Tag: suppressors

Posted on

DOJ & ATF Go After Pin & Welds & Suppressors…AGAIN

Dr. Wayne Thorn

Here is a letter I sent to Donald Trump and Pam Bondi and each and everyone of us need to do the same to let them know we are not happy.

Dear President Trump,

I hope this message finds you well.

It appears that the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) are not fully implementing or adhering to the mandates you have issued regarding the protection of Second Amendment rights. Despite your administration’s clear stance on safeguarding lawful gun ownership, we continue to see concerning actions that suggest overreach and inconsistent application of federal firearms regulations.

Below is a letter I recently sent to Pam Boni regarding this matter. I believe it reflects the growing concern among law-abiding citizens who value their constitutional rights and look to your leadership for continued defense of our freedoms.

I am writing to express serious concern over the recurring emergence of legal cases that appear to challenge established Second Amendment rights—particularly those involving suppressors, “pin and weld” methods, and other firearms-related issues. These cases often seem to originate from what appear to be overly aggressive or ideologically motivated U.S. attorneys, raising questions about oversight and accountability within the Department of Justice.

Why are these cases repeatedly being brought forward despite long-standing legal precedents and administrative guidance? Who is responsible for reviewing and approving such cases before they proceed, and why aren’t questionable filings being dismissed at the outset? The public deserves transparency and assurance that prosecutorial discretion is being exercised fairly and within constitutional bounds.

It has been stated that a specialized office or department exists within the DOJ to evaluate legal matters that may affect Second Amendment rights. If that is the case, its role in reviewing and potentially halting these prosecutions is unclear. From a citizen’s perspective, it appears that this oversight function is either ineffective or not being utilized as intended.

If any U.S. attorneys are acting outside of their proper authority or pursuing cases that lack constitutional merit, we urge immediate disciplinary action, including termination if warranted. Furthermore, a thorough investigation should be conducted to determine how such cases were allowed to proceed.

We the People expect our constitutional rights to be upheld, not undermined by those entrusted with enforcing the law. The DOJ must restore public confidence by ensuring that rogue prosecutions are promptly addressed and prevented from recurring.

Thank you for your continued commitment to the Constitution and to protecting the rights of responsible American gun owners.

Send this to the following people:

President Donald Trump – The Office of Donald J. Trump

Pam Bondi – Pam Bondi Department of Justice

And to all your Congress Representatives and Senators, – https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/current

“We, the American gun owners, must remain steadfast and vocal until President Donald Trump’s Second Amendment directives are fully implemented.”

Feel free to reach out with any questions, feedback on articles, or anything else you’d like to discuss—I’m always happy to connect!

Copyright Notice © 2025 Cecil Wayne Thorn Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this work authored by Cecil Wayne Thorn, to distribute, display, and reproduce the work, in its entirety, including verbatim copies, provided that no fee is charged for the copies or distribution. This permission is granted for non-commercial distribution only.

Posted on

Suppressors a firearm or an accessory

Dr. Wayne Thorn

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals 3-judge panel ruled that suppressors are not firearms but an accessory and are not protected by the 2nd Amendment and the Department of Justice (DOJ) responded the same that a suppressor is not a firearm but an accessory.

Yet the National Firearms Act (NFA) and Gun Control Act (GCA) says A suppressor is legally defined as a “firearm” under the National Firearms Act (NFA) and Gun Control Act (GCA).

Key Legal Definitions

  • 26 U.S.C. § 5845(a)(7) – Classifies a suppressor as a “firearm” under the NFA.
  • 26 U.S.C. § 5845(f) – Defines a suppressor as “any device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a portable firearm.”
    • The National Firearms Act (NFA) was signed into law on June 26, 1934, in response to violent crime during Prohibition.
    • Suppressors were classified as “firearms” under the NFA in 1934, meaning they required registration, a tax stamp, and ATF approval to own.
    • The original tax stamp was $200 (the same cost today, but in 1934, it was meant to be a prohibitive cost).
  • Gun Control Act of 1968 (18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(24)) (which defines suppressor parts as “firearms”) – Includes all parts intended for suppressor assembly.
    • he Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968 was signed into law on October 22, 1968, following the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy, and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
    • This law expanded the definition of “firearm” to include any combination of parts that can be assembled into a suppressor, effectively making individual suppressor components subject to regulation.

These existing laws clearly define suppressors as “firearms,” as stated and recorded in the National Firearms Act (NFA) and other legal frameworks. Given that no legislation has been passed to reclassify them as accessories, how can the Court and the Department of Justice suddenly assert that suppressors are accessories?

Hearing Protection Act (HPA) in 2017 and 2025

  • Objective:To remove suppressors from regulation under the National Firearms Act (NFA), reclassifying them under the Gun Control Act (GCA)
  • Status: As of March 2025, the HPA has been introduced but has not passed into law. continuing the effort to pass the bill after it failed to progress in prior sessions.

Summary

While there have been attempts through both the courts and legislation to reclassify suppressors as accessories, these efforts have not resulted in a change in their classification to date. Suppressors remain regulated under the NFA, requiring registration and a tax stamp for legal ownership.

If we allow the government to arbitrarily reclassify items as mere accessories, where does it end? Today, it’s suppressors—tomorrow, it could be scopes, red dots, and magazines. Do you see where this is headed?

Write to the President and the Attorney General to express our dissatisfaction with the direction this is heading. Let them know we expect them to take action to stop this and uphold our Second Amendment rights.

The Office of Donald J. Trump: https://www.45office.com/

Attorney General Pam Bondi: https://www.justice.gov/contact-us

Contact me below about anything, comments on articles, questions you may have, etc.