Ninth Circuit Ruling Shakes Up California Firearm Laws

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has overturned California’s one-gun-per-month law, sparking significant debate over firearm regulation and constitutional rights.

At a Glance

Ninth Circuit Court overturned California’s one-gun-per-month law in the Nguyen v. Bonta lawsuit
Californians can now purchase multiple firearms within a 30-day period
The Firearms Policy Coalition filed the lawsuit in December 2020
Debate continues over public safety versus constitutional rights

Implications of the Ruling

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a stay in the Nguyen v. Bonta lawsuit, which challenges California’s “one-gun-per-month” purchasing restriction. The court’s decision means that Californians can now buy multiple firearms within a 30-day period unless a new stay is issued.

The lawsuit, filed by the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) in December 2020, targets measures signed by Governor Gavin Newsom to limit firearm purchases. According to Brandon Combs from FPC, “This order allows our hard-won injunction to take effect and, unless the Ninth Circuit issues a new stay, Californians may now apply to purchase multiple firearms within a 30-day period”.

Ninth Circuit tosses California law limiting gun purchases to one every 30 days https://t.co/TJ99Wsf4uI

— John Solomon (@jsolomonReports) August 20, 2024

Background of California’s Firearm Law

In 1999, California introduced legislation to limit handgun purchases to one per month to prevent “straw purchases” and curb gun trafficking. This rule was gradually extended to semiautomatic rifles in 2019 and then to all firearms in 2023. However, in March 2024, U.S. District Judge William Hayes ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, citing no historical precedent for such restrictive laws.

“Defendants have not met their burden of producing a ‘well-established and representative historical analogue’ to the (one-gun-a-month) law,” Judge Hayes wrote.

The state argues that modern concerns about straw purchases and firearms trafficking justify these laws. Attorneys from the office of Attorney General Rob Bonta stated, “Throughout history, legislatures have regulated firearms transactions to ensure that firearms did not end up in the hands of those who could not lawfully possess them. California’s restrictions impose comparable (or lesser) burdens to those historical precursors, and are comparably justified.”

A 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel has blocked enforcement of a California law limiting residents to one firearm purchase every 30 days. https://t.co/82vxKB8Oyd

— Daily Press (@VVDailyPress) August 16, 2024

The Broader Impact on Constitutional Rights

This ruling is part of a larger conversation about the balance between state regulation and constitutional rights, especially the Second Amendment. The NRA filed an amicus brief supporting the plaintiffs and arguing that one-gun-per-month restrictions are historically unprecedented and violate the right to acquire firearms. California residents can now enjoy fewer restrictions on purchasing firearms, highlighting the legal tensions between state regulations and individual liberties.

“NRA Files Amicus Brief with Ninth Circuit in Challenge to California’s One-Gun-Per-Month Restriction. The brief argues that California’s law violates the Second Amendment because the right to keep and bear arms includes the right to acquire firearms, multiple gun purchases per month were common in early America, and there were no historical limitations on the number of firearms that law-abiding citizens could purchase.” NRA Institute for Legislative Action

As the discussion continues, policymakers will have to navigate the complexities of public safety concerns while respecting constitutional freedoms. The outcome of further legal reviews and potential new stays will shape the future landscape of firearm regulations in California and possibly the broader United States.