Saturday, June 20, 2026
Suppressors Are Protected Arms, Fifth Circuit Rules in Major 2A Case - Ammoland.com
The Fifth Circuit just gave gun owners a major Second Amendment win on suppressors, even though the man who brought the case still lost.
In United States v. Brennan James Comeaux, the court affirmed Comeaux’s conviction for possessing an unregistered silencer under the National Firearms Act. That part is not the victory. The victory is what the court said on the way there: suppressors are “Arms” protected by the Second Amendment.
Comeaux was charged after deputies searched his home and found firearms and suspected silencers. ATF determined the devices were suppressors, and Comeaux admitted he had manufactured and possessed them. He challenged the NFA’s registration requirement, arguing that the law violated the Second Amendment both on its face and as applied to him.
The district court rejected his argument, treating suppressors as “dangerous and unusual weapons” outside the Second Amendment. The Fifth Circuit rejected that theory. “Silencers are ‘Arms,’” the panel held.
Click the link to read the whole article: Suppressors Are Protected Arms, Fifth Circuit Rules
Judge Rules Against Injunction in Militia Challenge to VA Gun Ban - Ammoland.com
In a ruling issued Thursday, the Spotsylvania Circuit Court denied a request for preliminary injunction in the Curtis v. Katz challenge to Virginia’s semiautomatic firearm/magazine ban. Article 1, Section 13 of the Virginia Constitution recognizes an individual right to arms as members of the unorganized militia, plaintiffs argued, and “the rifles and handguns prohibited by the Firearms Ban are ‘quintessential Militia Arms.”
Despite those inarguable conclusions, Judge William E. Glover is allowing the ban to proceed.
True, he concedes, Plaintiffs will suffer “irreparable harm if the Ban becomes effective and is later determined to be unconstitutional.” But considering a “balance of hardships to the parties… it does not outweigh the potential of harm to the Commonwealth.” does not
And he does not concede the Court can make a finding that “a legally viable claim… will… succeed on the merits.” Just the opposite.
“The Court is currently persuaded that both the history and practice surrounding Sec. 13 establish no individual right to possess military style weapons by members of the unorganized militia,” Glover states.
“The public is entitled to the implementation of laws” created by the representatives and approved by the Governor, Glover concludes. If the ban is struck down later, “the balance between the legislature judiciary is maintained [but] to enjoin the legislature preliminarily is not… in the public interest.”
Click the link to read the whole article: Judge Rules Against Injunction in Militia Challenge
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)