Trump DOJ Expands DC Gun Lawsuit to Challenge Suppressor Ban

The Trump Justice Department expanded its lawsuit against Washington, D.C. on Thursday, adding a challenge to the District's ban on firearm suppressors. The move targets tens of thousands of D.C. residents who own devices that simply reduce a gun's deafening blast. The amended complaint filed May 14 continues a coordinated federal campaign against local gun restrictions nationwide.

Federal prosecutors now seek to overturn both D.C.'s AR-15 prohibition and its suppressor restrictions. They are using a statute originally designed to combat police misconduct. The administration argues that when local police enforce laws criminalizing possession of arms protected by Supreme Court precedent, they deprive Americans of their constitutional rights. This marks a deliberate federal strategy to treat lawful gun ownership as a civil right deserving robust federal protection.

The amended complaint lodged in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, case number 1:25-cv-04458-APM, names Acting Police Chief Jeffrey Carroll as defendant. It broadens the December 2025 lawsuit that initially targeted only the District's AR-15 ban. The legal action demands judicial declarations that D.C. Code §§ 7-2502.01 and 7-2502.02's registration scheme violates the Second Amendment by refusing registration certificates for "assault weapons." The complaint also challenges D.C. Code § 22-4514(a)'s outright suppressor ban.

Attorney General Pamela Bondi stated the Justice Department has an "ironclad commitment to protecting the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans." Her department seeks preliminary and permanent injunctions barring enforcement of both restrictions. The lawsuit invokes 34 U.S.C. § 12601, which authorizes the Attorney General to sue governments engaged in "pattern or practice" conduct that deprives persons of constitutional rights.

The complaint rests on substantial statistical foundations showing widespread ownership of the targeted firearms. At least 28 million AR-style semiautomatic rifles circulate nationally. Justice Elena Kagan noted in 2025 that "the AR–15 is the most popular rifle in the country." Justice Brett Kavanaugh observed in Snope v. Brown that AR-15s are in "common use" by law-abiding citizens. That makes them presumptively protected under Heller's standard.

Six million registered suppressors exist nationwide as of April 2026, according to the American Suppressor Association. D.C.'s ban exceeds even the National Firearms Act's registration and background-check requirements. ATF records show suppressors rarely feature in criminal activity, averaging only 44 prosecution cases annually.

Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon heads the Civil Rights Division's Second Amendment Section. The administration created the section in December 2025 specifically to pursue such enforcement. "This Civil Rights Division will defend American citizens from unconstitutional restrictions of commonly used firearms," Dhillon stated when the original lawsuit launched.

The suppressor challenge carries particular irony given gun-control groups' positions in related litigation. Everytown, Giffords Law Center and the Brady Center filed an amicus brief supporting NFA constitutionality in Gun Owners of America v. ATF. They argued the act's historical grounding justifies suppressor regulation. Yet in this D.C. case, the Justice Department contends suppressors enjoy Second Amendment protection.

This expanded lawsuit forms part of a broader federal enforcement sweep. The Justice Department sued Denver on May 5 challenging its "assault weapons" ban. It sued Colorado on May 6 over its magazine restrictions. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche declared "the Constitution is not a suggestion and the Second Amendment is not a second-class right" when announcing the Denver action.

D.C. faces a unique legal vulnerability from its own prior concession. In its March motion to dismiss the original lawsuit, the District admitted Section 12601 applies to enforcement of unconstitutional statutes. The District further admitted its standards are "conterminous" with constitutional standards. The amended complaint directly cites this admission as evidence D.C. cannot plausibly argue the statute doesn't cover its firearm bans.

Gun-control advocates have denounced the legal strategy. Douglas Letter, Brady United chief legal officer, called the lawsuit "an extremely bizarre use of this statute" designed for police misconduct investigations, not statutory challenges. Billy Clark of Giffords Law Center accused the administration of "prioritizing gun industry profits over public safety."

FBI homicide data undermines the public safety justification. The 2019 figures cited in the complaint show 364 rifle homicides nationally compared to 6,368 handgun killings. That is a 17-to-1 disparity that contradicts claims AR-15s represent unique threats. Rifle deaths constitute just 4 percent of gun homicides despite tens of millions of such firearms in civilian hands.

Justice Clarence Thomas has repeatedly warned about Second Amendment rights becoming "second-class" through judicial neglect. His dissent from denial of certiorari on Maryland's AR-15 ban emphasized the Court's decade-long avoidance of resolving whether popular modern rifles remain constitutionally protected.

The federal government's coordinated lawsuits now provide the Supreme Court concrete cases to finally settle whether local governments may criminalize possession of arms owned by tens of millions of Americans for lawful purposes. This litigation establishes a clear template: when progressive municipalities enact categorical prohibitions against constitutionally protected firearms, federal civil rights enforcement represents the appropriate constitutional check. For the millions of Americans who own these weapons to hunt, compete in sports and defend their homes, the stakes could not be higher.