Seventh Circuit hears challenge to Illinois firearm suppressor ban

A six-decade-old ban on firearm silencers in Illinois faced a skeptical judicial panel on Wednesday as attorneys argued over whether suppressors are protected under the Second Amendment.

Arguments Before the Seventh Circuit

The Seventh Circuit heard oral arguments in a challenge to the state’s prohibition, which dates back to the Illinois criminal code established in 1961. That original statute made it illegal to possess any device or attachment used or intended for silencing the report of a firearm.

Divided Seventh Circuit upholds Illinois ban on AR-15-style rifles and large-capacity magazines https://t.co/EGvqvPaiku

— https://x.com/JustTheNews/status/2075653820437192877

Courthouse News reported that a group of gun rights advocates initially challenged the law in 2023. After U.S. District Judge David Dugan upheld the restriction, the plaintiffs appealed the decision to the Seventh Circuit in 2025.

Representing the gun owners, attorney Peter Patterson argued that preventing individuals from equipping their firearms with suppressors imposes an unconstitutional restriction on gun ownership. Patterson pointed to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Wolford v. Lopez, which overturned a Hawaii law restricting licensed gun owners from carrying firearms on private property open to the public. He emphasized that Wolford applied the historical analysis test established in the landmark 2022 Supreme Court case New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, requiring modern regulations to align with historical tradition.

Defining the Scope of Protected Arms

During the hearing, the three-judge panel pressed both sides on the mechanical relationship between a firearm and a suppressor. U.S. Circuit Judge John Lee questioned where the court should draw the line regarding accessories necessary for self-defense.

Patterson, an attorney with the Washington-based firm Cooper & Kirk, maintained that the relevant line involves items making a functional difference to the operation of a firearm. Citing the Fifth Circuit’s ruling in Comeaux, he noted that suppressors offer essential self-defense benefits, including noise reduction, recoil mitigation, and improved accuracy.

U.S. Circuit Judge Doris Pryor asked whether a firearm and its suppressor should be viewed as separate instruments or a single combined weapon. Patterson responded that a suppressor has no purpose apart from a firearm, noting that Illinois regulates the device strictly because of its effect on firearm operation.

The State’s Defense of the 1961 Statute

Sam Horan, an assistant attorney general for Illinois, pushed back against that characterization, arguing that the plaintiffs’ logic would extend constitutional protection to any attachment added to a gun.

Horan maintained that silencers do not qualify as arms under the Second Amendment.

The three-judge panel, which also included U.S. Circuit Judge Candace Jackson-Akiwumi, did not indicate when they plan to issue a ruling. The same court previously upheld Illinois’ ban on assault rifles over the summer, ruling that the restriction aligns with historical tradition.