Illinois Gun Owners Take 1961 Suppressor Ban to the Seventh Circuit, Where Judges Ask Whether a Silencer Is Even Separate From the Gun

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

CHICAGO, IL — A group of Illinois gun owners asked a three-judge Seventh Circuit panel on Wednesday, Oct. 28, to strike down the state’s ban on firearm suppressors, arguing the law violates their Second Amendment rights. The challengers filed suit in 2023. U.S. District Judge David Dugan upheld the ban, and they appealed to the Seventh Circuit in 2025.

As reported by Courthouse News Service, the panel was skeptical, and two of the judges pressed the challengers’ attorney on where suppressors fit in the Second Amendment analysis. No court opinion exists yet because the panel has not ruled, so the account of the argument below rests on that news report rather than on a court record.

The law at issue dates to 1961. It makes it illegal in Illinois to “possess any device or attachment of any kind used or intended for use in silencing the report of any firearm.” It sits in the criminal code, separate from the permit rules covered in my Illinois concealed carry guide.

Peter Patterson, an attorney with the Washington-based firm Cooper & Kirk, argued for the gun owners. He told the panel that barring suppressors on firearms is a clear restriction on gun ownership. Patterson leaned on Wolford v. Lopez, the recent Supreme Court case that overturned a Hawaii law barring licensed gun owners from carrying on private property open to the public. Wolford applied the test from the 2022 Bruen decision. In plain terms, that test says a modern gun regulation has to fit within the nation’s historical tradition to survive.

Judge John Lee, an Obama appointee, pushed Patterson on where courts should draw the line when deciding what is necessary for self-defense. Patterson drew it at function.

“At a minimum, and the only line this court needs to draw in this case is things that make a functional difference to the operation of the firearm,” Patterson said. “And so, as the Fifth Circuit held in Comeaux, there are many functional benefits that are essential to self-defense, provided by suppressors, including reducing noise, reducing recoil, improving accuracy.”

Judge Doris Pryor, a Biden appointee, went after the question that could decide the appeal. She asked whether a suppressor and a firearm are one weapon or two. “In Wolford, it says, does it concern any form of arms? And so, can we look at [the silencer as] separate and apart from the firearm itself?” she asked. “Are we talking about two different weapons or two different instruments?”

Patterson answered that a suppressor has no purpose apart from the gun it is attached to. “Illinois’ law would be incoherent if you tried to separate the two because the only reason they’re regulating the suppressor is because of its operation and its effect on the operation of the firearm,” he said.

Pryor’s question carries the most weight. Illinois does not care about a metal tube sitting on a shelf. It cares about what that tube does to a gunshot. Patterson’s point is that the state cannot regulate a device because of how it changes a firearm and then treat it as having nothing to do with the firearm.

Less noise, less recoil, and better accuracy are not cosmetic, and they matter well beyond self-defense. Suppressors protect the hearing of shooters and the people around them. Hunters use them in the field, and recreational shooters use them at the range. They also show up in defensive encounters. Recently I covered a shooting outside a Twin Falls In-N-Out that left three people dead. An armed bystander engaged the shooter with a suppressed pistol, causing him to retreat. Gear never replaces training and mindset, but a suppressor is a practical tool for hunting, range work, and defense alike.

More from USA Carry:

• NSSF Takes Illinois Rifle Ban Straight to the Supreme Court After Seventh Circuit Defeat
• Seventh Circuit Upholds Illinois AR-15 and Magazine Ban, Setting Up Supreme Court Showdown
• NRA Takes Aim at Illinois’s 72-Hour Gun Waiting Period in New Federal Lawsuit
• 13 Judges to 3: Fifth Circuit Tosses Everytown-Backed Challenge to Texas Gun Signs
• Three Judges, One Vote, Zero Merits: Giffords and California Tossed From Ghost Gun Rule Fight

Hard questions from the bench are not a ruling. Appellate judges routinely press both sides, and the panel will issue its decision on its own timeline.

I will continue tracking this appeal as the Seventh Circuit weighs the future of Illinois’ suppressor ban.

Read the original story: Illinois Gun Owners Take 1961 Suppressor Ban to the Seventh Circuit, Where Judges Ask Whether a Silencer Is Even Separate From the Gun