In what constitutional attorney Mark W. Smith of The Four Boxes Diner called a “spectacularly great, fantastic” moment for gun rights, the Trump Department of Justice has filed a game-changing legal brief in United States v. Peterson. The DOJ conceded, perhaps for the first time in U.S. history, that suppressors are indeed “arms” under the Second Amendment.
According to Smith, this admission fundamentally changes how suppressors should be treated in legal and political debates. “They have finally admitted what we’ve been saying all along,” Smith declared. “Suppressors are arms. That means they are protected just like handguns, rifles, and shotguns.” This is more than semantics – it shifts the constitutional burden. Once something is recognized as an “arm,” any regulation of it must pass through the historical-tradition test established in Bruen.
A Suppressor Cannot Be Banned – Full Stop
Even more stunning than the admission that suppressors are arms is the DOJ’s acknowledgment that they cannot be banned. As Smith quoted from the DOJ brief, “A ban on the possession of suppressors… would be unconstitutional.” That line alone may reverberate through courts and legislatures for years.
Smith was emphatic: “This is not me saying it. This is the United States Department of Justice under President Donald Trump and Attorney General Pam Bondi.” It’s a formal position that will now be cited in pro-gun lawsuits nationwide. And it makes any attempt to outlaw suppressors outright legally indefensible under this administration’s view of the Second Amendment.
A Landmark Defense of the Right to Train and Practice
Mark Smith also highlighted another major concession: the DOJ now affirms that the Second Amendment protects the right to train. The brief states that the right to bear arms “implies learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use.” That’s a quote the gun community has long hoped to hear from federal lawyers.
“This will be incredibly useful,” Smith noted, “because anti-gunners have tried to shut down training ranges, restrict practice hours, and limit where gun owners can shoot. This admission makes those restrictions vulnerable to constitutional challenge.”
You Have the Right to Buy, Too
In one of the brief’s most critical passages, the DOJ made it clear that the Second Amendment protects the right to acquire firearms and accessories, including suppressors. Citing the Heller precedent, the government stated that purchasing and maintaining firearms, ammunition, and related components are all integral to the protected right.
Smith emphasized the long-term significance: “That’s massive. It means that governments can’t ban you from buying a gun, buying ammo, or buying a suppressor without implicating the Second Amendment.” It also could bolster ongoing cases involving homemade firearms, 3D-printed parts, and online gun part sales.
DOJ Praises Suppressors for Civilian and Military Use
Another section of the brief made a surprising reference to military use of suppressors. The DOJ cited the U.S. Marine Corps’ adoption of suppressors in 2020, noting that they reduce recoil, improve communication, and protect hearing.
“That’s not just lip service,” Smith explained. “They’re pointing out that suppressors have very real, very practical safety benefits. If the Marines are using them, how can you say they’re only for criminals?” He added that the DOJ also acknowledged suppressors’ role in improving accuracy and reducing noise pollution – functions that clearly “facilitate the constitutional right to keep and bear arms.”
The Concessions Are Real – But the Defense of the NFA Is Flimsy
However, Smith also pointed out a contradiction in the DOJ’s strategy. After making all these pro-2A concessions, the DOJ still argued – weakly, in Smith’s view – that the National Firearms Act’s $200 tax and registration requirement for suppressors is constitutional.
“They basically admitted that suppressors are protected arms,” Smith said, “but then tried to say that it’s okay to impose a targeted tax and registration requirement on those very arms. That doesn’t pass the smell test.” He referenced the Minneapolis Star and Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections cases, which struck down similar taxes on constitutional rights, like the press and voting.
A Strategic Half-Step to Keep the Case Alive
Smith believes the DOJ’s apparent inconsistency is no accident. In a follow-up video, he laid out what he thinks is the administration’s endgame: keeping the case alive to allow the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to set a strong pro-2A precedent.
“If the DOJ had fully agreed with Peterson’s arguments,” Smith said, “the case would be dismissed as moot. And if that happens, the terrible anti-gun panel decision from earlier in the case remains binding precedent.” The Trump DOJ appears to be threading a legal needle – giving the Fifth Circuit room to overturn the ruling without causing the case to evaporate.
Footnote 9: A Legal Blunder That Undermines Itself
Smith also torched a specific part of the DOJ brief, Footnote 9, which claimed that suppressors, unlike firearms, are “peculiarly susceptible to criminal misuse.” Smith called the argument “absurd,” pointing out that suppressors are rarely used in crimes, while tens of thousands of people are killed with handguns each year.
“It’s backwards,” he said. “This is interest-balancing all over again, and Bruen explicitly rejected that. You can’t judge the scope of a constitutional right based on what criminals might do.” For a brief that otherwise embraced Bruen, this section felt like a leftover from the Biden-era playbook.
Could This Brief Topple the NFA’s Suppressor Provisions?
By acknowledging that suppressors are arms and that bans would be unconstitutional, the DOJ has created a legal landscape in which the National Firearms Act’s suppressor provisions are vulnerable. The $200 tax, the registration requirement, and the delays all implicate constitutional scrutiny under Bruen.
Smith was blunt: “There is no historical tradition of taxing or registering arms in the way the NFA requires.” And if the Fifth Circuit agrees, the NFA’s suppressor rules could be declared unconstitutional, at least in part.
The Fifth Circuit Now Holds the Key
All eyes are now on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. According to Smith, it’s the best possible court for gun owners to win a landmark ruling. “If there’s one court I’d want to handle this case, it’s the Fifth Circuit,” he said. “This is our moment.”
Whether the case is reheard by the original panel or by the full court en banc, the DOJ’s new position gives the judges strong reasons to reverse their earlier ruling against Peterson.
A Tactical Masterstroke
In the end, what may look like a confusing legal maneuver is, in Mark Smith’s view, a tactical masterstroke. The Trump DOJ managed to publicly affirm the Second Amendment’s scope in ways never before seen from a federal agency, without ending the case prematurely.
From a legal strategy perspective, I agree with Smith’s take. This may be the smartest way to knock down bad precedent, elevate good law, and leave behind a permanent pro-2A footprint. The brief has its flaws, but its admissions are groundbreaking. As Smith put it best, “We’re winning. One battle at a time.”
UP NEXT: “Heavily Armed” — See Which States Are The Most Strapped
Image Credit: Survival World
Americans have long debated the role of firearms, but one thing is sure — some states are far more armed than others. See where your state ranks in this new report on firearm ownership across the U.S.
The article DOJ Concedes Major Ground on Second Amendment first appeared on Survival World.
Growing up in the Pacific Northwest, John developed a love for the great outdoors early on. With years of experience as a wilderness guide, he’s navigated rugged terrains and unpredictable weather patterns. John is also an avid hunter and fisherman who believes in sustainable living. His focus on practical survival skills, from building shelters to purifying water, reflects his passion for preparedness. When he’s not out in the wild, you can find him sharing his knowledge through writing, hoping to inspire others to embrace self-reliance.
