Published September 18, 2026 at 8:29 AM ET · Updated September 18, 2026 at 10:21 AM ET
Report says Trump directs DOJ not to appeal ruling on suppressors and short-barreled firearms
1 independent outlet is covering this story, first reported here by Bearing Arms. Verification: Watching (how we verify). Every headline links to the original reporting.
A report says President Trump has directed the Department of Justice not to appeal a ruling on suppressors and short-barreled firearms. The reported directive concerns a court ruling covering those firearm items.
Patriot Watch first flagged this story 12 d ago, when Bearing Arms reported it. So far this remains a single-source report. The most recent report came 12 d ago from Bearing Arms.
⚖ The Constitutional Angle
The question is whether federal controls on suppressors and short-barreled firearms survive the Second Amendment. Caetano held the Amendment covers all bearable arms prima facie, including those not in existence at the founding. Bruen then puts the burden on the government to justify regulation with historical tradition of similar rules. With no appeal, that defense of the law goes unmade.
Jaime Caetano v. Massachusetts 577 U.S. 411 (2016)
Vote: Unanimous per curiam (8-member Court, post-Scalia); no recorded vote split · Opinion: Per curiam (unsigned)
Summarily vacating the SJC's judgment without briefing on the merits or oral argument, the Court held that each of the SJC's three rationales contradicted Heller: the Second Amendment extends prima facie to all bearable arms, including those not in existence at the founding; 'unusual' cannot be equated with 'not in common use in 1789'; and protection is not limited to weapons useful in warfare. The case was remanded for further proceedings; the Court did not itself hold the Massachusetts ban unconstitutional.
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Kevin P. Bruen, Superintendent of New York State Police 597 U.S. 1 (2022)
Vote: 6-3 · Opinion: Thomas
New York's requirement that applicants demonstrate 'proper cause' — a special need for self-protection distinguishable from the general community — to obtain an unrestricted public-carry license violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public. The Court held the Second Amendment protects a right to carry handguns publicly for self-defense, and rejected the two-step means-end framework lower courts had applied after Heller.
Precedent facts from the PW Law Library — primary-source verified & independently audited
