Fifth Circuit machine gun ruling impacts Illinois PICA cases

AURORA, IL — The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals just denied rehearing en banc in US v. Wilson, a machine gun ban case that's sending ripples through Second Amendment litigation nationwide. While this case deals with fully automatic weapons, the multiple opinions from federal judges signal a constitutional shift that could directly impact our fight against Illinois' PICA rifle and magazine ban in the Seventh Circuit.

What the Fifth Circuit actually decided in US v. Wilson

The court denied a request for the full Fifth Circuit to rehear the Wilson machine gun case, but that's not the real story. The real story is in the opinions that came with that denial. Multiple federal judges wrote separate opinions questioning the constitutionality of machine gun prohibitions under the Supreme Court's Bruen standard — the same constitutional test that applies to our Bevis v. Naperville case challenging Illinois' assault weapons ban.

When federal appellate judges start questioning decades-old gun prohibitions using Bruen's "text, history, and tradition" test, it creates precedent that lawyers in other circuits pay very close attention to. The attorneys fighting Illinois' PICA ban in the Seventh Circuit are undoubtedly studying these Wilson opinions right now.

Why machine gun opinions matter for Illinois rifle bans

Here's what customers at my shop in Aurora need to understand: constitutional challenges to gun laws don't happen in isolation. When federal judges write opinions questioning the government's authority to ban entire categories of firearms, those legal arguments carry over to other cases involving other categories of weapons.

The State of Illinois has been arguing that so-called "assault weapons" and standard-capacity magazines fall into some special category of firearms that supposedly gets less constitutional protection. But if federal judges are applying strict scrutiny to machine gun bans — weapons that are far more regulated than the rifles Illinois banned under PICA — that undermines Illinois' entire legal strategy.

The constitutional principles don't change based on which specific firearm the government wants to ban. Either the Second Amendment protects commonly-owned firearms for lawful purposes, or it doesn't.

How this connects to Bevis v. Naperville in the Seventh Circuit

Our case challenging Illinois' PICA ban is currently before the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The DOJ filed an amicus brief supporting our position, and their attorney Harmeet Dhillon argued at oral argument that Illinois' ban violates the Second Amendment under Bruen.

When courts in other circuits start questioning similar prohibitions — even on different categories of firearms — it creates momentum. The lawyers representing gun owners in Seventh Circuit PICA cases will cite these Fifth Circuit opinions to argue that federal courts are recognizing the constitutional problems with categorical firearm bans.

The timing matters too. We're expecting a Seventh Circuit decision in the coming months, and federal judges don't make these rulings in a vacuum. They're aware of what their colleagues on other courts are saying about similar constitutional questions.

What this means for Illinois gun owners today

Right now, PICA is still being enforced while our case works through the courts. But developments like the Wilson opinions show that the constitutional landscape is shifting in favor of Second Amendment rights. Federal judges appointed by different presidents are reaching similar conclusions: the government can't simply declare entire categories of commonly-owned firearms to be outside constitutional protection.

For my customers buying firearms in Illinois, this is another sign that we're on the right side of the Constitution and the right side of history. The Supreme Court's Bruen decision didn't just change one case — it changed the entire framework that federal courts use to evaluate gun laws.

As of today, we're still waiting for the Seventh Circuit's decision in our case. But every federal opinion that applies Bruen strictly and questions categorical firearm bans strengthens our position. We refused to roll over when Naperville banned rifles, we moved our business to Aurora rather than surrender, and we intend to win this fight.

We keep watching. We keep fighting. And we keep serving the people who refuse to be treated like second-class citizens for exercising a constitutional right.

— Robert Bevis, Law Weapons & Supply