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.
Click the link to read the whole article: Judge Upholds Illinois Suppressor Ban
No comments:
Post a Comment