This is completely unrelated to HR 218.
The court order covered guns, vehicles, computers, and other personal property. As soon as the order was issued, the prosecutor went to the Illinois State Police and had Peterson's FOID revoked, so as of now it appears he will get back his computers, vehicles and other property, but NOT his firearms.
I don't remember the exact language of HR 218, so I don't know if a retired police officer in Illinois can own (or go out and buy) a firearm without a FOID based on HR 218, or that only allows him to carry an Illinois-legal handgun when in other states. I think it's the latter.
Scumbag or not, this order was made on the basis that the police and prosecutors had no valid legal basis on which to deprive him of his personal property. It was not in any way based on HR 218. Remember that little part of the Bill of Rights regarding "unreasonable search and seizure"? I'd guess that's what the court was looking at. In essence, telling the prosecutors to either charge the man with something or else give him back his toys.