The Trump Department of Justice just dropped a major amended complaint against the District of Columbia, and it is a two-front attack. The original lawsuit already sought to knock out DC’s ban on AR-15 platform rifles. Now DOJ has expanded that complaint to challenge DC’s categorical ban on suppressors as well. This is the Second Amendment unit firing on all cylinders, and the legal arguments are solid.
Two Unconstitutional Bans, One Complaint
The amended complaint is the work of Acting Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon, and Barry Arrington — Acting Chief of DOJ’s Second Amendment Section. Together they have built a complaint that attacks both DC gun restrictions on the same constitutional grounds: DC has categorically banned arms that are in common use by law-abiding Americans, and categorical bans of commonly owned arms cannot survive under Heller and Bruen.
On AR-15s, the numbers are not close. The complaint cites estimates of 16 to 24.6 million Americans who own AR-style rifles, and quotes Justice Brett Kavanaugh directly:
Given that millions of Americans own AR-15s and that a significant majority of the states allow possession of those rifles, petitioners have a strong argument that AR-15s are in common use by law-abiding citizens and therefore are protected by the Second Amendment under Heller.
The complaint even notes that Justice Elena Kagan recently acknowledged the AR-15 is the most popular rifle in the country. When both the left and right wings of the Court agree on a factual predicate, the constitutional analysis is not a close call.
The Suppressor Argument Is Equally Airtight
Here is where my thinking gets specific. A lot of people assume suppressors are legally exotic — some NFA curiosity that occupies a gray zone. That is wrong. The DOJ complaint walks through exactly why DC’s suppressor ban is unconstitutional, and the logic is tight.
First, the numbers: according to the American Suppressor Association, as of April 2026, approximately 6 million suppressors are registered in the United States. Former ATF Deputy Director Ronald Turk himself stated that suppressors are rarely used in criminal shootings and should not be viewed as a threat to public safety. In 2017 the ATF recommended prosecutions in only 44 suppressor-related cases in an average year. Six million registered units, 44 prosecutions annually. That is not a weapon associated with criminal activity — that is a safety device used by responsible gun owners.
Second, and more importantly, DC does not merely regulate suppressors. It categorically bans them. The complaint draws the distinction precisely: “categorically banning an arm is different in kind and not merely in degree from regulating it.” That is the critical line. Heller took certain policy choices off the table, and a categorical ban of an arm in common use is one of them.
Applying the Bruen Framework
Under the Bruen framework, the analysis runs in two steps. Step one is plain text: does the Second Amendment even cover the item? For suppressors, the answer is yes — they are instruments that facilitate armed self-defense, and the Second Amendment “extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” Once plain text is implicated, the burden shifts entirely to the government to show a historical tradition of analogous regulation.
DC cannot carry that burden. The only historical tradition that supports an arms ban is the dangerous-and-unusual test from Heller. Suppressors fail that test on both prongs. They are not unusual — six million registered units puts that question to rest. And they are not dangerous in the relevant sense; they are a hearing-protection device, not an offensive weapon. DC simply has no historical analogue for banning a commonly owned safety accessory.
Why the DC Court Matters Less Than You Think
I am not optimistic about the DC district court. This is filed in the swamp, and the local judiciary reflects that. But that is not the point. The DOJ is building the record, making the arguments, and establishing the precedent that these categorical bans are unconstitutional. Even if a DC district judge rules the wrong way, this goes up to the D.C. Circuit and eventually to the Supreme Court — where the constitutional text and the Bruen framework give us the winning hand.
The bottom line is this: Harmeet Dhillon’s Civil Rights Division is doing exactly what a Second Amendment-committed DOJ should be doing. They are not waiting for private plaintiffs to carry the load. They are filing the lawsuits, making the record, and forcing courts to confront the plain text of the Second Amendment head on.
This article is based on analysis by Professor Mark W. Smith, constitutional attorney and Host of the Four Boxes Diner 2nd Amendment channel. Watch the original video here. This does not constitute legal advice.