A major federal court just issued a landmark Second Amendment ruling on suppressors.

L

livingston

20×102mm Vulcan
Messages
52,919
Reaction score
143,780
Location
livingston county
A major federal court just issued a landmark Second Amendment ruling on suppressors.
In United States v. Comeaux, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that suppressors are protected "Arms" under the Second Amendment. While the court ultimately upheld the conviction in this case, the opinion and concurrence could have enormous implications for future challenges to the National Firearms Act and suppressor regulations nationwide.
 
L

livingston

20×102mm Vulcan
Messages
52,919
Reaction score
143,780
Location
livingston county

Case: 24-30307 Document: 132-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/18/2026
Brennan Comeaux was charged with possessing an unregistered silencer in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d). He moved to dismiss the indictment, asserting that § 5861(d) violates the Second Amendment facially andas applied to him. The district court denied the motion. Comeaux entered aconditional guilty plea that preserved the right to press his constitutionalchallenge on appeal.

While his appeal was pending, a different panel decided United Statesv. Peterson, 161 F.4th 331 (5th Cir. 2025), cert. denied, 224 L. Ed. 2d 501
(2026), which upheld a § 5861(d) conviction because § 5861(d) did not burden the defendant’s Second Amendment rights.
Though silencers are Second Amendment “Arms,” Comeaux has notalleged that the National Firearms Act’s (“NFA”) shall-issue regime hasbeen put toward abusive ends. Because Peterson controls, he has thereforenot shown that his Second Amendment rights have been violated. We affirm.
 
Mosinitis

Mosinitis

.338 Win Mag
Messages
8,842
Reaction score
8,122
Location
NY state
His conviction was upheld, that's the only thing that sets the legal precedent. What they said in the opinion means nothing. Those of us who have been around 2nd amendment fight long enough should know this.
 
Last edited:
Criticalt

Criticalt

.338 Win Mag
Messages
8,839
Reaction score
16,805
Location
WNY
Robin said:
One of the more stupider gun laws among thousands of stupid gun laws that serve no real function of any kind.
Robin
Click to expand...
But what about all the suppressor killings ravaging our nation??

Oh wait, ive never actually heard of one before. Im one of the sickos who watches every police video, every video from John Correa, and tons of true crime....
Thats thousands of shootings ive "witnessed" over the years. Ive NEVER seen, or heard of a single one.
Now, will suppressor killings become more prevalent if you can walk into Cabelas and buy one? Probably, but the vast majority of us aren't killers, so it doesn't matter.
 
Saltwater60

Saltwater60

20×102mm Vulcan
Messages
38,096
Reaction score
42,452
Location
Western NY
Criticalt said:
But what about all the suppressor killings ravaging our nation??

Oh wait, ive never actually heard of one before. Im one of the sickos who watches every police video, every video from John Correa, and tons of true crime....
Thats thousands of shootings ive "witnessed" over the years. Ive NEVER seen, or heard of a single one.
Now, will suppressor killings become more prevalent if you can walk into Cabelas and buy one? Probably, but the vast majority of us aren't killers, so it doesn't matter.
Click to expand...
All those Hollywood hot men are real. Snipers with 50 calibers too.
 
Grimscale

Grimscale

.338 Win Mag
Messages
8,411
Reaction score
16,495
Location
Rochester
livingston said:
Comeaux entered aconditional guilty plea that preserved the right to press his constitutionalchallenge on appeal.
Click to expand...
I'll admit I don't understand this.

Why would you have to plead guilty to be able to challenge what is an un-Constitutional application of "law" being used against you?

livingston said:
Comeaux has notalleged that the National Firearms Act’s (“NFA”) shall-issue regime hasbeen put toward abusive ends.
Click to expand...
So a law has to be "put to abusive ends" before it can be ruled un-Constitutional? That the law exists is already un-Constitutional.

What sick, twisted "logic" are these judges using???

livingston said:
the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that suppressors are protected "Arms" under the Second Amendment. While the court ultimately upheld the conviction in this case
Click to expand...
So suppressors are protected "Arms", but you can be convicted for owning one.

Make it make sense.
 
Criticalt

Criticalt

.338 Win Mag
Messages
8,839
Reaction score
16,805
Location
WNY
Saltwater60 said:
All those Hollywood hot men are real. Snipers with 50 calibers too.
Click to expand...
Heres the thing, 50 BMG with an optic, and suppressors are expensive.
As any cop can attest to the vast majority of guns used in violent crimes are the crappiest, $100 "throwaway" gun with 7 rounds of random ammo in a 15 round magazine.
Even of everything is stolen, the gangbanger buyer isnt gonna spend the extra fitty bucks fo the silencer.
I recently saw an article from Boise Idaho where a 17 year old thug shot two ladies in McDonald's parking lot with a legit first gen Colt SAA from the 1920s.
I can almost guarantee the unjacketed 45 Colt ammo was stolen at the same time the gun was. Im sure the kid paid $100 for this $10,000</> pistol.
 
L

livingston

20×102mm Vulcan
Messages
52,919
Reaction score
143,780
Location
livingston county
Grimscale said:
I'll admit I don't understand this.

Why would you have to plead guilty to be able to challenge what is an un-Constitutional application of "law" being used against you?


So a law has to be "put to abusive ends" before it can be ruled un-Constitutional? That the law exists is already un-Constitutional.

What sick, twisted "logic" are these judges using???


So suppressors are protected "Arms", but you can be convicted for owning one.

Make it make sense.
Click to expand...
Has there been other court decisions that have agreed with this decision of Suppressors being " protected arms " ?
 
spat

spat

.950 JDJ
Messages
31,444
Reaction score
66,708
Location
Formerly Geneseo, NY. Now free in AZ
Grimscale said:
I'll admit I don't understand this.

Why would you have to plead guilty to be able to challenge what is an un-Constitutional application of "law" being used against you?


So a law has to be "put to abusive ends" before it can be ruled un-Constitutional? That the law exists is already un-Constitutional.

What sick, twisted "logic" are these judges using???


So suppressors are protected "Arms", but you can be convicted for owning one.

Make it make sense.
Click to expand...
Because you have a choice.

Admit you possessed the suppressor, claim the law is unconstitutional.

Or deny possessing the suppressor, in which case you don't have standing to challenge the law.

Technically there is no prohibition on owning suppressors at all. The conviction would be for tax evasion. Basically the same as getting caught with off road diesel in your truck.

But, since the tax is now $0, he can also argue there was no tax to even evade.

Force them to argue that they can convict you for not paying a $0 tax.



It's like a self defense claim. You can't both claim you didn't shoot him, *and* that it was self defense.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top