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.

Now, a few weeks later, those groups have nearly all sorted into two coalitions, and they've both filed suit. One coalition, led by Gun Owners of America (GOA), filed in the Fifth Circuit. Another, led by the National Rifle Association (NRA), filed in the Eighth Circuit.

To analyze the arguments of each case, we've got independent gun-rights lawyer Matt Larosiere on the show. He's brought both tax power and Second Amendment challenges against the NFA before. So, he has direct experience with the claims at issue in both cases.

Larosiere said he is on board with the logic behind the GOA and NRA lawsuits, but he argued they face a difficult climb to achieve their goals. He said tax challenges are more complex than most people imagine, and it can be difficult for Second Amendment attorneys to navigate the waters of a successful pleading. He said the Second Amendment claim in the NRA case may have an easier path, but noted it wasn't a new tactic and has failed in the past.

Special Guest: Matt Larosiere.

To do that, we've got the co-founders of Open Source Defense back on the show. In addition to running a smart publication on gun culture and politics, Kareem Shaya and Chuck Rossi also run a firearms business investment firm. They said the tax cut is likely to juice demand for silencers (more accurately known as suppressors), short-barrel rifles and shotguns, as well as guns in the "any other weapon" (AOW) category.

They looked at the recent surge in silencer demand related to last year's precipitous drop in registration processing times as a potential guidepost for how much demand may spike. Kaream noted suppressor sales were up 80 percent year-over-year between 20023 and 2024. He said demand could see a similar jump once the cut hits, although the six-month delay before that happens might depress the market in the meantime.

Meanwhile, Chuck argued that new demand would likely open up innovation in the space. He said he expects new companies will come in to try and produce mass market suppressors or even disposable ones. He said we could see renewed interest in short-barrel rifles and the long-neglected AOW category that leads to new breakout products.

Silencers, short-barrel rifles and shotguns, as well as firearms in the "any other weapons" category will now see a $0 tax in place of the previous $200 one. But not everyone in the gun world is happy about that. So, we have Cam Edwards of Bearing Arms back on the show to work through what the text does, why it ended up the way it did, and whether gun owners should consider it a win.

Cam noted the final text is not everything gun-rights activists had pushed for since the Senate Parliamentarian ruled full delisting was against the rules of budget reconciliation. He said he disagreed with the ruling and could understand why some gun-rights activists unsuccessfully pushed to fire or overrule her. However, he also said it was important to understand the politics of the situation in order not to be caught off guard by either one of those reasonably predictable outcomes.

Despite arguments to the contrary, Cam said the law should still be viewed as a win for gun owners. Perhaps an imperfect one, but one of the more significant at the federal level in a generation.

Special Guest: Cam Edwards.

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.

A federal appeals court just upheld the zones against a Second Amendment challenge for what may be the first time in the post-Bruen era. Cooke argued the law is bad policy, but he agreed it doesn't violate the Second Amendment.

Instead, Cooke argued it's actually an unconstitutional expansion of the federal government's power to regulate interstate commerce. He noted the law had already been struck down by the Supreme Court over this issue once before. However, Congress passed a new version soon afterward. Cooke said the new law has the same problem the old one had.

We also talked about the current push to partially repeal the National Firearms Act through budget reconciliation. Cooke again said he'd like to see repeal make it through the process, but he had doubts that delisting silencers or short-barrel shotguns can clear the Byrd Rule. He also expressed some skepticism about whether language in the bill to try and nullify state NFA mirror laws would work in practice.

Special Guest: Charles Cooke.

The House included a provision to eliminate the tax on firearm silencers/suppressors and one to completely remove them from the NFA's purview. But that wasn't without controversy, and the Senate is now taking up the bill. That's why we've got Knox Williams, the head of the American Suppressor Association, on the show to update us on where things are headed.

Williams said there was a meeting between gun-rights activists and Senate staffers this week that left him confident they have a good chance of getting everything they want. He said Republicans were on board with the argument that silencers can be fully delisted because the NFA is a tax at its core.

Still, there is a lot of uncertainty about how the parliamentarian will rule on the delisting. Williams agreed that the tax cut is seen as a sure bet. However, he said there's a strong chance delisting gets through, too.

Special Guest: Knox Williams.