A major Second Amendment ruling from a federal appeals court has created the kind of legal conflict that often draws the attention of the U.S. Supreme Court. In a decision with potentially far-reaching consequences for gun regulations nationwide, the Fifth Circuit concluded that firearm suppressors qualify as “arms” protected by the Second Amendment, directly disagreeing with reasoning adopted by another federal appellate court.
The ruling, issued Thursday in Comeaux v. United States, marks the first time a federal circuit court has explicitly held that suppressors fall within the constitutional definition of “arms.” The decision immediately prompted Second Amendment advocates to point to a growing circuit split—a situation in which different federal appeals courts reach conflicting legal conclusions on similar constitutional questions.
“There is now a circuit split on whether suppressors are arms,” Second Amendment Foundation Director of Legal Research and Education Konstadinos Moros wrote on X. “This is of critical importance to those of us in states that totally ban them. While everyone else is arguing about whether registration is constitutional, we can’t even register them under the NFA if we wanted to!”
Circuit splits frequently increase the likelihood that the Supreme Court will eventually step in to establish a uniform national rule.
At the center of the dispute is the National Firearms Act of 1934, which regulates suppressors, machine guns, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, and certain other firearms through registration requirements and taxation. The law currently requires owners of regulated items, including suppressors, to comply with federal registration procedures administered by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
The Justice Department argued that suppressors are merely firearm accessories rather than constitutionally protected “arms.” The Fifth Circuit unanimously rejected that position.
“First, Bruen explained that Second Amendment ‘Arms’ need not be necessary for a firearm’s functioning but instead must only ‘facilitate armed self-defense,'” the court wrote. “And second, the Supreme Court has cautioned lower courts against the trapped-in-amber approach that the government attempts to use by limiting the definition of ‘Arms’ to those devices required for militia service at the Founding. Silencers are ‘Arms.'”
The court relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which significantly reshaped modern Second Amendment jurisprudence. Writing for the majority in that case, Justice Clarence Thomas held that modern firearm regulations generally must be consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of gun regulation.
Although the Fifth Circuit concluded that suppressors are protected by the Second Amendment, it did not overturn the conviction of the defendant, Comeaux. The court reasoned that the National Firearms Act’s registration process functions similarly to a “shall-issue” permitting system, meaning individuals who satisfy the statutory requirements may obtain approval.
A surprise second major ruling to cover today, because the Fifth Circuit just became the first to agree that suppressors are “arms” under the Second Amendment.
This is of massive importance considering that other circuits have ruled the opposite, and it puts further pressure on… https://t.co/e8XXu2XRSK pic.twitter.com/Cy7EytEe3s
— SAF (@2AFDN) June 18, 2026
The ruling also arrives as another major Second Amendment case remains pending before the Supreme Court. In Duncan v. Bonta, the Court is considering whether to review California’s ban on detachable magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition. A federal district court initially struck down the law before an en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit reversed that decision.
According to the Supreme Court’s docket, Duncan has been relisted for consideration more than 20 times, often viewed as a sign the justices are giving careful attention to whether they should hear the case.
The Ninth Circuit has long been regarded as one of the country’s most liberal federal appellate courts, and its Second Amendment decisions have frequently drawn scrutiny from the Supreme Court. According to the Pacific Research Institute, the Supreme Court has reversed a substantial share of Ninth Circuit decisions over the past two decades, including a particularly high reversal rate during the Court’s 2020-2021 term.
The Fifth Circuit’s decision now adds another constitutional question to the Court’s growing list of Second Amendment issues. If the justices decide to hear Comeaux, they could clarify not only whether suppressors qualify as protected “arms,” but also provide additional guidance on how lower courts should apply the historical framework established in Bruen.
The Trump administration has also signaled its interest in expanding Second Amendment litigation. Earlier this year, Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon told the Daily Caller News Foundation that the administration is actively looking for cases capable of reshaping constitutional precedent.
“We’re identifying places where we can help make new law or create a circuit split for purposes of ultimate Supreme Court determination,” Dhillon said.
Whether Comeaux becomes the next major Second Amendment case remains uncertain.
