BREAKING TODAY! Supreme Court Order Denies Stripping NFA of Power To Regulate Suppressors! What Now?

Added: 2026-05-05

[00:00:00]So, the Supreme Court just declined to take another major case that could have upended the foundation of the National Firearms Act. This was a direct attack against suppressor regulations and a concerning ruling that came out of the Fifth Circuit that could allow the government to regulate pretty much any protected arm as long as they say it's a shall issue permit. And instead of answering that critical case and that question, the Supreme Court's order list today denied review to this case. This denial goes far beyond just this one issue. Now, this precedent brings into question which other types of licensing systems may be permissible just because the government says it's a shall issue permit. So, let's break down what just happened in this critical case. Now, before we jump into this video, if you want to support the channel, one of the best ways to do that is simply by subscribing. You can also hit the like button. That just tells the algorithm that you appreciate this type of content. And I also want to thank one of the main supporters of this channel, which is attorneys on Retainer. When it comes to self-defense protection, in my opinion, AO is in the league of their own. They're backed by an actual law firm, The Turns for Freedom, and they're always expanding upon their benefits to try to give you as much as possible. And right now, if you're interested and you want to sign up, they're doing something special for, you know, America's anniversary, 250 years. Uh they're actually going to be doing a promo code.

[00:01:17]So, if you use my code, ARM Scholar, you can get $50 off of your individual signup plan or $25 off of the family plan. So, as I mentioned in the intro, in this video, we're going to be talking about a critical suppressor/NFA challenge that was just denied review by the Supreme Court. Now, this case, we've talked about in the past, is called US versus Peterson, which challenges the constitutionality of the NFA as it applies to suppressors. This case started back in Louisiana where in 2022, law enforcement officers along with the ATF executed a search warrant at Mr. Peterson's home and his homebased FFL.

[00:01:52]Now, during that search, they found a device, a solvent trap that the government classified as a suppressor that was not registered under the NFA.

[00:02:01]So, because of that unregistered solvent trap, Mr. Peterson was charged and, you know, convicted of possessing an unregistered NFA item. Now, in response to that charge, he moved to dismissed it, moved to dismiss that charge in the case, arguing that the NFA's registration and taxation scheme is a violation of the Second Amendment.

[00:02:20]However, on review, the district court rejected that motion to dismiss. This case then went to the fifth circuit. And on the first, you know, review of this case, the fifth circuit said that suppressors weren't protected arms at all. But then something major happened for this case. The federal government changed over uh the Trump administration got control of the case and they changed their position on suppressors and finally admitted that suppressors are in fact protected arms under the second amendment. That forced then the fifth circuit to withdraw that original ruling. But when they issued a new ruling, they still upheld the NFA just using a different theory. The fifth circuit in the new ruling assumed that suppressors are protected arms, but still said that the NFA survives because they believe it operates like a shall issue licensing regime. And they said that that is permissible under Bruin. In other words, they said that as long as the government processes applications objectively, the restrictions can still be constitutional. That reasoning is very concerning because now that the Supreme Court has allowed that ruling to stand, it could justify regulating many protected arms under this whole guise that something operates like a shall issue permit or a shall issue licensing scheme. Now, like I mentioned, that led to Mr. Peterson taking his case to the Supreme Court and he sought review and reversal of that ruling. Now, leading up to today's order, there were some very critical and important signals coming out of the Supreme Court. So, the United States originally when this petition was filed, they decided to wave their right to respond to the petition. And the Supreme Court never ordered a response from the government. And even though outside 2A groups filed AMUS briefs urging the court to take this case, the case still moved to last, you know, Friday's conference without any full briefing. And that usually is not a great sign for a petition. As I expressed, you know, in prior videos and I raised some red flags about this potentially not going our way. And now on the order list that we got, we now have the result. The Supreme Court on today's order list has officially denied cert to Mr. Peterson's case. So they will not be taking review of this issue.

[00:04:22]That means that the court will not hear the case and the fifth circuit's decision will now be upheld and the NFA will remain in place under that rationale. So what does this mean? Well, the fifth circuit's ruling remains controlling law, at least in that circuit. That means that the NFA continues to be upheld, at least under the court's reasoning, that it operates as a permissible shall issue scheme. And again, that is very concerning for other cases going forward. you know, cases that come out of the fifth circuit and other NFA challenges that are still pending. You know, that rationale is going to impact those cases and could also bleed into other circuit courts and other cases where maybe you have some other types of licensing schemes and other restrictions on other items and they're just going to say, well, look at the fifth circuit. They said that as long as we have some sort of objective scheme, um, you know, some sort of shall issue permit system for any protected arm, well, then it's permissible. Now, there are likely a few different reasons why the Supreme Court denied review to this case. First, you know, this could just simply be because of procedural posture. The government waved response and the court never requested one from the government and that often signals some sort of low interest like I said.

[00:05:32]Second, there is no clear circuit split yet on suppressors specifically and their constitutionality and the court here typically waits for, you know, disagreement between circuit courts and splits. So, maybe that's why they did not want to get involved right now.

[00:05:45]Third, and this is kind of the more hopeful option, is that maybe some of these other two-way cases that are already pending and developing at the Supreme Court level, maybe those present a cleaner vehicle, uh, you know, there is potential that maybe some of the rifle ban cases get, you know, granted review by the Supreme Court and maybe some of that ruling touches on these issues as well. But again, that's kind of the more hopeful outlook on this type of denial. But really, this denial is not good, you know, for the fifth circuit, for that type of precedent, and really for Mr. Peterson himself. So the Supreme Court denied review to this case and this very much matters because the fifth circuit's reasoning is now out there and it creates a framework that could be used in other cases. You know, treating firearms regulations as licensing systems even when they apply to protected arms and that is concerning and that is the big issue moving forward that we're going to have to watch for to see if any other cases or any other state or locality tries to borrow that rationale to put in place other restrictions. So where does this fight now go from here? Well, this does not end, you know, the whole NFA challenges and battle. It just means that this specific case will not be the one that Supreme Court uses to decide this issue.

[00:06:52]So going forward, we'll likely see more challenges to the NFA, and there are already a handful of NFA cases that are moving forward in the fifth circuit, Third Circuit, and other circuits challenging the NFA based on the Z tax law. But stepping back, this denial does have a direct consequence for the individual here, Mr. Peterson. He now faces serious criminal penalties because of the ATF's enforcement of the solvent trap interpretation, treating them as suppressors and putting restrictions on them. And the fifth circuit ruling and now the Supreme Court's inactivity also impacted, you know, his outcome of this case as well. This also opens the door to more people potentially being subject to similar criminal penalties because of this precedent out of the fifth circuit and the inactivity by the Supreme Court.

[00:07:38]So the Supreme Court passed on this opportunity to review the NFA and the suppressor restrictions and that means for now the NFA remains intact but the underlying constitutional question is still unresolved and will have to be flushed out maybe by some other cases.

[00:07:52]So that's what currently happened with this critical you know US versus Peterson case challenging the NFA and its suppressor restrictions and that fifth circuit ruling. Again something concerning but of course the Supreme Court decided to deny review to this case and they decided to not get involved. So, as this develops, as we get more information is, you know, other cases are potentially impacted, I will let you guys know. If you like this video and you'd like to support the channel, one of the best ways to do that is simply by liking, commenting, and subscribing. All of those things help to feel the algorithm and just tells the algorithm that you appreciate this type of 2-way content and so it shares it with more people. But, as always, thank you so much for all of your support. And never forget, this nation was built by armed scholars and this nation will be maintained by armed scholars.