The Supreme Court of the United States has agreed to answer the question Illinois gun owners have waited years to hear settled: can the government ban AR-15-style semi-automatic rifles consistent with the Second Amendment? On June 30, 2026, the Court granted certiorari in Viramontes v. Cook County and its consolidated companion Grant v. Higgins — cases challenging assault weapons bans in Illinois and Connecticut. For anyone who has followed Bevis v. City of Naperville and the PICA litigation in the Seventh Circuit, this is the moment everything we have been building toward finally comes into view.

And there is a part of this story most of the coverage will leave out — the part that matters most. Viramontes is standing in front of the Supreme Court because of my case.

Viramontes Reached the Supreme Court Through Bevis v. Naperville

Understand this clearly. When the Viramontes plaintiffs appealed Cook County's ban to the Seventh Circuit, the court did not write a fresh opinion. It ruled against them by pointing directly at my case. The Seventh Circuit held that Viramontes was foreclosed by Bevis v. City of Naperville — the 2023 decision the same court used to conclude that AR-15-style rifles fall outside Second Amendment protection. Judge Kendall ruled against me at the preliminary-injunction stage, the Seventh Circuit upheld it, and that ruling became the wall every later challenger in this circuit ran into. Viramontes hit that wall — and that is exactly what carried the question up to the highest court in the land.

Bevis is the reason Viramontes reached the Supreme Court. My fight built the road this ruling will travel on — and now the whole country is watching it play out.

So when people ask why the Supreme Court is finally engaging with the AR-15 question, the honest answer runs straight through Aurora, Illinois. The Seventh Circuit's reliance on Bevis is cited over and over in the Viramontes briefing. That is not a coincidence and it is not a footnote. It is the through-line of the entire case.

What the Court Agreed to Decide

Viramontes challenges Cook County's ban on so-called assault weapons — the same category of firearms Illinois' statewide PICA law bans everywhere in this state. Grant v. Higgins challenges Connecticut's version. The Court consolidated them, which means it intends to issue a definitive ruling on whether semi-automatic rifles — including the AR-15 — are protected arms under the Second Amendment. This is not a procedural detour. This is the merits. The Court is going to answer the question directly: can states ban the most popular rifle in America?

Whatever the Supreme Court decides lands directly on top of PICA — and directly on top of my case. The Seventh Circuit, where Bevis v. Naperville and Barnett v. Raoul are pending, will align its own proceedings around that ruling. That is standard when the Supreme Court takes a case controlling the exact question below.

Why I Believe This Ban Is Nearly Over

Let me say plainly what I believe. By this time next year, I expect this entire assault weapons ban to be finished. I believe the Supreme Court is going to rule that banning AR-15s and other so-called assault weapons is unconstitutional. Every honest reading of Heller, Bruen, and the historical record points in one direction, and the Court does not take a case like this to leave the question muddy.

Heller told us that arms in common use for lawful purposes are protected. There are an estimated 20 to 24 million AR-15-style rifles in civilian hands in the United States. If that is not common use, the phrase has no meaning. Upholding these bans requires showing a historical tradition of similar regulation reaching back to the founding — and no one has produced that history, because it does not exist. Governments in 1791 did not ban the standard infantry arm of the day from civilian ownership. The State knows this. That is why its lawyers have spent years trying to re-categorize the question rather than answer it.

When the Ban Falls, the Accounting Begins

Here is what the City of Naperville needs to understand. The day the Supreme Court declares these bans unconstitutional is not the end of my fight with the City. It is the beginning of the next chapter — the accounting for what they did to my family and my business.

Once the courts confirm that Naperville deprived me of a constitutional right, the door opens to a federal civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 — the statute that lets a citizen recover when a government, acting under color of law, strips them of a right secured by the Constitution. Law Weapons is not a hobby. It is my family's livelihood, built over decades and run alongside my wife and my children. This ban did real, documented, measurable harm, and I intend to pursue every dollar of it. That includes:

●        Lost profits and lost business income — the sales driven out of Naperville during every month this ban was in force.

●        Lost inventory value — lawful property rendered unsellable overnight by government action, without a cent of compensation.

●        The cost of relocating to Aurora — the buildout, the move, and the disruption forced on us to keep the doors open and save the business.

●        Escalated rent and operating costs — the higher cost of our new facility, a burden this ban put on my family.

●        Damage to Law Weapons' reputation — the harm done to a company publicly branded over products that were lawful all along.

●        Lost workdays and lost capacity — the time and productive capacity stolen from me and from this business.

●        The personal toll — the physical and human cost this fight has extracted from me and from those I love.

And I want to be clear about who answers for this. I intend to hold the City of Naperville fully accountable, and I intend to pursue the officials responsible for their conduct in enacting and enforcing this ban — individually, to the full extent the law allows. This was not an act of nature. It was a choice made by identifiable people, and choices have consequences.

We will never stop fighting. Not after the heart attack, not after the move, not after everything they have put my family through. Never.

A Word to the City of Naperville

Here is the practical reality Naperville's leadership should be weighing right now, before the Supreme Court rules. Every month this plays out, the number gets bigger. The lost profits keep accruing. The reputational harm keeps compounding. And the legal fees keep climbing — the attorney's-fee exposure alone in a prevailing civil-rights case is recoverable under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and could reach into the millions of dollars on its own, on top of every category of damages above.

I am a reasonable man, and I have always been willing to do business honestly. If the City of Naperville were to come to the table now with a fair and reasonable settlement, I would be willing to resolve this — and to end the matter cleanly, before the far larger bill comes due at the end of this road. A settlement reached today would spare the City the compounding damages, the escalating fees, and the years of litigation still ahead. That window does not stay open forever. Once the Supreme Court rules and the accounting begins in full, the terms will not be as favorable as they could be right now.

That is not a threat. It is math, and it is fair warning offered in good faith. The choice belongs to Naperville.

Where Things Stand Today

●        SCOTUS granted cert in Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins on June 30, 2026 — a definitive ruling on the AR-15 question is now coming.

●        Viramontes reached the Court through Bevis — the Seventh Circuit ruled against those plaintiffs on the strength of my case.

●        Bevis v. Naperville and Barnett v. Raoul remain active in the Seventh Circuit and will align with the Supreme Court's decision.

●        The DOJ amicus brief supporting the plaintiffs remains on the record — federal backing for this constitutional challenge.

●        The accounting is coming — a full civil-rights damages action against the City of Naperville and the officials responsible awaits the ruling we expect.

If you are an Illinois gun owner wondering whether to visit our store or come see us in Aurora, know this: the law has not changed today, but the ground has shifted hard in our favor, and we are more confident than we have ever been. Stay informed, stand firm, and talk to a qualified attorney about your own situation.

This is the ruling my case has pointed toward from the very beginning. The road the Supreme Court is about to travel was paved, in part, by Bevis v. Naperville — and when the Court reaches the end of it, Illinois gun owners will finally have the answer they have deserved all along. My family paid for this fight in ways most people will never see. We are going to win it. And we are going to see it through to the very end.

We owe our customers the truth and the fight. Both continue — and we will never stop.

— Robert Bevis, Law Weapons & Supply