A major Second Amendment case is now on track for possible Supreme Court review after the Fifth Circuit refused to pause its ruling in United States v. Peterson.

At issue is whether suppressors are protected “arms” under the Second Amendment—and whether the National Firearms Act (NFA) can survive constitutional scrutiny post-Bruen.

Initially, a Fifth Circuit panel ruled suppressors were not protected arms. After the Department of Justice shifted its position and conceded that suppressors are indeed protected, the court withdrew that opinion. However, in a revised decision, the panel still upheld the NFA’s suppressor regulations—reasoning that the law functions like a “shall-issue” permit scheme.

Relying on language from New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the court concluded that objective requirements such as background checks, fingerprinting, registration, and tax payments could be constitutionally permissible if structured like a licensing system.

After denying rehearing, the Fifth Circuit also denied an unopposed motion to stay its mandate—even as the case prepares for Supreme Court review. Although the district court allowed Peterson to remain on bond, the appellate court’s refusal to pause the ruling raises the stakes significantly.

Now, the Supreme Court may soon decide whether the NFA’s suppressor framework can stand under Bruen—or whether treating federal firearm regulations as “shall-issue permits” stretches the decision too far.