The [Ninth Circuit] concluded that “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.” The law runs afoul of such considerations.
The June decision made it clear California’s law couldn’t pass constitutional muster. Last week’s mandate put the ruling into effect with the end of appeals and hearings, sealing the law’s fate. The law’s prospects in further litigation certainly looked dim given Supreme Court precedent.
“The decision in Nguyen v. Bonta is both an unusual example of the Ninth Circuit unanimously striking down a gun restriction under the Second Amendment and, potentially, a sign of greater receptiveness to Supreme Court cues at the appellate level,” commented Andrew Willinger of the Duke University School of Law and executive director of the Duke Center for Firearms Law. He pointed out, though, that the ruling allowed openings for less restrictive rules, including licensing of purchasers and possibly even a “higher limit than one gun per month.”
One battle at a time.
“California has managed to do what many thought impossible: violate the Second Amendment so blatantly that even the Ninth Circuit won’t uphold it,” observed Cody J. Wisniewski, president of the FPC Action Foundation, which participated in the case, referring to the Ninth Circuit’s reputation for unfriendliness to self-defense rights. “We are proud to have secured the rights of peaceable people and look forward to many more wins against California’s unconstitutional laws.”
The ruling in Nguyen is an encouraging development for those of us who believe that individual rights and their protection by the Constitution should be taken seriously.
— JD Tuccille in Court Kills California’s One-Gun-a-Month Law