Judge Upholds Illinois Suppressor Ban, Says Suppressors are Not Arms

On September 5, 2025, U.S. District Choose David W. Dugan within the Southern District of Illinois issued a ruling in Morse v. Raoul that each gun proprietor wants to concentrate to. The case challenged Illinois’s outright ban on firearm suppressors, arguing that the units fall underneath the Second Modification’s safety of “arms.” The court docket didn’t see it that means—and that call might ripple far past suppressors.

Morse v. Raoul

Illinois regulation makes it a felony to personal or possess any gadget that muffles the sound of a firearm. Plaintiffs on this case argued that suppressors are instruments that make firearm use safer. They defend listening to, scale back noise air pollution, and might enhance accuracy in defensive conditions. The plaintiffs weren’t making an attempt to bypass federal laws; they had been able to undergo the ATF’s lengthy course of and pay the tax stamp.

Their level was easy: Illinois’s ban on suppressors clearly violates the Second Modification.

The state, led by Legal professional Basic Kwame Raoul, responded by saying suppressors aren’t “arms” in any respect. Of their view, they’re simply equipment—like sights, shares, or listening to safety—that aren’t important to firing a gun.

Choose Dugan’s Reasoning

Choose Dugan framed his opinion across the Heller and Bruen choices, which each emphasised that the Second Modification protects “bearable arms” understood in mild of their historic which means. He acknowledged that trendy know-how, like stun weapons, has been acknowledged as protected “arms” as a result of they serve the identical goal of armed self-defense. However when it got here to suppressors, he drew a pointy line.

In his view, a suppressor isn’t a weapon—it doesn’t mission power, it doesn’t function offensive or defensive gear by itself, and due to this fact it falls outdoors the constitutional definition of “arms.” He described suppressors as useful units that scale back recoil and noise, however in the end “equipment” slightly than important parts. Dugan leaned closely on different courts which have taken the identical place, together with the Fifth and Ninth Circuits, stating that the Supreme Courtroom has by no means straight stated suppressors are constitutionally protected. He additionally dismissed arguments pointing to the Nationwide Firearms Act’s definition of suppressors as “firearms,” saying Congress’s statutory language doesn’t management how the Structure defines “arms.”

Briefly, Dugan’s reasoning boiled right down to this: if the Founders used the phrase “arms” to imply weapons themselves, then solely objects that operate as weapons fall underneath the Second Modification. By that logic, Illinois can ban suppressors with out operating afoul of the Structure.

Right here’s the sticking level: Are suppressors “arms” or simply “equipment”?

The court docket stated no. Suppressors could also be helpful and even enhance the operate of a firearm, however they aren’t weapons themselves. The decide in contrast them to add-ons that make taking pictures simpler or safer, however not essential to the weapon’s operation.
The consequence: Illinois’ ban stands, and the plaintiffs’ case was dismissed with out even going to trial.

Counterpoints the Choose Missed

The issue with that reasoning is that it ignores how the Supreme Courtroom itself has described the Second Modification. In Bruen, the Courtroom made it clear that the definition of “arms” extends to trendy instruments that facilitate armed self-defense—not simply the naked weapon itself. Suppressors straight serve that operate by defending listening to, making firearms safer to coach with, and lowering disorientation in confined areas like properties. Saying they aren’t “arms” as a result of they don’t fireplace bullets is like saying magazines aren’t “arms” as a result of they don’t fireplace bullets both—but nobody critically doubts magazines are coated by the Second Modification.

It additionally exposes a double normal. Courts wouldn’t dream of limiting the First Modification to 18th-century pamphlets and city criers whereas declaring social media, microphones, or printing presses “mere equipment” that aren’t protected. Free speech consists of the instruments we use to train it. The identical should be true of the appropriate to maintain and bear arms. With out sights, shares, or suppressors, a firearm nonetheless “capabilities,” however it capabilities much less safely and fewer successfully. That’s precisely why these instruments matter. And why banning them cuts to the center of the appropriate the Second Modification was written to guard.

Why This Issues

This ruling is about greater than suppressors. It’s about how narrowly courts can interpret what the Second Modification protects. Some states, like Illinois, argue that if an adjunct isn’t completely obligatory for a gun to fireplace, it falls outdoors the Second Modification. That logic is absurd. By that normal, shares, sights, and even listening to safety could possibly be banned with out consequence.

For now, this choice retains Illinois’ suppressor ban in place. The plaintiffs have already stated they’ll enchantment, however they count on an uphill combat by means of the Seventh Circuit and, in the end, the Supreme Courtroom.

Remaining Ideas

Suppressors aren’t Hollywood silencers—they don’t make a rifle whisper-quiet. They merely scale back noise to safer ranges, defend listening to, and make coaching extra sensible. Treating them as “contraband” as a substitute of security instruments is each short-sighted and harmful for gun rights.

This ruling is one other reminder that our Second Modification rights are continuously underneath menace. These instances are essential to sustaining our rights and defending them for future generations.