Fifth Circuit Suppressor Rulings: What They Mean for Texas

Estimated Time to Read: 9 minutes

Two recent decisions from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit have significantly advanced the constitutional debate surrounding firearm suppressors while leaving much of the existing federal regulatory framework intact. Although neither decision invalidates the National Firearms Act (NFA), together they establish an important legal foundation that could shape future litigation involving suppressors and influence future legislative discussions in both Texas and Washington.

For Texas, these decisions are particularly noteworthy because they arrive only a few years after the Legislature enacted House Bill 957 (HB 957), authored by State Rep. Tom Oliverson (R-Cypress), during the 87th Legislative Session (2021). Commonly known as the “Made in Texas” law, HB 957 sought to challenge the federal government’s authority to regulate suppressors manufactured and retained entirely within Texas while also limiting state and local participation in enforcing certain federal suppressor regulations.

Viewed independently, each Fifth Circuit opinion appears relatively narrow. Viewed together, however, they illustrate the court’s evolving approach to suppressor regulation. United States v. Peterson established that the NFA’s registration process operates as a constitutionally permissible “shall issue” licensing system under the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. A few months later, United States v. Comeaux answered the constitutional question Peterson deliberately left unresolved by holding that firearm suppressors are protected “Arms” under the Second Amendment.

While these decisions do not immediately alter federal law, they provide important guidance regarding where future litigation is likely to focus and what policy questions remain unresolved.

Texas House Bill 957 and the “Made in Texas” Law

Before examining the Fifth Circuit’s recent opinions, it is useful to understand the Texas legislation that placed suppressor regulation squarely into the broader constitutional debate.

House Bill 957 added Chapter 2 to the Texas Government Code relating to firearm suppressor regulation. The legislation declared that suppressors manufactured entirely within Texas and remaining within Texas are not subject to federal regulation under Congress’s authority to regulate interstate commerce. It also required qualifying suppressors to bear a “Made in Texas” stamp and directed the Texas Attorney General to seek a declaratory judgment in federal court testing the constitutionality of the law.

The legislation went further by prohibiting Texas agencies, local governments, and their employees from enforcing federal suppressor regulations that impose restrictions beyond those found in Texas law. Entities violating those provisions became subject to the loss of certain state grant funding following judicial determination.

Importantly, HB 957 did not directly challenge the Second Amendment. Instead, it principally challenged the scope of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause. That distinction remains significant because the Fifth Circuit’s recent decisions largely concern the Second Amendment rather than Congress’s authority to regulate intrastate commerce.

Peterson Established the Framework

The first major Fifth Circuit decision arrived in December 2025.

George Peterson operated a firearms business from his Louisiana residence. Following an investigation into alleged federal firearms violations, federal agents executed a search warrant at his home and discovered a homemade firearm suppressor inside a bedroom safe. The suppressor lacked both a serial number and federal registration. Peterson subsequently pleaded guilty to possessing an unregistered suppressor while preserving his right to challenge the constitutionality of the NFA’s registration requirements on appeal.

The Fifth Circuit assumed, without deciding, that suppressors were protected by the Second Amendment. Rather than resolving that constitutional question, the court focused on the federal registration system itself.

Relying on Bruen, the court concluded that the NFA functions as a “shall issue” licensing regime because federal officials must approve an application whenever the applicant satisfies objective statutory requirements and is otherwise legally permitted to possess the suppressor. The court explained that such objective licensing systems are presumptively constitutional under Bruen because they are designed only to ensure that those exercising Second Amendment rights are law-abiding citizens.

The Fifth Circuit also emphasized that Peterson had never attempted to comply with the federal registration process. According to the record, Peterson acknowledged that he simply forgot to complete the required paperwork after manufacturing the suppressor. Because he never sought approval, never demonstrated that the registration process imposed excessive delays or unreasonable burdens, and never showed that the licensing system actually denied him the ability to possess a suppressor, the court concluded that his as-applied constitutional challenge necessarily failed.

Significantly, however, the court expressly left the door open for future challenges. Rather than broadly declaring the NFA immune from constitutional review, the opinion stated that another litigant could potentially succeed by developing a factual record demonstrating that the federal licensing process effectively denies ordinary citizens the exercise of their Second Amendment rights.

That invitation would become particularly important only months later.

Brennan Comeaux and the Next Constitutional Question

Unlike Peterson, Brennan Comeaux’s appeal presented the Fifth Circuit with an opportunity to resolve the constitutional issue it had previously assumed but deliberately avoided deciding.

Comeaux, also a Louisiana resident, was prosecuted after authorities discovered that he possessed a homemade firearm suppressor that was neither serialized nor registered under the NFA. Rather than disputing the factual basis of the prosecution, Comeaux challenged the constitutionality of applying the federal suppressor registration requirements to him under the Second Amendment. His appeal squarely presented the question of whether suppressors themselves fall within the constitutional protection afforded to “Arms.”

The Fifth Circuit answered that question directly.

The court concluded that suppressors qualify as protected “Arms” because they improve the safe and effective operation of firearms used for lawful purposes. The opinion explained that suppressors reduce hearing damage, lessen recoil, improve shooter accuracy, reduce muzzle blast, and facilitate faster follow-up shots during lawful self-defense. Because these characteristics enhance the operation of constitutionally protected firearms rather than transform them into different weapons, the court concluded that suppressors themselves receive Second Amendment protection.

This represented a significant development in Second Amendment jurisprudence. Prior federal courts frequently avoided deciding whether suppressors were protected constitutional arms. The Fifth Circuit instead made that determination explicit.

Nevertheless, Comeaux did not prevail.

Rather than revisiting the reasoning established in Peterson, the court treated that earlier opinion as controlling precedent. Because the NFA’s registration system remained a presumptively constitutional “shall issue” licensing regime, Comeaux still needed to demonstrate that the registration process itself had been administered in a manner that effectively denied his constitutional rights. Like Peterson, he failed to make that showing. As a result, the Fifth Circuit affirmed his conviction even while recognizing that suppressors themselves fall within the Second Amendment’s protection.

The practical consequence is an important distinction.

The Fifth Circuit has now recognized suppressors as constitutionally protected arms, but it has not invalidated the federal registration system governing them.

How the Fifth Circuit Decisions Affect Texas’ Made in Texas Law

Although the Fifth Circuit’s recent opinions substantially clarify Second Amendment doctrine, they do not directly resolve the central legal theory underlying HB 957.

The Texas law is fundamentally a federalism measure. Its primary constitutional argument is that suppressors manufactured entirely within Texas and remaining within the state fall outside Congress’s authority to regulate interstate commerce. Neither Peterson nor Comeaux addressed that question because neither case involved the Commerce Clause or the validity of HB 957 itself.

Instead, both cases involved prosecutions under the NFA for possessing unregistered suppressors. Consequently, the Fifth Circuit’s analysis focused on the Second Amendment and the federal licensing framework rather than the scope of Congress’s commerce power.

Nevertheless, the opinions strengthen one aspect of Texas’ broader constitutional position.

Before Comeaux, supporters of HB 957 could argue that suppressors should receive constitutional protection because they are commonly possessed firearm accessories that enhance the safe operation of firearms. After Comeaux, at least within the Fifth Circuit, that proposition is no longer simply an argument. It is now part of binding circuit precedent.

That distinction matters.

Future litigation involving suppressors will no longer need to spend substantial effort establishing whether suppressors are constitutionally protected “Arms.” Instead, future challenges are likely to focus on whether particular federal regulations impose unconstitutional burdens on those protected arms or whether Congress possesses constitutional authority to regulate suppressors that never enter interstate commerce.

In that respect, Comeaux narrows rather than ends the constitutional debate.

What the Decisions Suggest About Future Litigation

Read together, Peterson and Comeaux provide a roadmap for future constitutional challenges.

First, Peterson indicates that facial attacks on the NFA’s registration process are unlikely to succeed so long as the licensing system continues to operate objectively and efficiently. The court treated the registration process much like other licensing systems that the Supreme Court recognized in Bruen as generally permissible.

Second, Peterson also identifies the type of evidence future plaintiffs would need to present. Rather than relying on abstract constitutional arguments, litigants would likely need to demonstrate that the registration process imposes excessive delays, unreasonable costs, arbitrary denials, or other burdens that effectively prevent ordinary citizens from exercising their Second Amendment rights. Without such evidence, courts are likely to continue viewing the NFA as a constitutionally permissible licensing regime.

Third, Comeaux removes uncertainty over whether suppressors themselves receive constitutional protection. That issue now appears largely settled within the Fifth Circuit, allowing future litigation to concentrate on the scope of permissible regulation rather than the threshold question of constitutional coverage.

Finally, neither opinion addresses the Commerce Clause questions presented by House Bill 957. Consequently, those issues remain open for future litigation should Texas or another party successfully present them for judicial review.

Policy Implications for Texas Lawmakers

The Fifth Circuit’s recent decisions do not require immediate legislative action, but they do provide several important considerations for Texas policymakers.

First, lawmakers should recognize that HB 957 remains legally unresolved. The statute’s underlying Commerce Clause theory has neither been validated nor rejected by the federal courts. Consequently, any future litigation concerning the Made in Texas law will likely involve constitutional questions different from those addressed in Peterson and Comeaux.

Second, the Fifth Circuit’s recognition that suppressors constitute protected “Arms” strengthens the constitutional footing for future legislative discussions involving suppressor regulation. While that holding does not invalidate existing federal law, it does require future regulations affecting suppressors to account for the fact that they implicate constitutionally protected conduct.

Third, the opinions suggest that future reform efforts may ultimately be more effective at the federal level than at the state level. Because the Fifth Circuit upheld the existing federal registration framework while leaving open only as-applied challenges, broader changes to suppressor regulation may ultimately depend upon congressional action amending the National Firearms Act rather than additional state legislation.

Finally, Texas lawmakers should continue monitoring federal litigation involving suppressor regulation. The Fifth Circuit expressly acknowledged that future plaintiffs may present stronger factual records than those developed in Peterson or Comeaux. Should future litigation demonstrate that the federal registration process has become unreasonably burdensome, the constitutional analysis could change substantially.

Looking Ahead

The Fifth Circuit’s recent suppressor decisions should not be viewed as either sweeping victories or sweeping defeats for either side of the constitutional debate.

Instead, they represent incremental developments that clarify important legal questions while leaving others unresolved.

Peterson established that the National Firearms Act’s registration process is presumptively constitutional because it operates as an objective licensing system under Bruen. Comeaux built upon that foundation by recognizing that suppressors themselves are protected “Arms” under the Second Amendment. Together, the decisions create a constitutional framework that future litigants, lawmakers, and courts will almost certainly rely upon in the years ahead.

For Texas, the decisions neither invalidate nor affirm HB 957. Instead, they narrow the issues likely to dominate future litigation. The Second Amendment status of suppressors is now considerably clearer than it was only a year ago. The remaining constitutional questions increasingly concern the extent of permissible regulation and the limits of Congress’s commerce power rather than whether suppressors receive constitutional protection at all.

As those issues continue to develop, Texas policymakers will likely find themselves revisiting questions first raised during the 2021 debate over the Made in Texas law. The Fifth Circuit has clarified part of the constitutional landscape. Whether that landscape ultimately changes further will depend upon future litigation, future legislation, or both.

---