Seventh Circuit Weighs Illinois’ Decades-Old Suppressor Ban
The Seventh Circuit considered the constitutionality of Illinois’ 1961 firearm suppressor ban.
Why it matters: This case tests the constitutional scope of firearm regulations, particularly how courts interpret the Second Amendment’s protections beyond traditional firearms. Legal professionals should track this as it could influence both state and national firearm policy and litigation.
- Illinois has banned firearm suppressors since 1961 under state criminal law.
- Plaintiffs filed suit in 2023, arguing suppressors are protected arms under the Second Amendment.
- The Seventh Circuit heard oral arguments on October 28, 2026, before Judges Lee, Pryor, and Jackson-Akiwumi.
- Plaintiffs contend suppressors reduce noise and recoil, enhancing self-defense; Illinois argues suppressors aren’t constitutionally protected arms.
On October 28, 2026, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals heard Anderson v. Raoul, a pivotal challenge to Illinois' firearm suppressor ban enacted in 1961, which prohibits possession of devices designed to muffle gunfire.
The plaintiffs, represented by attorney Peter Patterson, contend that suppressors improve firearm safety and effectiveness by reducing noise and recoil, making them essential tools for lawful self-defense. Patterson emphasized during oral arguments that the court should focus on whether suppressors affect the firearm's function "in a meaningful way." This functional perspective is central to the plaintiffs’ Second Amendment claim that suppressors are protected "arms."
Assistant Attorney General Sam Horan countered that suppressors do not constitute "arms" under the Second Amendment. Horan stated, "Silencers are not arms," and maintained that the ban aligns with Illinois' authority to regulate potentially dangerous devices.
The panel, consisting of Judges John Lee, Doris Pryor, and Candace Jackson-Akiwumi, weighed these arguments within the framework of the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which emphasized historical tradition as a key interpretive tool for Second Amendment cases. Lower courts, including the Seventh Circuit, have recently upheld other firearm restrictions such as assault weapons bans, reinforcing Illinois’ regulatory authority.
The lawsuit originated in 2023 when the plaintiffs challenged the suppressor ban in federal district court. U.S. District Judge David Dugan upheld the ban, prompting the 2025 appeal to the Seventh Circuit. The decision from this appellate court could reshape how courts assess modern firearm accessories and their constitutional protections.
Given Illinois’ role as a bellwether for firearm regulation and the ongoing national debate over gun rights, Anderson v. Raoul will be closely watched by legal professionals, law firms, and in-house counsel navigating the shifting landscape of firearm laws.
By the numbers:
- 1961 — Year Illinois enacted its firearm suppressor ban
- October 28, 2026 — Date of Seventh Circuit oral argument in Anderson v. Raoul
- 2023 — Year plaintiffs filed initial lawsuit challenging the ban
Yes, but: While the plaintiffs argue suppressors are essential and constitutionally protected arms, Illinois and courts have historically permitted the state to regulate firearm accessories, citing public safety. The precedent from Bruen limits regulation that lacks historical analogues, complicating future decisions.
What's next: The Seventh Circuit is expected to issue its ruling in Anderson v. Raoul in early 2027. If upheld or overturned, the decision could prompt further appeals and influence legislation in other states.