A major shift just hit the Department of Justice, and Langley Outdoors’ Braden is calling it a huge win for gun owners. After the DOJ argued just days ago that suppressors are not protected under the Second Amendment, they suddenly hit the brakes and asked for 30 more days to “reconsider their position.”
Braden doesn’t mince words—this is a huge reversal, and it didn’t happen by accident.
Table of contents
🚨BREAKING🚨
— Gun Owners Foundation (@GunFoundation) March 20, 2025
The Department of Justice will reconsider its incorrect position that suppressors are not arms and are not protected by the Second Amendment. https://t.co/mQ8aNkuwnC pic.twitter.com/USL40YFvp7
From Anti-Gun to Uncertain: What Just Happened?
Braden lays out the backstory:
- Just three days ago, the acting U.S. Attorney Michael Simpson filed a DOJ brief arguing that suppressors are NOT arms and therefore not protected by the Second Amendment.
- The court had already upheld the conviction of George Peterson for possessing an unregistered suppressor, reinforcing the ATF’s long-standing stance that suppressors don’t fall under 2A protections.
- But now, in an abrupt shift, the DOJ has asked the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals for a 30-day delay to “further consider its position.”
And here’s the kicker—the DOJ is doing this in response to President Trump’s Executive Order 14206, which directs a review of all federal actions affecting Second Amendment rights.
Braden emphasizes how significant this moment is. The DOJ doesn’t just reverse course for no reason—especially not after doubling down on an anti-gun stance just days prior.
SEE ALSO: Are Suppressors Protected by 2A?
Gun Owners Are Making an Impact
Braden makes it clear: this kind of reversal doesn’t happen without pressure.
“This is a big Uno reverse that Pamela Bondi’s DOJ just did,” Braden says. “Three or four days ago, they put in a motion saying suppressors aren’t arms, they’re not protected, let’s just keep going in the Biden path. Well, now, this is the new filing.”
He urges gun owners to stay engaged, stay vocal, and keep pushing back, saying that the public response clearly forced the DOJ to rethink its stance.
Does This Signal an ATF Overhaul?
Braden also points to Attorney General Pam Bondi as a key player in this shift. While Bondi’s record has left some Second Amendment advocates skeptical, this move suggests she might be taking control of the ATF and DOJ in a way we haven’t seen before.
“In implementing that order, the Department of Justice is re-evaluating its litigation positions regarding suppressors,” Braden reads from the document.
He then points out what this really means—they’re rethinking the way they regulate and litigate suppressor cases, something that seemed impossible just a few days ago.
Braden sees this as a potential turning point in how the ATF and DOJ handle suppressor regulations moving forward.
What Happens Next?
With the DOJ now on the defensive, the next 30 days will be critical. If they fully reverse course, it could be a massive step toward suppressors being recognized as protected under the Second Amendment. But if they only make minor concessions, the fight will continue.
Braden reminds viewers that this win is only possible because gun owners refused to stay silent.
“Guys, they are listening,” he says. “Keep it up.”
The Bottom Line
Suppressor rights have been under attack for years, but this massive reversal proves that pressure works. The DOJ was prepared to steamroll over suppressor protections, but thanks to gun owners making their voices heard, they’re now forced to reconsider their stance.
Braden urges everyone to stay engaged and keep up the momentum. The fight for 2A rights is far from over, but today’s news is proof that we’re making a difference.
*** Buy and Sell on GunsAmerica! All Local Sales are FREE! ***
Available on GunsAmerica Now
is a seasoned outdoorsman, lifelong hunter, and the kind of guy who’d rather track whitetails than scroll social media. As an editor for GunsAmerica, he’s got a sharp eye for spotting both solid gear and bad gun laws. Whether he’s deep in the woods or deep in editorial deadlines, Larry brings a no-nonsense, tell-it-like-it-is approach to firearms, hunting, and the great American tradition of self-reliance. If there’s a hot debate on gun rights or the latest in hunting tech, you can bet Larry’s got an opinion—and it’s probably backed up with both facts and field experience.
Experience:
– Licensed Bowhunter, Hunter, and Trapper – Experienced in ethical hunting and wildlife conservation.
– Concealed Carry Permit Holder (NYS & AZ) – Trained and licensed to carry in multiple states.
– 2A Journalist – Covering firearms legislation, Second Amendment issues, and gun rights for over a decade.
– Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) – Certified to provide emergency medical care in the field.
– Field-Tested Gear Reviewer – Hands-on experience with firearms, optics, and hunting tech.
I have always looked at suppressors as an accessory just like a scope. Not to mention I think it’s a safety device too. As someone that wears hearing aids that aren’t cheap. This could help with hearing protection.
Arms is a broad category under the 2A and are not protected because the arm is regulated, that came later. Swords are arms and have no historical regulations in the US. Anything that infringes on bearing arms is un-Constitutional and therefore the 2A protects far more than just the firearm. Anti 2A people try to ban items to find a back handed form of infringing on gun owners rights and the 2A is the safety valve.
Maybe it’s just me, but all this crap of what is protected or what isn’t protected does not mean much to me. I’m confussed !!
Would someone PLEASE IN PLAIN ENGLISH TELL ME does that mean like triggers, scopes, and stocks a supressor will be sold or NOT ??
An answer in “PLAIN ENGLISH” will NOT suffice in this legal contest.
Creditable legal fights do NOT always happen quickly and can be very complicated. So, there is immediate change to the current legal status to the “suppressor” and thus no immediate change in availability. It seems to me that many people here are strictly reading firearms into the 2A where the border context of all Arms should be considered. That is a legal and historical mistake to see only firearms being protected by the 2A.
The etymology of arms traces back to at least Middle English from the Old French word “armes” which translates to “weapons of a warrior.” So, what does “weapons” mean under 2A protection? Thats where the legal fights may lead over time. Botton line, the DOJ change is the beginning of legal posturing and a very good omen for supporters of the 2A.
so my holster, bullets, clothes and gun belt can get me thrown in jail????
Suppressors are accessories.
Repeal the 1934 National Firearms Act – it’s Unconstitutional and violates the Second Amendment.
Repeal the 1968 Gun Control Act – it’s Unconstitutional and violates the Second Amendment.
Then you won’t have to decide if the Second Amendment protects suppressors. We all know that suppressors are accessories just like an optic or anything else mounted on a rifle. The government shouldn’t be trying to regulate any gun accessories.
And, repeal the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act…
I lost my hearing when loud noise was not realized as the source of my injury. While in the 1960 Navy, I was exposed to artillery fire on board ship. We fired over 3000 rounds of 5″ 38″ to test our ships efficiency on hitting targets on an island called Koliba before the Cuban Blockade in 1962. I have had major hearing problems ever since. Noise suppressors should be available to everyone who needs them. A suppressor is not a firearm and should not of concern to the ATF. As usual, a bureaucrat is deciding what the people need.
The whole thing is an oxymoron. Suppressors aren’t “arms”, aren’t protected by the 2A and should be sold over the counter without any regulations and that argument was being set to happen but for some reason our side wants them protected under the 2A which also opens up the argument that anything gun related is also protected and therefore open for strict government regulations. I think our side screwed up by opposing the idea that suppressors are not protected by the 2A and therefore not covered under the NFA as well. This is an extremely simplified take on a potentially extremely complex case but the government always makes simple things unnecessarily complicated.
Legal scholars have conclusively determined that accessories, ammunition are all “arms” protected under the 2A.
That’s like saying “My dad says I’m the fastest runner in the world so everyone should treat me as such”. What “legal scholars” say, what I say, what you say, is irrelevant, what the Supreme Court says is all that matters.
No, it’s nothing like that.
The Supreme Court does NOT just wake up and the morning and dream up new legal arguments to test in their own impenetrable think tank. Legal scholars write their opinions and per reviews test those opinions. At some point a court can be petitioned if a plaintiff can establish “standing” and then the various legal argument by legal scholars begins. What I said is NOT an expert opinion but fairly credible basic 2A common knowledge. This current USSC has a regrettable tendency to not hear many cases and counting on that body to set the record straight in a timely fashion is not as straight forward as you seen to believe.
In the Heller decision the USSC defined arms and ruled that firearms are subjected to regulation as to prevent criminal abuse. I cannot find the wording on the Heller definition of arms, but it includes offensive and defensive purposes.
If suppressors are not firearms, then why does BatF have any authority whatsoever over them?
Amazing how they claim suppressors are not a firearm and don’t deserve second amendment protection, yet the ATF charges a $200 tax fee under the National FIREARMS Act and a background check in order to possess one.
So what does all that mean? What am I missing? If they don’t recognize suppressors as being protected under the 2nd amendment, isn’t this opening up a ‘can of worms’ and allowing future anti-2nd amendment administrations to put bans in place outlawing any firearm accessory they deem not specifically protected? Why are they even under the NFA regulations when in some countries you can walk into a local hardware store and buy one off the shelf, no questions asked? Even requiring them to be serialized seems archaic.
Same with Bumpstocks. This is simply proof that IF allowed, ANY federal organization WILL overstep their authority, because that kind of power corrupts people and their thinking.
A
Men!
Arms includes firearms but are NOT limited in that scope. Any weapons of a warrior should be protected under the 2A regardless of whether the arms are dangerous as long as the arms are in common use. Being protected under the 2A does not concede modern regulation.
If suppressors are not considered arms then they shouldn’t come under the NFA. Instead they should come under the proposed Hearing Protection Act. Suppressors don’t silence gunshots as portrayed by Hollywood. Most countries with the strictest firearm laws encourage the use of suppressors. Hopefully the government will wise up and approve the use of suppressors without the onerous NFA restrictions.
Not sure about this one. My scope isn’t protected by the 2nd amendment either. Maybe we will be able to by them off the shelf.
Yes, your scope is protected under the 2A.
Kane.
So, if my scope is “protected under the 2A” why isn’t it regulated like everything else that is “protected under the 2A”? One could argue that scopes are more a part of the crucial functioning of a firearm than a suppressor, that only makes it more enjoyable to use by suppressing the noise level? (Many firearms have no way of sighting without their scopes.)
What accessories are protected, and which ones are not, and why?
Do they make it confusing intentionally?
So, you think that 2A rights cannot exist without regulations? I have already answered your questions in responses to other comments on this thread. Opponents of the 2A are already trying to ban or regulate accessories and the legal arguments against these efforts will always center on the 2A.
Explain whether or NOT ammunition is protected under the 2A
BTW, you should try to catch 2A legal scholars like Mark Smith and William Kirk online. Great sources of the most current legal issues of the day.
So very true .