On Thursday, August 14, 2025, the Federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has issued its mandate striking down California’s “one-gun-per-month” purchase restriction law. This was noteworthy as it was the first time the notoriously liberal 9th Circuit has issued a final judgment striking down a law as unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. This follows CA Attorney General Bonta declining to ask the 9th Circuit to rehear the case en banc (i.e. with full panel of all judges).

“California has managed to do what many thought impossible: violate the Second Amendment so blatantly that even the Ninth Circuit won’t uphold it”, explained FPC Action Foundation President Cody J. Wisniewski, counsel for FPC. “We are proud to have secured the rights of peaceable people and look forward to many more wins against California’s unconstitutional laws.”

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 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.