{"id":1452,"date":"2026-06-23T09:25:32","date_gmt":"2026-06-23T09:25:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/hvhappens.com\/?p=1452"},"modified":"2026-06-23T09:25:34","modified_gmt":"2026-06-23T09:25:34","slug":"fifth-circuit-rules-on-firearm-suppressors","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/hvhappens.com\/index.php\/2026\/06\/23\/fifth-circuit-rules-on-firearm-suppressors\/","title":{"rendered":"Fifth Circuit Rules On Firearm Suppressors"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

By Selina Xia Zamacois<\/p>\n\n\n\n

NEW ORLEANS \u2014 The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that firearm suppressors\u2014commonly known as silencers\u2014are protected \u201cArms\u201d under the Second Amendment, marking a significant development in ongoing legal battles over federal firearms regulations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The decision came in United States v. Comeaux, a case involving Brennan James Comeaux of Louisiana, who was charged with possessing unregistered suppressors in violation of the National Firearms Act (NFA). Comeaux argued that the NFA\u2019s registration requirement for suppressors violates the Second Amendment both on its face and as applied to him.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Writing for the panel, Judge Jerry E. Smith concluded that suppressors meet the constitutional definition of \u201cArms\u201d because they serve \u201ccritical functions that make firearms both safer and more effective for their core lawful purpose of self-defense.\u201d The opinion cites benefits such as reduced noise, lower recoil, and improved accuracy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, despite recognizing suppressors as protected \u201cArms,\u201d the court upheld Comeaux\u2019s conviction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The panel ruled that under existing Fifth Circuit precedent\u2014specifically United States v. Peterson (2025)\u2014a defendant must show that the NFA\u2019s registration system has been applied in an abusive or prohibitive manner, such as through excessive fees or unreasonable delays. Comeaux made no such claim.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Because he did not attempt to register the suppressors or argue that the system prevented him from doing so, the court held that his Second Amendment challenge failed at the first step of the Bruen analysis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Fifth Circuit emphasized that it was bound by Peterson, which held that the NFA\u2019s \u201cshall\u2011issue\u201d registration process for suppressors is \u201cpresumptively lawful\u201d unless a challenger can show the system has been misused.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The court noted that Peterson left open the possibility of a successful future challenge but found that Comeaux\u2019s case did not provide the necessary factual basis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Judge Edith Brown Clement, joined by Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan, agreed with the outcome but wrote separately to criticize Peterson. She argued that the earlier decision misread the Supreme Court\u2019s Bruen ruling by creating an improper \u201cpresumption of constitutionality\u201d for licensing systems.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Clement urged the full Fifth Circuit to revisit Peterson, writing that the current framework \u201ctraded history for dictum\u201d and improperly inserted a \u201chalf\u2011step\u201d into the Bruen test that shields the NFA from full historical scrutiny.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bottom Line<\/p>\n\n\n\n