Second Amendment Doesn’t Extend to Certain Gun Parts, Court Says

The Second Amendment protection doesn’t extend to certain gun parts, including a sound suppressor, the Fifth Circuit ruled in a case of first impression where it affirmed a dealer’s conviction for possessing one.

The Second Amendment applies only to gun parts that are integral to their operation, and a suppressor is just a gun accessory, Chief Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod said Thursday for the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

“A suppressor, by itself, is not a weapon. Without being attached to a firearm, it would not be of much use for self-defense,” Elrod said.

George Peterson was selling guns out of his house when the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives ran a warrant on it. During the search, they found the suppressor, which Peterson had made from a kit and hadn’t registered as required by federal gun law.

The trial court rejected Peterson’s argument to suppress the evidence against him on grounds that the suppressor was protected by the Second Amendment. He pleaded guilty but reserved the right to appeal the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act’s registration scheme.

The Second Amendment protects the right of the people to “keep and bear Arms,” Elrod said. The right extends to all instruments that constitute weapons, she said.

Whether suppressors constitute “Arms” under the Second Amendment was an issue of first impression for the Fifth Circuit, but Elrod noted that every other federal circuit to address the issue has ruled that it is not.

Peterson claimed that a suppressor is an integral part of gun because a bullet passes through it. But Elrod said that the usefulness a suppressor has when attached to a gun doesn’t transform it into a bullet caster.

Citing the US Supreme Court in United States v. Miller, Peterson said that suppressors are “arms” because they’re “proper accoutrements” that render guns useful and functional. The 1785 Virginia statute quoted in Miller was referring to “items like gunpowder, lead, and cartridges—items necessary to a firearm’s operation, not just compatible with it,” Elrod said.

Elrod rejected Peterson’s argument under Ezell v. City of Chicago, that the core right protected by the Second Amendment can’t be rendered insignificant by regulations. She said, “it can hardly be said that suppressor regulation has rendered the right to bear arms meaningless.”

A suppressor isn’t necessary to use a gun, so it isn’t protected by the Second Amendment, Elrod said.

Judges Patrick E. Higginbotham and Leslie H. Southwick joined the opinion.

Richard J. Richthofen of New Orleans represented Peterson.

The case is United States v. Peterson, 2025 BL 39106, 5th Cir., No. 24-30043, 2/6/25.