Background
Hatchet M. Speed, a former software developer and naval reservist, was convicted by a federal jury of three counts of unlawful possession of unregistered silencers. The devices in question were labeled as solvent traps but were constructed of black titanium with internal baffles and partially drilled holes. Speed had discussed with an undercover FBI agent his intent to drill the holes to convert the devices into silencers for use in political violence. Speed appealed, arguing the devices were not silencers, the evidence was insufficient, the statute was unconstitutionally vague, and the regulation violated the Second Amendment.
The court’s reasoning
The court first determined that the statutory definition of a silencer focuses on the device’s intended purpose and design features, meaning it does not need to be currently operable. The court found sufficient evidence that the devices were designed as silencers despite their labeling. Regarding the vagueness challenge, the court ruled that the statute clearly proscribed Speed’s conduct. On the Second Amendment claim, the court assumed without deciding that silencers are protected arms but held that the National Firearms Act creates a shall-issue permitting regime, which is presumptively constitutional. Speed failed to carry his burden of showing the regime was abusive.
The NFA’s definition does not require a device to be currently operable as a silencer. In fact, it suggests the opposite.
United States v. Speed, 23-4308 (4th Cir. May 5, 2026)
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces that devices designed to function as silencers fall under the National Firearms Act even if they require minor modification to operate. It also solidifies the Fourth Circuit’s stance that shall-issue licensing and registration regimes for firearms are presumptively constitutional under the Second Amendment.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download