The headline spells it out- the pretty anti-gun 7th Circuit Court of Appeals will hear oral arguments in the case Anderson v. Raoul, at the NIU College of Law in Dekalb, IL on Oct 28, 2026.
The state statute 720 Illinois Complied Statutes (ILCS) 5/24-1 (a) (6) remains in place pending resolution of this case.
The crux of the matter, is a unique legal twist wherein the state argues they can prohibit suppressors as firearm accessories, not weapons themselves, and therefore do not receive the same constitutional protection as “firearms.” The state previously won with this argument at district (trial court) and it has been appealed.
The Plaintiffs maintain suppressors are protected under the Second Amendment, particularly when they are just an accessory used with otherwise lawful firearms. They maintain that suppressors serve legitimate purposes, including hearing protection and reducing noise.
They argue suppressors are protected by the Second Amendment and that Illinois cannot constitutionally ban them after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen (2022).
The state has not used their usual catalog of colorful descriptors like “assassin’s weapons” or “the devil’s toys” or “every South Chicago kid will have one.” Nope, they are limiting the argument to narrowly say suppressors just aren’t in general or historical use or subject to Second Amendment protection.
General/Historical Use? Looking around the U.S. no less than 42 of the states allow private citizens to own or possess these items under state as well as federal law. (We all saw the BATF come out a month ago and say they were no longer going to tax or register suppressors under the Federal rules.)
Plaintiffs state there is no historic ban on suppressors when reviewed under Bruen requirements, and they are not traditionally dangerous or unusual. Also they serve very legitimate purposes of noise abatement and hearing conservation.
The “No Suppressor Crowd” is made up of the usual high crime liberal controlled states- Illinois, California, Delaware, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island… and of course Washington D.C.
What will the outcome be of Anderson v. Raoul? Well that is tricky to predict.
On the negative side: The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals (covers IL, IN and WI) has been no friend to the Second Amendment. In fact, on July 9th of this year they upheld the Illinois ban on PICA “assault weapons” and high capacity magazines stating the state has the right to regulate these items.
On the positive side: Also in July of this year, one week prior to the court upholding Illinois bans, the U.S. Supreme Court made it known they would hear the Cook County absolute ban on assault weapons. This would/should/could cast a shadow on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals- however there has been an ongoing trend via the Obama/Biden years to overlook Supreme Court decisions they do not like, especially the Bruen case.
The other outside chance, is the state is hanging their case on too narrow a legal fiction, the accessory is not a weapon. They are have been upheld on Appeal banning complete weapons. May have been stronger argument to lump suppressors in with firearms like the Feds did with the National Firearms Act.
Also on the positive side, the Supremes will hear the Cook County case this fall and may wipe all of this nonsense once and for all.
Fingers crossed. A win would require Illinois to allow private ownership by law abiding citizens- never the problem group in any firearms issue.