In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals delivered a resounding victory for individual rights, unanimously reaffirming a lower court’s judgment that California’s “one‑gun‑per‑month” law is firmly unconstitutional.
The case—Nguyen v. Bonta—was brought by a coalition of individual plaintiffs and pro-Second Amendment organizations, including the Firearms Policy Coalition and the Second Amendment Foundation.
The plaintiffs challenged California’s draconian law, which prohibits law-abiding citizens from purchasing more than one firearm within any 30-day period, according to Breitbart.
Judge Danielle J. Forrest, joined by Bridget S. Bade and John B. Owens, delivered a plain-text, history-grounded dismissal of the law.
Writing for the majority, Judge Forrest stated:
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.
The court concluded that the government cannot limit the frequency of a citizen’s right to acquire firearms—comparing it to limiting free speech to one protest per month or religious freedom to one worship service a month.
The opinion rejected California’s typical defense that its law was meant to prevent so-called “straw purchases” and illegal gun trafficking.
The court found that there is “no historical cousin” to California’s one-gun-a-month scheme. The decision emphasized that nothing in America’s constitutional tradition justifies this kind of blanket limitation.
Following the victory, one of the plaintiffs, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), issued the following press release:
SAF is joined in the case by the Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc., and San Diego County Gun Owners PAC, two FFL gun dealers, and six private citizens including Michelle Nguyen, for whom the case is named.
“Today’s decision claws back a portion of Second Amendment rights stolen by California’s government,” said SAF Executive 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.”
The lawsuit challenges the California statute that only allows for the purchase of one handgun or semi-automatic centerfire rifle (or combination thereof), from a licensed dealer within a 30-day period. SAF secured a summary judgment win at the district court, which California then appealed to the Ninth Circuit. Today’s decision affirms SAF’s district win and strikes down the gun rationing law as impermissible under the Second Amendment.
“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 Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “This ruling is a victory for all who believe in the fundamental right to keep and bear arms, and we look forward to continuing to restore the Second Amendment rights of people across the nation through our more than 55 active cases.”
The post Ninth Circuit Unanimously Upholds Second Amendment Foundation Victory Over California’s Unconstitutional “One-Gun‑Per‑Month” Rationing Law appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
