Morse v Raoul (IL Suppressor Ban)

[Euler]

On February 17, 2025 at 12:52 AM CST, Euler said:→

On February 11, the judge scheduled a hearing for a motion for a judgment on the pleadings for April 9. ...

On April 1, the judge rescheduled the hearing for April 30.

[Euler]

On February 2, 2024 at 07:53 PM CST, Euler said:→

On February 2, the judge granted the motion for a stay pending a ruling on the pleadings.

On April 30, the judge heard arguments on the pleadings and lifted the stay on the case.

[Molly B.]

Now we wait for the judge to issue a ruling on the motion.

[bcook619]

What does lifting the stay mean? What did that do?

[gunuser17]

Quote

Lifting the stay means that the case will proceed through any discovery and then to trial.  That is unless it is resolved by a decision on the motion on the pleadings or a later decision on a summary judgment motion that negates the need for a trial.  Seems unlikely that the case would be dismissed on the pleadings if he lifted the stay.

 

[EdDinIL]

So the case was stayed for 14 months because the state was waiting for a ruling elsewhere declaring suppressors not covered by 2A?

[Euler]

The case was initially stayed pending a ruling on the pleadings, which include whether silencers are covered by the 2A. If the answer is "yes," then the case is done. It just took the judge 14 months to get around to it.

If it matters, the judge is a Trump appointee.

[Tkman]

On 5/7/2025 at 6:59 PM, Euler said:

The case was initially stayed pending a ruling on the pleadings, which include whether silencers are covered by the 2A. If the answer is "yes," then the case is done. It just took the judge 14 months to get around to it.

If it matters, the judge is a Trump appointee.

Let’s hope it matters

[BeardswithoutOperators]

Do we know yet how the HPA Act will affect this if it passes?

[2smartby1/2]

The department of justice changing their stance should be helpful. 

https://americansuppressorassociation.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/DOJ-Statement-On-Suppressors-23MAY2025.pdf

[Euler]

On May 30, the plaintiffs filed a motion to admit US DOJ's brief in the 5th Circuit case US v Peterson.

A 5th Circuit panel previously held that suppressors are not protected by the 2A. Peterson filed for en banc review, which has been neither granted nor denied yet. The US DOJ filed a brief in support of the en banc review on May 23, arguing that suppressors are protected by the 2A and that a suppressor ban is unconstitutional.

[THE KING]

And now the 5th circuit withdraws their previous opinion.  👍

 

I see this as a big win for us. 

[EdDinIL]

On 5/30/2025 at 9:06 PM, Euler said:

A 5th Circuit panel previously held that suppressors are not protected by the 2A. Peterson filed for en banc review, which has been neither granted nor denied yet. The US DOJ filed a brief in support of the en banc review on May 23, arguing that suppressors are protected by the 2A and that a suppressor ban is unconstitutional.

For the TL;DW crowd:  The video discusses how 5th Circuit is withdrawing that opinion.

[aamport19]

def looking forward to this topic getting settled in the courts.

[Matt B]

A loss at the district court. Suppressors ruled as not arms within the 2A.

 

Another disappointing ruling this week from a Trump nominated judge.

[Euler]

On September 5, the court granted the defense motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case, ruling that silencers are not arms.

Order said:

...
But as useful, and maybe even sound and wise, it is to permit their possession and use, Plaintiffs have not made a plausible claim that silencers are "arms" as that term was understood in the eighteenth century. A silencer, as it is described by Plaintiffs, does not share characteristics or attributes of, or connections to, "arms" in the historical or traditional sense. In other words, they do not plausibly allege the existence of an archetypal device existing in either the eighteenth or nineteenth centuries to demonstrate prior use or understanding by those living in that time, such that the Framers would have thought them to be "arms". And, importantly, Plaintiffs offer no authority to demonstrate that because a device can accompany or be used in conjunction with the basic firearm, it is, whether attached or not, an "arm" for the purposes of the Second Amendment.
...

[Glock43]

Let’s see.

 

Suppressors are not ARMS.

 

But they are regulated by the national fireARMS act of 1934?

 

Hmmm…. 

[Euler]

The judge dealt with the assertion that silencers are defined as arms pretty briefly.

Order said:

...
Plaintiffs Morse and Buck briefly mention that the National Firearms Act defines "firearm" to include "silencer" and the Gun Control Act defines "firearm" to be "any firearm muffler or firearm silencer." ... Of course, these statutes do not suggest that Congress was adopting the definition of "silencer" to be included in the Constitution's universe of "arms." But what cannot be overlooked is the fact that the federal statutes also regulate the use of silencers. So, Congress' use of those terms does not shed helpful light on whether the Framer's would have classified silencers as "arms."
...

[ealcala31]

On 9/6/2025 at 2:39 PM, Glock43 said:

Let’s see.

 

Suppressors are not ARMS.

 

But they are regulated by the national fireARMS act of 1934?

 

Hmmm…. 

It would not benefit gun control states at all, but I hope 2A goes after the "suppressors are not arms" ruling and tries to get them bumped from the NFA.

[John Q Public]

On 9/6/2025 at 2:39 PM, Glock43 said:

Let’s see.

 

Suppressors are not ARMS.

 

But they are regulated by the national fireARMS act of 1934?

 

Hmmm…. 

In which case the could no longer be regulated by that act. The down side, they are not protected and can be regulated, state, local, fed. 

[AlphaKoncepts aka CGS]

I can not comprehend how these courts can rule like this, other than making rulings based on their opinions and feelings rather than on the Constitution and case law. 

[Euler]

In his video, Stamboulieh says that he intends to appeal by September 10, but he expects the case will have to go to the Supreme Court.

He also says that he thinks the judge wanted to rule in favor of the plaintiffs.

I suspect that the judge didn't want to get overturned on appeal, so he probably asked himself "What would Easterbrook do?"

[Molly B.]

IllinoisCarry will be contributing to the appeal and brief fees for the appeal.  If you would like to contribute to the case, please scroll up to the DONATE button at the top of the page. Be sure to put "suppressor case" in the notes section.

[AlphaKoncepts aka CGS]

USCA Case Number 25-2642 for 111 Notice of Appeal

[Euler]

On September 19, 2025 at 04:32 PM CDT, AlphaKoncepts said:→

USCA Case Number 25-2642 for 111 Notice of Appeal

docket for the referenced appeal.

It's an appeal filed by Anderson, so the docketed case is Anderson v Raoul. The court noticed that Morse did not take part in the appeal and admonished Anderson to coordinate an appeal among "all parties" in the suit.

Edited September 21, 2025 at 04:37 AM by Euler

[2smartby1/2]

Not Arms:

Considered Firearms by the Federal Government

Fall within the scope of the NFA (National Firearms Act)

Are considered prohibited WEAPONS in Illinois. 

 

But still, not Arms. 

 

😕

[Euler]

On September 22, Morse filed his appeal. (docket)

The court ordered the case consolidated with Anderson v Raoul, with Anderson as the lead. It set the following schedule.

11/03: plaintiffs' brief due
12/03: defendant's brief due
12/24: plaintiffs' reply, if any, due

The court again admonished plaintiffs to coordinate their filings among themselves. Duplicative filings will be stricken. However, each plaintiff must adopt their own jurisdictional statement (i.e., why their case belongs in this court).

[That's a pretty fast briefing schedule. Someone apparently doesn't want to waste any time (yet).]

[Tvandermyde]

My bet is that Anderson which is the ASA case wanted to get in front of Morse. They now control and have a bit more say in things

[Euler]

On November 3 in appellate court, plaintiffs filed their briefs on time.

On November 20, defendant asked for an extension to the deadline to file its brief.

On November 21, the court granted the extension and set the following schedule:

2026
01/02: defendant's brief due
01/23: plaintiffs' reply, if any, due

[Euler]

On December 18 in appellate court, the defendant asked for and extension. The court granted it. The schedule is now:

02/02: defendant's brief due
02/23: plaintiffs' reply, if any, due