Suppressors Are Protected — So Why Is the DOJ Still Upholding the 1934 Law? By: Erich Pratt

0
9

The Department of Justice — under Attorney General Pam Bondi — is defending one of the most outdated and unconstitutional gun control laws in America: the National Firearms Act of 1934.

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to follow and signup for notifications!

In the Peterson case before the Fifth Circuit, DOJ attorneys admitted that suppressors are protected by the Second Amendment, but they’re still fighting to uphold the NFA’s registration scheme and restrictions.

Suppressors are used by millions of law-abiding Americans for hearing protection, safety, and recreation. The ATF’s own data shows fewer than 50 federal prosecutions a year involving unregistered suppressors. By any measure, they are in common lawful use, and that means they’re protected.

But Bondi’s DOJ is using the same arguments as California anti-gun bureaucrats, calling suppressors “specially adaptable to criminal misuse.” That’s not constitutional law. It’s gun control propaganda.

President Trump promised to restore our Second Amendment rights. It’s time for his DOJ to follow through.

Send a tweet telling AG Pam Bondi to stop defending unconstitutional suppressor restrictions.

Consider copying and pasting the below tweet:

Hey @AGPamBondi, the DOJ shouldn’t be infringing on Americans’ right to own & utilize suppressors. Your agency has admitted they’re in common use & protected by the 2A. Stop defending unconstitutional laws that violate my Second Amendment rights.

With roughly half of all Republicans and Democrats using X for news, X is now the most prominent site for news, meaning gun rights activists can – and DO – shape the discussion surrounding our Second Amendment rights.

GOA has even seen examples where grassroots activists used X to encourage the administration to change its policy.

Every voice matters. Let’s remind DOJ that “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says.

Send your tweet to AG Bondi today.