Gun Law, the turnaround came surprisingly fast. In a matter of hours, the DOJ filed a motion asking for a delay in a high-stakes federal case involving suppressors – United States v. Peterson. 

The filing, submitted to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, asked for 30 more days to “reconsider” the government’s previous position. It came just after Bondi appointed a new ATF Chief Counsel – Robert Leider, a known supporter of gun rights.

A Shift in Philosophy or a Panicked Reaction?

This development stunned many who had been criticizing Bondi for her role in pushing what they saw as unconstitutional positions. Just 48 hours earlier, DOJ lawyers had strongly defended a controversial court ruling that said suppressors were not “arms” and thus not covered by the Second Amendment. Suddenly, the agency was backpedaling. Was this a sincere shift in legal philosophy – or a panicked reaction to public pressure?

The Peterson Case: A Flashpoint

At the heart of the controversy is United States v. Peterson, a federal case centered on the possession of an unregistered firearm suppressor. George Peterson, a resident of Louisiana, was convicted under the National Firearms Act for owning a suppressor that wasn’t registered with the federal government. In February 2025, a three-judge panel in the Fifth Circuit shocked many by ruling that suppressors are not “arms” under the Second Amendment. As such, they found, they are not protected at all by the Constitution’s right to keep and bear arms.

The decision sparked outrage among Second Amendment advocates. As Kirk explained in his video, the panel’s reasoning was deeply flawed: if suppressors are not arms, then anything not essential to making a gun “go bang” – like magazines, scopes, or even ammunition – could be excluded from constitutional protection. That precedent, if left unchallenged, would give the federal government enormous new power to regulate or even ban firearm components without violating the Second Amendment.

The Motion That Sparked the Buzz

Then came the filing. In a sudden move, the DOJ submitted a formal request to delay the court’s ruling on Peterson’s petition for a rehearing. The document – titled Government’s Unopposed Motion to Delay Ruling on Defendant-Appellant’s Petition for Rehearing En Banc – asks for 30 days to reevaluate the Department’s litigation stance. The DOJ cited Executive Order 14206, signed by President Trump, which directed the Attorney General to review all federal policies and actions to ensure they align with Second Amendment protections.

The language in the DOJ’s motion was surprisingly candid. It admitted that the government needed time to “further consider its position” on suppressors and their constitutional status. This represented a major break from the aggressive tone seen just two days earlier in the DOJ’s formal response, which had argued in no uncertain terms that the Constitution does not protect suppressors. The shift appeared to coincide precisely with the hiring of Professor Leider at the ATF – a man known for taking strong pro-Second Amendment positions.

Public Pressure Playing a Role?

Jared Yanis, host of Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News, offered his own take – and it added a new layer to the story. According to Yanis, the DOJ may have been influenced not just by Trump’s executive order, but also by public backlash. Yanis claimed that high-level DOJ officials had been “caught off guard” by the intense criticism flooding in from gun rights advocates. The outrage came not just through videos and social media, but also through calls to senators, emails to representatives, and public pressure campaigns targeting federal officials.

He even suggested that videos on YouTube – including his own – may have played a role in pushing the DOJ to reverse course. “They didn’t like the heat,” Yanis said plainly. He argued that this wasn’t just a legal shift; it was a public relations scramble. And in that sense, the change may be more about optics than principle.

Political Pressure Meets Policy Shift

Yanis was quick to credit the executive order from President Trump as another major factor. The order, issued earlier in February, made it clear that the administration wants federal departments – including the DOJ – to reassess their legal strategies in cases involving the Second Amendment. Yanis suggested that Bondi’s sudden shift may be part of a broader move to bring the DOJ back in line with the executive branch’s current priorities. If that’s true, it could mean more reversals ahead in other pending cases involving gun rights.

The implications are serious. According to Yanis, this case could set the tone for how suppressors – and possibly other firearm accessories – are treated under federal law. A favorable ruling for Peterson might force the federal government to recognize items like magazines, barrels, and even certain types of ammunition as protected by the Second Amendment. That would be a massive legal shift, with far-reaching consequences.

Skepticism from Within the Community

But not everyone is buying the narrative of a sudden turnaround. Curtis Hallstrom, host of The VSO Gun Channel, took a far more critical tone. In his response video, Hallstrom warned fellow gun owners not to celebrate too soon. “This is not what people think it is,” he said bluntly. He pushed back hard against the idea that Bondi and the DOJ had suddenly “flipped” on the Second Amendment. In his view, the DOJ’s request for more time was nothing more than a stall tactic – a way to buy 30 days and hope the backlash dies down.

Hallstrom’s frustration came through clearly. He criticized the gun rights community for handing out political points too easily. “We’re so starved for someone to be on our side that we’re just throwing credit at anyone who blinks in our direction,” he said. For Hallstrom, real change means action – not paperwork. Asking for an extension, he argued, is not a principled stand. It’s a delay.

Hallstrom’s Call for Accountability

Hallstrom also questioned the internal leadership behind the initial DOJ filing. If Bondi and Trump were truly committed to defending Second Amendment rights, why weren’t heads rolling after the anti-suppressor brief was submitted? Why weren’t the acting attorneys removed? In his view, allowing the same officials to stay on after such a blunder signals weakness – or worse, indifference. “Do something about it,” Hallstrom demanded. “Until then, I reserve judgment.”

His message to the pro-gun community was simple: don’t forget what happened last time. He pointed to the Trump administration’s previous support for bump stock bans and red flag laws as reasons to be cautious. Promises don’t mean much, Hallstrom warned, unless they’re followed by policy – and proof.

Kirk’s More Optimistic View

In contrast, William Kirk took a more measured approach. While not ignoring Bondi’s earlier missteps, he recognized that appointing a strong Second Amendment advocate like Robert Leider was a positive step. Kirk acknowledged the risk of being too optimistic but said it’s important to give credit when it’s due. “When she does good things, we’ll give her an attagirl,” Kirk said. He noted that in less than 48 hours, a legal direction that once looked like a disaster had started to shift.

He cautioned viewers not to jump to conclusions but suggested that the Peterson case could signal more changes to come – especially if Bondi and Leider continue pushing in the same direction. “This could be a big turnaround,” he said, though he added that the outcome still depends on how the DOJ proceeds in the next few weeks.

A Test for Bondi’s Legacy

What happens next will likely define Pam Bondi’s record on the Second Amendment. If the DOJ returns with a new brief supporting suppressors as protected arms, it could mark a significant departure from the agency’s previous policies. If not, it could confirm critics’ fears that this was just another political delay tactic. Either way, Bondi is now under intense scrutiny – not only from gun control opponents, but also from within her own base of supposed supporters.

As Kirk noted, “We’re going to keep it down the middle.” When Bondi fumbled, she was called out. But now that she seems to be steering in a better direction, it’s worth watching to see if the change is real – or just temporary.

Signals vs. Substance

Here’s what makes this moment so fascinating: in politics, things usually move slow. Yet within just 48 hours, the DOJ went from defending a wildly unpopular ruling to asking for time to rethink everything. That doesn’t happen unless something behind the scenes is shaking loose. Whether it’s sincere or just a way to dodge bad headlines, the shift is real – and it shows that political pressure still matters.

But let’s not forget: words on paper don’t change laws. Thirty days from now, we’ll know whether this is a serious course correction or just smoke and mirrors. Until then, the gun rights community should keep doing what it’s doing – calling, writing, and pushing for transparency and accountability. The Constitution doesn’t protect itself. It takes vigilance, and in this case, it seems like vigilance might’ve actually made a difference.

A Moment to Watch Closely

This isn’t just about silencers. It’s about how far the federal government can go in defining what counts as a “firearm” and what falls under Second Amendment protection. If suppressors aren’t considered arms, what’s next? Magazines? Scopes? Triggers? The outcome of United States v. Peterson could have massive implications across the country. As of now, all eyes are on the DOJ – and on Attorney General Pam Bondi. Whether she’s truly flipped or just buying time, the clock is ticking.