Gun News

Judge Upholds Illinois Suppressor Ban, Says Suppressors are Not Arms

On September 5, 2025, U.S. District Judge David W. Dugan in the Southern District of Illinois issued a ruling in Morse v. Raoul that every gun owner needs to pay attention to. The case challenged Illinois’s outright ban on firearm suppressors, arguing that the devices fall under the Second Amendment’s protection of “arms.” The court didn’t see it that way—and that decision could ripple far beyond suppressors.

Morse v. Raoul

Illinois law makes it a felony to own or possess any device that muffles the sound of a firearm. Plaintiffs in this case argued that suppressors are tools that make firearm use safer. They protect hearing, reduce noise pollution, and can improve accuracy in defensive situations. The plaintiffs were not trying to bypass federal regulations; they were ready to go through the ATF’s long process and pay the tax stamp.

Their point was simple: Illinois’s ban on suppressors clearly violates the Second Amendment.

The state, led by Attorney General Kwame Raoul, responded by saying suppressors aren’t “arms” at all. In their view, they’re just accessories—like sights, stocks, or hearing protection—that aren’t essential to firing a gun.

Judge Dugan’s Reasoning

Judge Dugan framed his opinion around the Heller and Bruen decisions, which both emphasized that the Second Amendment protects “bearable arms” understood in light of their historical meaning. He acknowledged that modern technology, like stun guns, has been recognized as protected “arms” because they serve the same purpose of armed self-defense. But when it came to suppressors, he drew a sharp line.

In his view, a suppressor isn’t a weapon—it doesn’t project force, it doesn’t serve as offensive or defensive equipment on its own, and therefore it falls outside the constitutional definition of “arms.” He described suppressors as helpful devices that reduce recoil and noise, but ultimately “accessories” rather than essential components. Dugan leaned heavily on other courts that have taken the same position, including the Fifth and Ninth Circuits, pointing out that the Supreme Court has never directly said suppressors are constitutionally protected. He also dismissed arguments pointing to the National Firearms Act’s definition of suppressors as “firearms,” saying Congress’s statutory language doesn’t control how the Constitution defines “arms.”

In short, Dugan’s reasoning boiled down to this: if the Founders used the word “arms” to mean weapons themselves, then only items that function as weapons fall under the Second Amendment. By that logic, Illinois can ban suppressors without running afoul of the Constitution.

Here’s the sticking point: Are suppressors “arms” or just “accessories”?

The court said no. Suppressors may be useful and even improve the function of a firearm, but they aren’t weapons themselves. The judge compared them to add-ons that make shooting easier or safer, but not necessary to the weapon’s operation.
The result: Illinois’ ban stands, and the plaintiffs’ case was dismissed without even going to trial.

Counterpoints the Judge Overlooked

The problem with that reasoning is that it ignores how the Supreme Court itself has described the Second Amendment. In Bruen, the Court made it clear that the definition of “arms” extends to modern tools that facilitate armed self-defense—not just the bare weapon itself. Suppressors directly serve that function by protecting hearing, making firearms safer to train with, and reducing disorientation in confined spaces like homes. Saying they aren’t “arms” because they don’t fire bullets is like saying magazines aren’t “arms” because they don’t fire bullets either—yet no one seriously doubts magazines are covered by the Second Amendment.

It also exposes a double standard. Courts wouldn’t dream of limiting the First Amendment to 18th-century pamphlets and town criers while declaring social media, microphones, or printing presses “mere accessories” that aren’t protected. Free speech includes the tools we use to exercise it. The same must be true of the right to keep and bear arms. Without sights, stocks, or suppressors, a firearm still “functions,” but it functions less safely and less effectively. That’s exactly why these tools matter. And why banning them cuts to the heart of the right the Second Amendment was written to protect.

Why This Matters

This ruling is about more than suppressors. It’s about how narrowly courts can interpret what the Second Amendment protects. Some states, like Illinois, argue that if an accessory isn’t absolutely necessary for a gun to fire, it falls outside the Second Amendment. That logic is absurd. By that standard, stocks, sights, and even hearing protection could be banned without consequence.

For now, this decision keeps Illinois’ suppressor ban in place. The plaintiffs have already said they’ll appeal, but they expect an uphill fight through the Seventh Circuit and, ultimately, the Supreme Court.

Final Thoughts

Suppressors aren’t Hollywood silencers—they don’t make a rifle whisper-quiet. They simply reduce noise to safer levels, protect hearing, and make training more practical. Treating them as “contraband” instead of safety tools is both short-sighted and dangerous for gun rights.

This ruling is another reminder that our Second Amendment rights are constantly under threat. These cases are crucial to maintaining our rights and protecting them for future generations.