A unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Fifth Circuit last week ruled that suppressors are protected by the Second Amendment, exactly the opposite of a decision from the California-based Ninth Circuit. 

In the 11-page decision in the appeal of U.S. vs. Comeaux (24-30307) published in the Western District of Louisiana on June 18, the court fell back on the "text, history, and tradition" guidelines of Bruen and the meaning of "bear arms" as explained in the Heller ruling ("wear, bear, or carry . . . for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in case of conflict with another person.") to explain that "silencers" (suppressors) are bearable arms. 

"Silencers fit that definition," wrote U.S. Circuit Judge Jerry E. Smith, a 1987 Reagan appointment, for the majority in Comeaux. "Silencers lead to 'reduced loudness (and reduced risk of hearing loss), lower recoil from the firearm, elimination of muzzle blast, increased accuracy, and faster follow-up shots.' Those are all critical functions that make firearms both safer and more effective for their core lawful purpose of self-defense. Because silencers are used in self-defense "to cast at or strike another," they are Second Amendment "Arms.'"
 

The ruling in Comeaux stands at odds with an appeal recently decided on the West Coast by the Ninth Circuit. Handed down on June 3, U.S. v. DeBorba (24-3304), a unanimous panel rejected the argument that the device possessed by João Ricardo DeBorba was protected by the Second Amendment, holding that suppressors are firearm accessories and do not fall under the plain text definition of being protected "arms."

With such a clear circuit split in the federal judiciary, the question of whether suppressors are "arms" is now primed for the Supreme Court to answer if further appeal is sought. Moreover, that answer could help bring such devices to the eight states in which consumer ownership of suppressors is currently banned. 

"This is of massive importance considering that other circuits have ruled the opposite, and it puts further pressure on the Supreme Court to grant a hardware case immediately," noted the Second Amendment Foundation in the aftermath of Comeaux. "While the court upheld the NFA registration requirements for now, even just ruling that suppressors are arms creates a circuit split with the Ninth Circuit and others that have held the opposite. That is an important question to people in the states that completely ban suppressors under state law (even if you are willing to register them under the NFA)."

Banner image: Custom bolt gun with a SilencerCo Scythe-Ti hunting suppressor and a Vortex Strike Eagle LPVO optic. (Photo: Chris Eger).