Analyzing the Unexpected Reissue of a Fifth Circuit Silencer Decision (Ft. Gabriel Malor)
Reload Founder Stephen Gutowski and federal litigator Gabriel Malor discuss the latest ruling in US v. Peterson.
Audio is streamed directly from the publisher (chrt.fm) as published in their RSS feed. Play Podcasts does not host this file. Rights-holders can request removal through the copyright & takedown page.
Show Notes
This week, we're covering a topic that may give you a bit of deja vu. Or, even, deja deja vu.
That's because we've seen this all before. Twice.
On Wednesday, a Fifth Circuit panel reissued its opinion in US v. Peterson for the second time. That makes it the third revision. To discuss the difference between the three, we have federal litigator and legal commentator Gabriel Malor back on the show.
He noted that in every version, the panel upheld Peterson's conviction for possessing an unregistered silencer. However, he said each version became less expansive than the last. In the latest version, Malor pointed out that the subtle changes the panel made all went toward emphasizing that Peterson's Second Amendment challenge was only as-applied to him and that the panel thought he did a particularly bad job.
Malor argued the panel was sending signals with its edits. He said the judges had moved pretty far from their original holding that silencers are not arms protected by the Second Amendment. And, even though they still ruled Peterson's challenge failed, they laid out a potential path for how other challengers might succeed.
Special Guest: Gabriel Malor.