Nationwide Block of NFA & Suppressor Tax Passed In Congress! State Suppressor Bans Now Challenged!

Added: 2026-05-22

[00:00:00]So, we have a major update in the fight to strike down a state ban on the purchase and possession of suppressors.

[00:00:07]This case is now officially moving forward at the seventh circuit level.

[00:00:10]And this case could become one of the first in the nation to strike down a state's outright ban on the purchase and possession of suppressors. But the state now is throwing everything that they can at this case to prevent that from happening. So, let's break down what is now happening in this critical challenge. Now, before we jump into this video, if you want to support the channel, one of the best ways to do that is simply by subscribing. You can also hit the like button. That just tells the algorithm that you appreciate this content and so it shares it with more people. I also want to thank one of the main supporters of this channel, which is attorneys on retainer. When it comes to self-defense protection, in my opinion, AO is in a league of their own.

[00:00:45]They're backed by an actual law firm, the Attorneys for Freedom, and they're always trying to expand upon their benefits to give you as much as possible as a member. So, right now, if you're interested, if you want to check them out, you can do so using the link down below. And if you sign up using my code, ARMcolar for a limited time, you can get $50 off of your individual signup fee or $25 off the family signup fee. Now, as I mentioned in the intro, in this video, we're going to be discussing a critical challenge against a state's ban on the purchase and possession of suppressors.

[00:01:15]Now, these are two cases that have been consolidated and they challenge Illinois's outright ban on the purchase and possession of suppressors. So, as you may know, most states actually allow for the ownership of suppressors. They don't outright restrict them. You know, they are federally regulated, but only a very small number of jurisdictions actually prohibit them entirely. The plaintiffs in this case argue that Illinois's total ban on suppressors violates the second amendment under Heler and Bruent, but the federal district court in this case actually dismissed the challenge. Um, there was a motion for a dismissal and that was granted by the lower court. The district court ruled that suppressors are not protected arms because plaintiffs supposedly actually failed to show a historical analog from the founding error. And that reasoning from the district court and that analysis that was used is honestly very shocking and concerning. The court there essentially held that unless there was a colonial era or 19th century actually predecessor to a suppressor or that type of item, then modern suppressors are not protected by the second amendment. So in other words, they said that there had to be a founding era twin of that item or there are no protections at all. Now that is not what Breuan says. Breuan does not require a founding era prototype for every type of modern arm or firearm or any type of related device. And because of that ruling, the plaintiffs have now appealed up to the seventh circuit. The plaintiffs argue that the second amendment protects modern bearable arms and devices commonly used alongside firearms. Their argument is pretty straightforward in this case. Simply that, you know, just like the first amendment protects the internet and the fourth amendment protects digital searches, the second amendment also applies to modern farms technology. It is not isolated and just connected only to founding era items.

[00:02:59]But Illinois is now taking a very aggressive position in their new response brief in this case. The state argues that suppressors are not arms at all under the second amendment. Illinois repeatedly refers to suppressors as mere accessories or accutramonts rather than any actual protected arm. The state argues a suppressor is not a weapon by itself and therefore falls completely outside of the Second Amendment's protections. in Illinois heavily relies on the seven circuits prior rulings in Beivis and Rush to argue that only actual weapons themselves receive constitutional protections and only items that are necessary for the operation of a firearm are also protected. Illinois argues that even if suppressors help for hearing protection, recoil reduction, or accuracy, none of that matters because they believe suppressors are not necessary to the exercise of the right for armed self-defense and they're not necessary for the firearm to actually function.

[00:03:52]Now, that is a huge issue because Illinois is now pushing a theory that only items that are absolutely necessary for the function of a firearm actually receive protections. Now, under that logic, the state could argue that potentially optics are not protected, that certain grips are not protected, many other accessories are not protected, and potentially anything viewed as merely helpful rather than actually necessary could also be banned.

[00:04:16]That's why this case matters far beyond just the suppressor issue in the state.

[00:04:20]Because under that logic that the state is now pushing and also under the logic of the lower court's reasoning, you know, almost any kind of item that is not 100% necessary for the firearm to go bang could actually be banned. Now, before this response brief was finally filed, Illinois repeatedly tried to delay this case. The state originally had a response deadline that was due back, you know, in December of 2025, but the state argued and actually received four different extensions. Now, on the last one, it appeared that the court finally kind of got sick of their excuses for those delays and set a final deadline with no additional extensions.

[00:04:54]And now, Illinois has finally filed its merits response in this case. So, after all this time, we can finally see Illinois's arguments in this suppressor ban case. Illinois is not primarily defending the suppressor ban through historical analoges just yet. Instead, the state is arguing to stop the case at brewing step one entirely. Illinois argues that suppressors are not even covered by the Second Amendment's plain text. And because of that, they argue this case and this analysis does not move past Bruin step one. If the Seventh Circuit accepts that argument, well, then the court would never even reach the historical tradition analysis under Bruin step two. In this brief, Illinois repeatedly argues that suppressors are not arms, that suppressors are merely accessories, that suppressors are not necessary for, you know, self-defense, and therefore suppressors can simply be outright restricted or banned. The state even argues that because millions of Americans own firearms without suppressors, well, that means that suppressors cannot be considered necessary for the exercise of the Second Amendment rights. Illinois also argues that hearing protection can be achieved through earplugs and ear muffs in other means. Now, this argument is interesting because the states framework here and their type of argument could potentially allow states or government, you know, agencies to carve out modern firearms into protected and unprotected components and kind of piece by piece, you know, chip away at Second Amendment rights and say, well, because there is an alternative or some other item that you can use, this specific item or this arm is not necessary. Now the plaintiffs in contrast argue that that type of analysis conflicts with Supreme Court precedent in cases like Bruent and Heler and they argue that the Second Amendment and the technology that we can use is not isolated and frozen to just 1791.

[00:06:39]Now, as I mentioned, this case is not just about suppressors. Although this case primarily is focused on the suppressor ban, this could impact a lot of other issues. This case could become one of the most important kind of post brewin decisions involving the scope of the word arms because the seventh circuit is now being asked, does the second amendment only protect the absolute bare minimum functionality of firearms or does it protect modern firearm technology commonly used alongside with other items? That question has implications for suppressors, magazines, optics, other attachments, and potentially future firearms technology as well. And make no mistake, states like California, New York, and New Jersey are watching this case very closely. If Illinois wins on this theory, other anti-gun states will immediately start siding to this decision and defend additional restrictions on other types of items and also try to actually defend their current bans on things like suppressors.

[00:07:32]So, the plaintiffs will have an opportunity to file a reply brief and after that, this case will then move to oral arguments in the seventh circuit.

[00:07:40]So, this is a case that's finally moving forward. Even though the state of Illinois was able to delay this for a while, they finally were ordered to file the response and now this is moving forward and the seventh circuit is going to look at Illinois's state ban on suppressors. So, that's the latest update in this Illinois suppressor ban.

[00:07:56]Illinois has now officially filed their response brief after months of delay and the state is aggressively arguing that suppressors are not protected by the Second Amendment at all. And now the seventh circuit is going to have to decide whether suppressors fall within the constitutional right to keep and bear arms or if it does not. So as this case develops, as we get more information, I will let you guys know.

[00:08:17]If you like this video and you would like to support the channel, one of the best ways to do that is simply by liking, commenting, and subscribing. All of those things help to fuel the algorithm and just tells the algorithm that you appreciate this content and so it shares it with more people. But as always, thank you so much for all of your support. And don't forget this nation was built by armed scholars and this nation will be maintained by armed scholars.