The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has laid waste to California’s ridiculous “one-gun-per-month” law in yet another victory for gun rights.
The law, passed in 2019, prohibited individuals from purchasing more than one handgun or semi-automatic rifle within a 30-day period. The court had declared that the law violated the Second Amendment because the state “has not demonstrated that the one-gun-per-month law is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” …
The plaintiffs included six individuals who were supported by several gun rights organizations. They argued that the law placed an unconstitutional burden on their right to keep and bear arms. The court concurred, explaining, “We have not identified any historical tradition of banning the purchase of more than one firearm within a given time period.” The panel further stressed that “the Second Amendment protects the right to acquire arms, not merely to posssess them.”
Since California decided against seeking a rehearing, the court issued its final order on Thursday. “California’s law restricts the right of law-abiding citizens to acquire firearms for lawful purposes, including self-defense.”
What is noteworthy about this development is that it marks “the first time a panel of this Court has invalidated a gun control measure under the Second Amendment without the full Court subsequently reversing or modifying the decision en banc.”
— Jeff Charles in Gavin Newsom and His Hair Gel Aren’t Going to Be Happy About This Appeals Court Ruling
Even if we buy into the bullshit that is “founding era” precedent beating an absolute no: In the founding era, it was routine and expected to buy handguns as a set.
This is a good start, but with an 11% excise tax on top of sales tax, transfer fees, and the DROS fee of $37, it takes a rich man to afford more than one at a time.