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.

Recently, a Fifth Circuit panel ruled silencers aren't "arms" and, therefore, don't enjoy constitutional protections. But then the Department of Justice (DOJ) changed hands and changed its mind on the case. In response, the panel took the unusual step of withdrawing its opinion. But we don't know what it plans to do next.

That's why we've got federal litigator and legal commentator Gabriel Malor back on the show to give his view on what may be coming. A lot of other commentators and several gun-rights groups have taken the withdrawal as a strong sign the panel plans to reverse itself on whether silencers, often called suppressors, are arms. But Malor said that's unlikely to happen.

He noted the DOJ's new position in the case doesn't actually argue silencers are arms, just that they enjoy some level of Second Amendment protection. He also said the panel thoroughly considered the arms question in its initial opinion and is unlikely to reverse, given no new facts or arguments are being presented. Malor also pointed out the panel addressed the basic argument DOJ is now backing and found it lacking, though it spent comparatively little time on that part of the case in its initial opinion.

He said the panel is likely going to delve a bit deeper into the DOJ's new argument before returning the same basic ruling.

Special Guest: Gabriel Malor.

Obviously, the verdict will have all sorts of complications and consequences for Donald Trump. One of them is the fact he'll now be a prohibited person. He won't be allowed to buy or even possess guns.

To discuss the details of what that will look like, we have federal litigator and legal commentator Gabriel Malor on the show. He walks through how Trump's New York convictions trigger the federal felon-in-possession ban and the same ban in his home state of Florida. He also talks about how Trump can legally transfer his guns to friends or family, but also can't be in a position where he even just has access to them.

That might cause issues with his armed Secret Service detail, but Malor said that's unlikely.

He also gave an overview of how Trump might get his gun rights back. The most likely course is to win on appeal, but he could also try to have his record expunged after serving his sentence. Or, one of the Second Amendment challenges brought by a similarly situated non-violent felon could undo the federal ban altogether.

Special Guest: Gabriel Malor.