Illinois: Are Suppressors Protected by the Second Amendment?

AmmoLand ^ | July 31, 2023 | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, on November 25, 2022, Larry Morse and Theodore Ray Buck, Jr. filed a lawsuit against the state of Illinois, claiming the state ban on the sale and possession of silencers violates the Second Amendment. A similar lawsuit was filed by Carlin Anderson and David Clark on February 27, 2023, backed by the American Suppressor Association. The two lawsuits, Morse v Raoul and Anderson v Raoul, have been consolidated as of June 15, 2023. The parties involved have agreed the principle area of contention is whether silencers are arms protected by the Second Amendment. Morse and other plaintiffs claim silencers are obviously bearable arms and are in common use, so they cannot be banned from ownership as they are in Illinois. Here are excerpts from the pleading in Morse v. Raoul. From courlistener.com:

29. As of 2020, there were 2,042,719 suppressors owned by law abiding citizens as registered in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record (“NFRTR”), far more than was needed for the DC Circuit to find AR-15s in common use. And that is despite legal impediments to owning a silencer, including the National Firearms Act requirements—paying a $200 transfer tax, submitting a detailed application and fingerprints, and a multi months-long wait for the federal government to process the application. See26 U.S.C. § 5811. Even arms that are far less common have been found to be protected.

Plaintiffs point out that silencers are used for numerous lawful purposes. From the complaint:

33. And the primary purpose of suppressors are for lawful purposes, including hunting, which Heller v. District of Columbia, 399 U.S. App. D.C. 314, 331, 670 F.3d 1244, 1261 (2011) holds is part

[Bonemaker]

The usual filthy suspect states forbid.

[zeugma]

The U.S. v Miller, revisited (JPFO, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership)

You might also want to take a look at this:
https://www.zeugmaweb.net/legal/miller.html

It covers most of the relevant documents to the case that still exist.

[Bounced2X]

You might also want to take a look at this: https://www.zeugmaweb.net/legal/miller.html

Thanks. Going to read later. Quick scroll down shows A LOT of material.

[Bonemaker]

“Silencers are not firearms.”

But yet the Union government has treated them as such since 1934.

[nagant]

“Silencers are not firearms.”

But yet the Union government has treated them as such since 1934.
~~~~~~~~

Apparently the 1968 Gun Control Act redefined the 1934 National Firearms Act definition of “firearm” to exclude parts of firearms.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thCB6quBVNk