New SCOTUS Petition Targets Bruen Footnote 9 Loophole in NFA Suppressor Cases

A new Supreme Court petition is taking aim at how lower courts have been dodging Bruen's historical-analysis requirement when it comes to suppressors and the NFA, and in a video from Armed Scholar, the host walks through what the filing actually argues and why it could matter more than the recent Silencer Shop win.

Key points

• The case: Mr. Kimo was convicted of possessing unregistered suppressors, and the Fifth Circuit agreed suppressors are protected "arms" under the Second Amendment, yet still upheld his conviction.
• The trap: The panel felt bound by prior precedent, US v. Peterson, which treats the NFA's registration and approval process as presumptively lawful under footnote 9 of Bruen, blocking any real historical review.
• The dissent inside the ruling: Judges Edith Brown Clement and Stuart Kyle Duncan wrote separately criticizing Peterson and pushed for en banc reconsideration, which the full court denied.
• The ask: Kimo's petition doesn't ask the Court to kill the NFA outright, it asks whether footnote 9 can let the government skip proving historical tradition unless the citizen first proves abuse, like excessive fees or delays.
• Why it's bigger than one case: The host notes this footnote 9 shortcut has been used to prop up other permitting and registration schemes well beyond suppressors.

Quick take

Armed Scholar frames this as a separate, arguably more durable track than the Silencer Shop tax litigation, since it targets the Second Amendment question directly rather than Congress's taxing power, meaning it could still matter even if tax policy on suppressors changes again.

Watch the full video: Armed Scholar