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.
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[.]”
In the case of Nguyen v. Bonta, plaintiffs have been granted summary judgment in a federal challenge of California’s One-Gun-A-Month (OGM) purchase law. This is a major win for gun rights in California. Under current California law, even after passing multiple background checks, a California citizen may only purchase one firearm every 30 days. This violates the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, argued plaintiffs lead by the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF). U.S. District Judge William Q. Hayes agreed, granting plaintiffs summary judgement, which is essentially a case victory based on legal principles. However, Judge Hayes, stayed his decision for 30 days to allow defendants to appeal. The case will probably be appealed by California to the liberal-leaning 9th Circuit.
In his 24-page decision, Federal District Court Judge Hayes wrote, “Defendants have not met their burden of producing a ‘well-established and representative historical analogue’ to the OGM law. The Court therefore concludes that Plaintiffs are entitled to summary judgment as to the constitutionality of the OGM law under the Second Amendment.”
“The state of California tried to justify the OGM law in part on the grounds that it is a lawful regulation imposing conditions on the commercial sale of arms,” noted SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “However, there is nothing in the Second Amendment remotely connected to limiting the number of firearms a person can purchase. This limitation is blatantly unconstitutional, and if this ruling is appealed by the State of California, we intend to defend the lower court’s correct decision.”
“This is a win for gun rights and California gun owners”, said Alan M. Gottlieb, SAF founder and Executive Vice President. “There is no historical justification for limiting law-abiding citizens to a single handgun or rifle purchase during a one-month period, and Judge Hayes’ ruling clearly points that out.”
SAF is joined by the North County Shooting Center, San Diego County Gun Owners Pac, PWGG, LP, Firearms Policy Coalition and six private citizens including Michelle Nguyen, for whom the case is named. They are represented by attorney Raymond M. DiGuiseppe of Southport, N.C. The case was filed in December 2020 and is known as Nguyen v. Bonta.
Story based on 3/28/20 report by Ammoland.com.
The Department of Homeland Security has declared firearms manufacturers and retailers “essential businesses”. This is very important because many states, including California and New York, have issued Executive Orders which have shuttered gun stores and halted the operations of FFLs. The DHS statement should, hopefully, lead to changes in state and regional emergency orders requiring gun shops to close.
Legal Actions to Counter Closures of Retail Gun Stores and FFLs
On Friday, 3/28/20, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) joined forces with the NRA, California Gun Rights Foundation and several others in a federal lawsuit against Gov. Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles County Sheriff Alex Villanueva. They are also alleged to be using the COVID-19 pandemic to close down gun stores.
Comment: In California, all the gun shops have closed, yet Marijuana Dispensaries and Vape Shops remain open as “essential businesses”. That shows you Gov. Newsom’s priorities — recreational drugs are good, while guns are bad. The California Governor is exploiting this crisis to harm the gun industry and put gunshop owners out of business. And in Washington state, Gov. Jay Inslee’s emergency order listed employees at marijuana shops, breweries and winemaking facilities as part of the essential workforce, but omitted firearm and ammunition retailers and distributors.
The same day (3/28/20) in North Carolina, SAF and FPC filed a federal lawsuit against Wake County Sheriff Gerald M. Baker for refusing to accept new applications for pistol purchase permits or concealed handgun permits until April 30, 2020, using the COVID-19 outbreak as justification.
Previously, the SAF filed a lawsuit challenging New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy’s order shutting down firearms dealers. In Kashinsky v. Murphy, the SAF is joined by the New Jersey Second Amendment Society in alleging violation of “civil rights under color of law” by shutting down firearms dealerships, preventing citizens and businesses from exercising their rights under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.
This story is based on an article created by Dave Workman for Ammoland.com, which states: “Readers, please share this article with your state, local and federal representatives, police departments and sheriffs as well local firearms retailers to make them aware of the new guidance so we can get our local business back to work and fellow Americans the products they need to remain safe.“
