9th Circuit Rules CA One-Gun-Per-Month Law Is Unconstitutional
California “1-in-30″ Firearm Ban Struck Down in Ninth Circuit Decision
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that a California law restricting gun purchases to just one every 30 days is absolutely unconstitutional. With a unanimous 3-0 decision, a Ninth Circuit panel held that California’s “one-gun-per-month” gun ban law clearly violates the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The full Ninth Circuit ruling in Nguyen v. Bonta can be viewed at firearmspolicy.org/nguyen.
“California has a ‘one-gun-a-month’ law that prohibits most people from buying more than one firearm in a 30-day period. The district court held that this law violates the Second Amendment. We affirm. California’s law is facially unconstitutional because possession of multiple firearms and the ability to acquire firearms through purchase without meaningful constraints are protected by the Second Amendment and California’s law is not supported by our nation’s tradition of firearms regulation”, wrote Ninth Circuit Judge Forrest. At the end of the 24-page decision, Judge Forest added: “The Second Amendment expressly protects the right to possess multiple arms. It also protects against meaningful constraints on the right to acquire arms because otherwise the right to ‘keep and bear’ would be hollow.”
Plaintiffs in the case included two FFL gun dealers, the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), San Diego County Gun Owners PAC, and six private citizens including Michelle Nguyen, for whom the case is named.
The Nguyen v. Bonta lawsuit challenged the California statute that only allows for the purchase of one handgun or semi-automatic centerfire rifle, from a licensed dealer within a 30-day period. Plaintiffs secured a summary judgment win at the District Court, which California then appealed to the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court decision, striking down the gun rationing law as impermissible under the Second Amendment.
READ FPC Report | READ SAF Report | READ CRPA Report
Firearms Policy Coalition Praises Result
“As this decision shows, the right to keep and bear arms cannot be limited by an arbitrary cap on the number of guns that can be acquired at one time”, explained FPC President Brandon Combs. “We have a right to buy more than one gun at a time just as we have a right to buy more than one bible at a time. FPC is proud to have secured the rights of peaceable people and will continue to fight forward until we eliminate immoral laws like this everywhere.”
Second Amendment Foundation Predicts Progress in Fighting California Gun Laws
“Today’s decision claws back a portion of Second Amendment rights stolen by California’s government”, said SAF Exec. Director Adam Kraut. “California’s one-gun-per-month law was in clear violation of the Second Amendment, as affirmed by the unanimous decision in the Ninth Circuit. This ruling is one step closer to liberating the people of the state from the totalitarian ideals of those in power who believe the right to keep and bear arms is a second-class right.”
“There was no doubt the one-gun-per-month restriction was put in place to circumvent the ability of citizens to exercise their full Second Amendment rights,” said SAF founder and Exec. V.P. Alan M. Gottlieb. “This ruling is a victory for all who believe in the fundamental right to keep and bear arms[.]”
Similar Posts:
- Federal Ninth Circuit Court Strikes Down CA Gun Purchase Limit
- Ninth Circuit Strikes Down California Concealed Carry Restrictions
- Big Gun Rights Victory in California One-Gun-A-Month Challenge
- Landmark Gun Rights Case Headed to U.S. Supreme Court
- 9th Circuit Strikes Down California Age-Based Semi-automatic Rifle Ban
Tags: Constitutional Law, Firearm Policy Coalition, FPC, Nguyen v. Bonta, SAF, Second Amendment Foundation
