Bevis v. City of Naperville: Challenging the Ban at the Municipal Level

Bevis v. City of Naperville is a Second Amendment challenge that began as a dispute over the City of Naperville's local assault weapons ordinance and expanded to encompass Illinois's statewide Protect Illinois Communities Act (PICA). At the preliminary-injunction stage, the case was heard alongside other PICA challenges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The Supreme Court denied review of the preliminary-injunction ruling in July 2024. Bevis was not part of the merits appeal decided in Barnett v. Raoul on July 9, 2026.^[2]

Origins of the Case

Robert Bevis, the owner of Law Weapons & Supply, a gun store in Naperville, Illinois, filed suit challenging Naperville's municipal assault weapons ban shortly after the city council passed the ordinance. Naperville's ordinance, enacted before the statewide PICA ban, prohibits the commercial sale of assault rifles within city limits. Bevis argued that the ordinance violates the Second Amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court in NYSRPA v. Bruen (2022), which requires the government to justify firearms regulations by reference to the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.^[2]

As a firearms retailer directly affected by the ban, Bevis had clear standing to challenge the ordinance. The bans restricted his store's sales of semiautomatic rifles and related accessories, and Illinois's ban also restricted sales of large-capacity magazines. Bevis alleged that the restrictions harmed his business and prevented sales to his customers. The case was initially filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

Seventh Circuit Panel Decision

In November 2023, a three-judge panel of the Seventh Circuit (Judges Wood, Easterbrook, and Brennan) denied a preliminary injunction in a 2-1 decision. The majority held that the assault weapons bans were likely constitutional, reasoning that particularly dangerous weapons have historically been subject to regulation. The majority opinion drew on historical examples of weapons regulations, including colonial restrictions on discharging firearms and 19th-century restrictions on Bowie knives and carrying concealable weapons, as analogues supporting the modern bans.^[1]

Judge Brennan authored a forceful dissent arguing that the majority's interpretation of the Second Amendment was too "cramped" and that the banned weapons are plainly covered by the constitutional text. The dissent contended that semiautomatic rifles are among the most popular firearms in America, with millions in circulation, and that banning them cannot be justified under Bruen's historical test. Brennan argued that the historical analogues cited by the majority were not sufficiently comparable to a categorical ban on an entire class of commonly owned firearms.^[1]

Consolidation and District Court Injunction

At the preliminary-injunction stage, the Seventh Circuit heard Bevis alongside parallel suits challenging PICA, including Barnett v. Raoul and Harrel v. Raoul, and resolved the injunction appeals in a single November 2023 opinion covering both the municipal and state-level bans. The later merits appeal consolidated Barnett with Harrel, Langley v. Kelly, and Federal Firearms Licensees of Illinois v. Pritzker, and did not include Bevis.^[2]

On November 8, 2024, the district court in the Barnett litigation issued a permanent statewide injunction against the assault weapons ban, the magazine capacity limits, and the registration scheme, but stayed the injunction for thirty days. An amended judgment was entered on December 9, 2024. The Seventh Circuit stayed the injunction in December 2024 and reversed it outright on July 9, 2026, upholding PICA and directing judgment for the defendants. Those rulings came in the Barnett consolidation, in which Bevis was not a party.

Municipal vs. State-Level Implications

The Bevis case raises distinct questions about the relationship between municipal and state-level firearms regulations in Illinois. Illinois preempts local firearms regulation in defined areas. 430 ILCS 66/90 makes handgun and handgun-ammunition regulation of licensees an exclusive state power, while 430 ILCS 65/13.1(c) preserves local assault weapons ordinances enacted on, before, or within 10 days after the July 9, 2013 effective date. Highland Park's ordinance was enacted in 2013, and Naperville enacted its assault rifle sales ordinance on August 16, 2022.^[1]

The Seventh Circuit's July 9, 2026 decision in the Barnett consolidation upheld the statewide ban and directed judgments for the defendants in the four consolidated cases. That appeal concerned PICA rather than the municipal ordinances. The remaining open question sits with the U.S. Supreme Court, which scheduled argument for December 2, 2026 after granting certiorari on June 30, 2026 in Viramontes v. Cook County, consolidated with Grant v. Higgins, on whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee the right to possess AR-15 platform and similar semiautomatic rifles.

Current Status

The Supreme Court denied review of the preliminary-injunction ruling in July 2024. The separate Barnett consolidation was argued before the Seventh Circuit on September 22, 2025 and decided on July 9, 2026, when the court upheld PICA 2-1 and reversed the district court judgments. Naperville's local ordinance and Illinois's statewide ban both remain in effect.^[2]