The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit hears oral argument on Wednesday, October 28, in Anderson v. Raoul, a Second Amendment challenge to Illinois's ban on firearm suppressors. A federal judge threw out the case last year, ruling that a suppressor is not one of the "arms" the Constitution protects.
The argument comes at an unusual moment. Federal rules on suppressors have loosened sharply this year, while state bans like the one in Illinois remain fully in force. How the Seventh Circuit answers the threshold question, whether a suppressor counts as an "arm" at all, could shape challenges to state laws well beyond Illinois.
The case so far
Carlin Anderson and Dave Clark sued in February 2023, challenging the Illinois statute that bars devices designed to silence a firearm's report, 720 ILCS 5/24-1(a)(6). The case was consolidated with a similar suit, Morse v. Raoul, in the Southern District of Illinois, according to the Second Amendment Foundation's October 21 Grassroots Judicial Report.
On September 5, 2025, U.S. District Judge David W. Dugan granted the state's motion for judgment on the pleadings. He found the plaintiffs had not plausibly alleged that suppressors are "arms" under the Second Amendment's historically fixed meaning, noting that they identified no 18th or 19th century precursor to the device, the report said. Judgment was entered for the state, and the ban stayed in place. The plaintiffs appealed, briefing was complete by October 12, and the consolidated appeals (Nos. 25-2642 and 25-2663) are set for argument this week.
Why "arms" is the whole fight
Under the Supreme Court's 2022 Bruen framework, a challenger first has to show that the Constitution's plain text covers the conduct at issue. Only then does the government have to justify its law by pointing to a historical tradition of similar regulation. Judge Dugan stopped the case at that first step.
Suppressor owners argue that a device that reduces noise and recoil is part of using a firearm effectively, much like a sight or a magazine. Illinois argues it is an accessory, not a weapon, and that a gun works without one.
Other courts have sidestepped the question. In United States v. Berger, decided September 1, the Third Circuit upheld the federal registration requirement for silencers without deciding whether they are "arms," according to an analysis by the Duke Center for Firearms Law. Judge Stephanos Bibas wrote that even if silencers are protected, the registration rules are "objective, minimally burdensome, and aimed at ensuring orderly exercise of the right." Judge Chung, concurring, took a different route, reasoning that silencers are accessories that a gun does not need in order to function. The Seventh Circuit could adopt either approach, or squarely decide the question the Third Circuit left open.
Analysis: where suppressor law stands now
The patchwork has become harder to follow this year. Here is the newsroom's summary of the main layers, drawn from the sources above and the Second Amendment Foundation's October 14 report.
Federal making and transfer tax: Cut to zero by Congress.
Federal registration (NFA): In Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF, a Texas federal judge ruled on August 5 that the rules could no longer rest on the taxing power.
ATF enforcement: Since October 9, ATF says it no longer requires NFA approval or registration for suppressors, short-barreled rifles and shotguns.
Third Circuit: Upheld federal silencer registration in Berger (September 1).
Illinois: Possession ban in force, challenge argued October 28.
ATF's policy carries a warning that "unregistered items may still violate state law," the report said. That is the key point for gun owners in states like Illinois. A federal enforcement decision does not change state criminal law, and a judge's order protecting particular plaintiffs is not a nationwide remedy.
The confusion has reached state capitals. The Firearms Policy Coalition sent letters on October 9 to attorneys general in 15 states whose laws tie the legality of suppressors or short-barreled guns to federal registration, asking them to stop enforcement while lawmakers consider repeal. Alaska's acting attorney general directed police to consult prosecutors before bringing affected charges, the Second Amendment Foundation reported.
What to watch
A Seventh Circuit ruling that suppressors are "arms" would send the case back to the Bruen history test, where Illinois would have to defend its ban on the merits. A ruling for the state would leave the ban intact and could deepen the split in how courts treat firearm accessories.
The Supreme Court is already set to hear the biggest arms case of the term on December 2, the AR-15 challenges we covered in Cook County and Connecticut Defend AR-15 Bans. For travelers, the state-by-state gap matters too: an item legal at home can be a crime across a state line, a problem we explained in Carrying a Gun Across State Lines.
Two Taps News stories summarize reporting and the analysis discussed on Two Taps and Friends. They are not legal advice. Read our standards.
