The ATF has effectively deregulated suppressors, at least for now. Even if there's a new administration, at least some people will be able to buy them going forward without the registration rigmarole. But not everyone can, and there's a challenge in the works meant to take that one on.
That's the good news.
The bad news? It's the Illinois ban, which means it's in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
A group of Illinois gun advocates argued before a skeptical Seventh Circuit panel Wednesday that the state’s ban on gun silencers violates their Second Amendment rights.
The Illinois criminal code, established in 1961, made it illegal to “possess any device or attachment of any kind used or intended for use in silencing the report of any firearm.” A group of gun rights advocates challenged the law in 2023, and U.S. District Judge David Dugan upheld it. The group appealed to the Seventh Circuit in 2025.
Peter Patterson, an attorney representing the gun owners, argued before the three-judge panel that preventing gun owners from using suppressors on their firearms imposes a clear restriction on gun ownership.
Patterson cited a recent Supreme Court case, Wolford v. Lopez, in which the high court overturned a Hawaii law that prevented licensed gun owners from carrying firearms on private property open to the public.
He noted that Wolford applied the historical analysis test established in the landmark 2022 Supreme Court case New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. The test requires that modern firearm regulations comply with historical tradition.
U.S. Circuit Court Judge John Lee, an Obama appointee, pressed Patterson on where courts should draw the line when defining what is necessary for self-defense.
“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, an attorney with the Washington-based firm Cooper & Kirk, 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.”
Based on what the judges asked, it looks to me like they're looking for an excuse to find that the ban is constitutional, even if it's not. It's not a matter of looking at the constitutionality. Instead, it's rationalizing a restriction that cannot and should not be applied to case law in the United States of America.
Feelings aren't irrelevant in everyday life, but they have to be irrelevant when dealing with matters of constitutionality. I don't think the judges in question are doing that.
Of course, I could be wrong. Maybe they recognize that suppressors count as "arms" and are thus covered by the Second Amendment, that Wolford and Bruen both lay out the groundwork that makes it clear they're constitutional, and that regardless of what they might like to find, the reality is that the laws in question are blatant violations of the Second Amendment protections afforded to every American.
I'm not holding my breath on that being the case, of course, but I guess stranger things have happened.
I can't think of any right off the top of my head, and I'm pretty sure any I did think of would be classified as miracles by the Catholic Church or some other religious entity — or, depending on just what it is, perhaps proof of Satan — but I think you get just how weird it would be.