In a move that shocked legal observers and gun rights advocates alike, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has officially withdrawn its previous opinion in United States v. Peterson – a case that previously declared suppressors were not protected “arms” under the Second Amendment. According to Braden Langley of Langley Outdoors Academy, this is “unprecedented,” and marks a major step toward correcting what many saw as a deeply flawed and dangerous ruling.
The Peterson Case: What Went Wrong
The original panel decision, handed down in February 2025, ruled that suppressors (or silencers) were not protected by the Second Amendment because they were considered accessories, not actual firearms. This ruling upheld the conviction of George Peterson, who had been charged for possessing an unregistered suppressor under the National Firearms Act (NFA). Braden Langley explained that this opinion “boxed it up six ways to Sunday,” and many legal experts, including attorney Mark W. Smith of Four Boxes Diner, agreed.
Mark Smith: “They Screwed This Up Six Ways to Sunday”
Mark Smith, a constitutional attorney and host of Four Boxes Diner, was among the first to slam the initial Peterson decision. He argued that suppressors are clearly “arms” under the Second Amendment’s definition and that the panel’s legal reasoning was a mess. Now, with the court’s decision to withdraw its opinion, Smith said this is an opportunity to “redo their work and get it right this time.” He praised the panel for admitting its mistake and attempting to fix it, rather than letting it be reversed through en banc review.
FPC Leads the Legal Challenge
The case was backed by the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), which has long challenged the constitutionality of suppressor regulation under the NFA. Jared Yanis of Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News confirmed that FPC attorneys worked tirelessly on Peterson’s appeal and welcomed the panel’s withdrawal. “This is a big, big deal,” Yanis said. “This tells us they’re taking a serious look at whether suppressors deserve full Second Amendment protection – and they do.”
DOJ Reverses Course, Supports Suppressors
In a surprising twist, even the Department of Justice under the Trump administration reversed its earlier position. Initially, the DOJ supported the panel’s decision. But after new leadership – including Solicitor General John Sauer and Harmy Dillon – was confirmed, the DOJ changed course. As reported by both Yanis and Smith, the DOJ’s new brief emphasized that suppressors offer real benefits to law-abiding citizens, including hearing protection, reduced recoil, and better communication during self-defense situations.
Marines Use Them – Why Can’t Civilians?
Mark Smith made an especially interesting point during his Four Boxes Diner segment. He noted that the DOJ’s revised opinion specifically mentioned that the U.S. Marine Corps began issuing suppressors to infantry units in 2020. Smith explained that this argument is meant to appeal to more traditional “law and order” judges – those who trust military and law enforcement practices. If suppressors are useful and necessary for Marines, it’s hard to argue they’re not also valuable for civilians exercising their Second Amendment rights.
Braden Langley: “This Doesn’t Happen – Ever”
Langley was fired up. He stressed that appellate courts almost never withdraw opinions after they’ve been published. “This is the kind of thing that only happens when they realize just how badly they messed up,” he said. He also pointed out that this shift happened alongside a major public outcry and grassroots activism. “This didn’t happen because someone in government decided to be nice,” Langley said. “It happened because you guys kept the pressure on – and it worked.”
What’s Next? A Rewritten Opinion May Flip the Script
So what does this mean for the case? According to Smith, the most likely outcome is that the same three-judge panel will revise and reissue a new opinion that treats suppressors as protected arms under the Second Amendment. While that’s not guaranteed, all signs suggest the court is backtracking and trying to clean up its earlier mistake. As Yanis noted, “They pulled the opinion. That means it no longer exists. It’s as if it never happened.”
NFA on the Ropes?
The withdrawal of the Peterson decision couldn’t have come at a more critical time. In Congress, legislation known as the “big beautiful bill” is already aiming to strip suppressors, short-barreled rifles, and shotguns from the NFA’s regulatory control. Both Langley and Yanis tied the court’s actions to broader momentum in Congress and across the legal system. “We’re seeing movement in legislation and litigation at the same time,” Yanis said. “And it all points toward suppressor freedom.”
Suppressors Meet the Bruen Standard
Mark Smith broke down why suppressors are clearly protected by the Constitution. Under the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision, the Second Amendment covers all “instruments that facilitate armed self-defense.” Suppressors do exactly that, Smith argued. They reduce noise, help preserve hearing, improve accuracy, and enhance safety. And when states ban them, they effectively ban an entire category of firearm use. “That’s a gun ban in disguise,” Smith said.
This Is Bigger Than Just Suppressors
From my perspective, this is more than just a case about silencers. This is a test of how far courts are willing to go to defend, or ignore, the plain language of the Constitution. The fact that it took public outrage, a DOJ reversal, and multiple legal experts calling them out to get the Fifth Circuit to withdraw its decision is troubling. But it’s also proof that legal activism, when loud and persistent, can make a difference. The gun rights community is winning battles not just in Congress, but in courtrooms where real precedent is shaped.
A Turning Point for Gun Rights?
This withdrawal might be one of those moments we look back on and say, “That’s when things started to turn.” If suppressors are ruled as protected arms, the NFA could begin to unravel piece by piece. And that’s not speculation – it’s happening right now. The judicial and legislative tracks are converging, and the pressure is on. As Langley said, “You are making moves. You are body-slamming gun controllers, and they don’t know how to respond.” That momentum shouldn’t be wasted.
A Major Signal
The Fifth Circuit’s decision to yank its flawed opinion in United States v. Peterson is more than a procedural hiccup. It’s a major signal that the tide is turning in favor of Second Amendment protections for suppressors – and maybe more. Thanks to voices like Braden Langley, Jared Yanis, and Mark Smith, the public got the truth fast. Now, the nation waits to see whether the rewritten opinion will finish what this bold withdrawal just started.
A former park ranger and wildlife conservationist, Lisa’s passion for survival started with her deep connection to nature. Raised on a small farm in northern Wisconsin, she learned how to grow her own food, raise livestock, and live off the land. Lisa is our dedicated Second Amendment news writer and also focuses on homesteading, natural remedies, and survival strategies. Lisa aims to help others live more sustainably and prepare for the unexpected.