And another one goes down. A U.S. District judge has struck down California’s one-gun-a-month purchase limit law on summary judgement. The Golden State’s gun control law was such a clear and obvious violation of the plaintiffs’ Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms that Judge William Hayes didn’t bother with taking the matter to trial.
Then again, when the state is basing its Bruen-mandated historical justification of purchase limits on race-based restrictions on selling guns to American Indians, you know the California DOJ had nothin’.
You can read Judge Hayes’ full ruling here. The Second Amendment Foundation, which was a plaintiff along with the FPC and a number of individuals, released this statement . . .
The Second Amendment Foundation has been granted summary judgement in a federal challenge of California’s One-Gun-A-Month (OGM) purchase law.
U.S. District Judge William Q. Hayes stayed his decision for 30 days for the defendants to facilitate an appeal.
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.
“This is a win for gun rights and California gun owners,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “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.”
“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,” added 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.”
In his 24-page decision, 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.”
5 Responses
It’s a game. They’ll do anything to try and harm the other team.
“Team A scores goals; Team B can never score goals, but celebrates ‘victory’ every time the ref tells A not to score any more goals for a while” isn’t much of a game.
Just one more court ruling to be ignored by the liberal/progressive democrat in control of Commiefornia. Just like they ignore the Constitution or any law that doesn’t support their ideology. As Allowed.
“The Golden State’s gun control law was such a clear and obvious violation of the plaintiffs’ Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms that Judge William Hayes didn’t bother with taking the matter to trial.”
Start dropping more 2A cases in Judge William Hayes’s lap, post-haste… 😉
The ruling is stayed for 30 days (irony) so nothing changes for the better. The state will appeal to the 9th circuit, which will grant the appeal and extend the stay indefinitely and then reverse the decision. The Supreme Court will do nothing. Sorry to be cynical and rain on the party but that’s how it works.