Morse v Raoul (IL Suppressor Ban)

[Dan The Man]

Thank you for the updates

[Euler]

On January 20 in appellate court, Raoul requested an extension to respond.

On January 23, the court granted an extension to March 4.

On February 18, Raoul requested an extension to respond. Anderson and Morse objected.

On February 19, the court granted an extension, but stated that Raoul will not get any more extensions. The schedule is now:

04/03: defendant's brief due
04/24: plaintiffs' reply, if any, due

Edited February 22, 2026 at 03:36 AM by Euler

[aamport19]

appreciate the update!

[Euler]

On March 27 in appellate court, Raoul requested another extension.

On March 30, the court granted the extension (so much for Raoul not getting any more extensions, but this time there really, really won't be any more extensions). The schedule is now:

05/04: defendant's brief due
05/26: plaintiffs' reply, if any, due

[2smartby1/2]

Was there a brief on 5/4?

[Vodoun da Vinci]

On 4/16/2026 at 9:54 AM, 2smartby1/2 said:

Was there a brief on 5/4?

 

Patience, my friend. It's only April yet. 

 

I'm curious about how this might work with PICA - if we regain our right to own suppressors in Illinois, but threaded barrels to accept them are banned as "assault weapon" attachments, how is this going to work? Not that I expect we will get suppressors in Illinois but I'm really curious.

 

VooDoo

[ealcala31]

On 4/16/2026 at 12:19 PM, Vodoun da Vinci said:

 

Patience, my friend. It's only April yet. 

 

I'm curious about how this might work with PICA - if we regain our right to own suppressors in Illinois, but threaded barrels to accept them are banned as ""assault weapon"" attachments, how is this going to work? Not that I expect we will get suppressors in Illinois but I'm really curious.

 

VooDoo

Threaded barrels are legal for rifles, just not handguns.

[davel501]

On 4/16/2026 at 12:39 PM, ealcala31 said:

Threaded barrels are legal for rifles, just not handguns.

Have a citation for that? 

[Euler]

On April 16, 2026 at 02:15 PM CDT, davel501 said:→

Have a citation for that?

720 ILGA 5/24-1.9(a)(1)(C)(i)

[ealcala31]

On 4/16/2026 at 12:19 PM, Vodoun da Vinci said:

 

Patience, my friend. It's only April yet. 

 

I'm curious about how this might work with PICA - if we regain our right to own suppressors in Illinois, but threaded barrels to accept them are banned as """assault weapon""" attachments, how is this going to work? Not that I expect we will get suppressors in Illinois but I'm really curious.

 

VooDoo

 

On 4/16/2026 at 12:39 PM, ealcala31 said:

Threaded barrels are legal for rifles, just not handguns.

Just to piggyback off of this, as Illinoisans, we are ignorant to suppressors, suppressor adapters, suppressor mounts, etc. its a whole new world. So, my 1st business suppressor purchase was for a rifle, not a handgun. Rifles are more FUN! But to get back to say we get suppressors first, b4 PICA gets overturned, the Ruger Marks (take your pick) can be integrally suppressed. There are 07 Manufacturers w/CL II SOT that make their money integrally suppressing multiple handguns and rifles. Pinning & welding them, just as popular. Once that is done, the threaded barrel will be p&w, you'll be in compliance. Now, with the ability to shoot...quietly. Watch out for those squirrels!

Edited April 18, 2026 at 08:50 PM by ealcala31

[SiliconSorcerer]

I think the only factory integrally suppressed marks were the II for military use and they are hard to come by.  If this state didn't suck I could have had one. 

Factory or not a II or a IV would be nice.  I don't like IIIs 

[Euler]

On March 30, 2026 at 08:25 PM CDT, Euler said:→

...
On March 30, the court granted the extension (so much for Raoul not getting any more extensions, but this time there really, really won't be any more extensions). The schedule is now:

05/04: defendant's brief due
05/26: plaintiffs' reply, if any, due

On May 4, Raoul et al. filed their briefs.

[Euler]

On May 4 in appellate court, Sean Featherstun (State's Attorney for Jefferson County) and Theodore Hampson (State's Attorney for Williamson County) DID NOT submit briefs as co-defendants in this case.

On May 18, the court ordered Featherstun and Hampson to show cause by June 1 why a decision in this case should not be rendered without their participation in briefing or argument. (In other words, the court is going to proceed without them, unless they give a really good reason why it shouldn't.) Meanwhile, the briefing schedule is suspended (i.e., plaintiff's brief is not due on May 26 as previously scheduled).

Featherstun and Hampson are probably only listed as defendants, because Jefferson and Williamson are where the plaintiffs live. They'd probably like to see plaintiffs win.