Supreme Court orders in Gardiner v. Maryland — impact on Illinois

AURORA, IL — The Supreme Court released orders this week in two significant Second Amendment cases: Gardiner v. Maryland and Peterson v. United States. While these cases don't directly involve Illinois, the Court's handling of them sends signals that could impact our ongoing fight against the state's PICA rifle and magazine ban.

What the Supreme Court actually did in Gardiner v. Maryland

The Gardiner case challenged Maryland's assault weapons ban — similar to the PICA ban we're fighting here in Illinois. The Supreme Court's order in this case provides insight into how the justices are viewing state-level rifle bans in the aftermath of their Bruen decision.

From behind the counter at my shop in Aurora, customers ask me every day whether the Supreme Court will take up cases like ours. The Gardiner order gives us clues about their thinking, even if they didn't grant full review.

Peterson v. United States and NFA implications

The Peterson case involves National Firearms Act issues, which touches on federal regulation of firearms and accessories. While this doesn't directly affect the rifles and magazines Illinois banned under PICA, it demonstrates the Court's continued engagement with Second Amendment questions.

The key point: The Supreme Court is actively working through how Bruen's "text, history, and tradition" standard applies to different types of firearm regulations.

What this means for Bevis v. Naperville and Illinois gun owners

Our case — Bevis v. City of Naperville — is currently before the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The DOJ filed an amicus brief supporting our position, and attorney Harmeet Dhillon argued on behalf of the federal government that Illinois' ban violates the Second Amendment.

These Supreme Court orders matter because they show the Court remains engaged with assault weapons bans and federal firearms regulations. The justices are watching how lower courts apply Bruen, and they're not finished with Second Amendment jurisprudence.

As of today, we're still waiting for the Seventh Circuit's decision in our case. But every signal from the Supreme Court reinforces what we've argued from the beginning: a firearm that can't function as designed is not a meaningful right.

Where we stand as Illinois gun owners

The PICA ban continues to hammer businesses like mine and restrict the rights of law-abiding Illinois residents. We relocated from Naperville to Aurora because of these restrictions, but we didn't quit fighting.

The Supreme Court's continued engagement with Second Amendment cases — whether they grant review or not — keeps pressure on lower courts to follow Bruen correctly. That works in our favor as we challenge Illinois' overreach.

These aren't abstract legal concepts. Every day, customers walk into Law Weapons asking when they'll be able to purchase the rifles and magazines Illinois banned. These Supreme Court orders don't give us a timeline, but they confirm we're on the right legal track.

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