You May Have Missed It, But DOJ’s Making Big Admissions About Suppressors In Legal Filings
The Department of Justice admitted in multiple legal filings since May 2025 that the “beneficial use” of suppressors overwhelms their misuse by criminals.
A three-judge panel from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in June in Comeaux v. United States that suppressors are protected under the Second Amendment, but upheld a conviction of Brennan Comeaux for possessing an unregistered suppressor. Comeaux’s attorneys asked the Fifth Circuit to hear the case en banc, which would have all the judges on the appellate court decide the case, prompting the government to urge the court to decline the appeal in a Monday filing while reiterating the admission that could strengthen constitutional protections for the devices. (RELATED: SCOTUS Showdown Over Gun Suppressors Looms After Appeals Court Creates ‘Circuit Split’)
“Silencers are susceptible to criminal misuse because they make it harder for victims or law enforcement to identify or detect the source and direction of gunfire, such as in drive-by or mass shootings or assassination attempts,” the DOJ said in the Monday . “This is not to say that silencers are widely used for criminal purposes — their beneficial use is overwhelming in relation to their criminal use.”
“Mass murderers use silencers so their targeted victims can’t hear the gun shots, and they can kill more people who don’t flee when the shooting begins,” Democratic Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy claimed in a June 12, 2025, Facebook post. “That’s why we MUST stop the Republican effort to pad the profits of the gun industry by ending background checks on silencers.”
Facebook users accused Murphy of lying about suppressors in the post’s comments, with some noting that the devices don’t actually silence the sound of gunshots.
The reconciliation bill ultimately signed into law by President Donald Trump in July 2025 contained provisions that reduced the taxes on suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns and guns described as “any other weapon” to $0 after the Senate parliamentarian struck language that removed those items from NFA’s purview. The National Shooting Sports Foundation reported that over 6.1 million suppressors are privately-owned.
The DOJ’s supplemental brief in Peterson v. United States, another case involving charges of possessing an unregistered suppressor, admitted that suppressors and other firearms components and accessories were protected under the Second Amendment. In that filing, the DOJ urged the Fifth Circuit to send the case back for a rehearing based on the DOJ’s position in light of Trump’s February 2025 executive order regarding the Second Amendment.
“In the view of the United States, the Second Amendment protects firearm accessories and components such as suppressors,” the DOJ said in the May 2025 filing. “As a result, restrictions on the possession of suppressors burden the right to bear arms, and a ban on the possession of suppressors or other similar accessories would be unconstitutional.”
The DOJ also stated in the brief that the benefits from the lawful use of suppressors far outweighed criminal misuse, using the same quote used in Monday’s filing in the Comeaux case.
Read more Marc Thiessen Praises Laura Loomer After She Travels To Ukraine
The government’s repeated admissions that the benefits of silencers overwhelms their “criminal use” could invoke the rationale behind the Supreme Court’s 2008 ruling in Heller, which declared that arms in common use for lawful purposes fall under the Second Amendment’s protection.
“[The DOJ] admitted in the Peterson case that suppressors enjoy some degree of Second Amendment protection and could not be totally banned,” Second Amendment Foundation Director of Legal Research and Education Konstadinos Moros told the Daily Caller News Foundation, referencing another case involving charged of possessing an unregistered silencer. (RELATED: Democrat Rep Proposes Australia-Style ‘Buyback’ For Your Suppressor)
If courts accept that interpretation, it poses problems for legislative measures proposed by Murphy and Democratic New Jersey Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman.
Coleman introduced legislation in June to prohibit civilian ownership of suppressors, while authorizing the attorney general to “buy back” the suppressors currently privately owned in accordance with the National Firearms Act (NFA) in a manner similar to how Australia handled semiautomatic firearms. Coleman did not immediately respond to a request for comment from the DCNF.
Murphy introduced an amendment to a funding bill that would have increased the taxes on suppressors and other firearms and accessories covered by the NFA to just over $4700 in January, increasing the tax to the equivalent of the $200 when it was imposed in 1934. Murphy did not immediately respond to a request for comment from the DCNF.
Moros and attorney Stephen Halbrook both measures like those proposed by Coleman and Murphy would likely be ruled unconstitutional under current Second Amendment jurisprudence.
“Peterson and Comeaux upheld the NFA as a ‘shall-issue’ law under Bruen, but footnote 9 disallows ‘lengthy wait times in processing license applications or exorbitant fees deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry,’” Halbrook told the DCNF. “That would bar a $5K tax. A buyback ban would be inconsistent with Heller.”
“Those bills are not going to become law while Trump is in office, but they are a longer-term threat,” Moros said. “That’s why it is important we have courts like the Fifth Circuit weigh in now and confirm suppressors enjoy constitutional protection. Then they can’t be seized nor taxed to death.”
Read more EXCLUSIVE: Probe Exposes Vacant DOT Offices Costing Taxpayers $370 Million A Year
Post Comment