Ninth Circuit Panel Unanimously Rules California’s One Gun a Month Purchase Limit is Unconstitutional

It’s been an interesting week for the Ninth Circus. First they slapped down a former Supreme Court Justice’s brother’s attempt to take control of the California National Guard away from the President of the United states. Today, in another 3-0 panel opinion, the court has ruled that limiting Californians to purchasing only one gun a month is a violation of their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

The case, Nguyen v. Bonta, was brought by the Firearms Policy Coalition, the Second Amendment Foundation and others. In the court’s opinion . . .

Affirming the district court’s summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs, the panel held that California’s “one-guna-month” law, which prohibits most people from buying more than one firearm in a 30-day period, facially violates the Second Amendment.

Applying New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the panel first asked whether the Second Amendment’s plain text covers the regulated conduct. If so, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. That presumption can be overcome only if historical precedent from before, during, and even after the founding evinces a comparable tradition of regulation.

The panel held that California’s law is facially unconstitutional because the plain text of the Second Amendment protects the possession of multiple firearms and protects against meaningful constraints on the acquisition of firearms through purchase.

Next, the panel held that California’s law is not supported by this nation’s tradition of firearms regulation. Bruen requires a “historical analogue,” not a “historical twin,” for a modern firearm regulation to pass muster. Here, the historical record does not even establish a historical cousin for California’s one-gun-a-month law.

Concurring, Judge Owens wrote separately to note that the panel’s opinion only concerns California’s “one-gun-amonth” law. It does not address other means of restricting bulk and straw purchasing of firearms, which this nation’s tradition of firearm regulation may support.

Then there’s this from FPC . . .

Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced a resounding 3-0 victory over California’s “one-gun-per-month” gun ban law in a new Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision.

“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 Judge Forrest in the Court’s decision, which was joined by Judges Owens and Bade.

“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.”

Individuals who want to support this victory and FPC’s work to eliminate unconstitutional laws across the United States can join the FPC Grassroots Army at JoinFPC.org.

The opinion in Nguyen v. Bonta can be viewed at firearmspolicy.org/nguyen. The Nguyen case is part of FPC’s high-impact strategic litigation program, FPC Law, aimed at eliminating immoral laws and creating a world of maximal liberty. FPC thanks FPC Action Foundation for its strategic support of this FPC Law case.