Page 1
Ninth Circuit:
California’s ‘One-Gun-a-Month’ Statutes Are Unconstitutional
By a MetNews Staff Writer
California’s “one-gun-a-month” law prohibiting the purchase of more than a single firearm within a 30-day period is unconstitutional, being violative of the Second Amendment, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declared on Friday.
The opinion by Circuit Judge Danielle J. Forrest affirms a summary judgment granted by District Court Judge William Q. Hayes of the Southern District of California in favor of the plaintiffs, Michelle Nguyen and other individuals, along with gun groups. He declared invalid Penal Code §§27535 and 27540(f).
Forrest wrote:
“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.”
She cited the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen which struck down a state law requiring an applicant for a permit to carry a concealed weapon to show “good cause” for the request. The majority in that case, in an opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas, said “that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.”
Limitation on Right
The appellants—Attorney General Rob Bonta and Allison Mendoza, director of the Department of Justice’s Bureau of Firearms, acting in their official capacities—argued on appeal that the Second Amendment creates a right to possess only a single firearm.
“The text of the Second Amendment does not presumptively protect a right to purchase an unlimited number of firearms from a licensed dealer within a 30-day period,” their opening brief on appeal sets forth.
Forrest responded:
“The Second Amendment protects the right of the people to “keep and bear Arms” plural….(emphasis added)…. And not only is ‘Arms’ stated in the plural, but this term refers to more than just guns. It includes other weapons and instruments used for defense….California’s interpretation would mean that the Second Amendment only protects possession of a single weapon of any land. There is no basis for interpreting the constitutional text in that way.
“For these reasons, we easily conclude that the plain text of the Second Amendment protects the right to possess multiple firearms….”
No Bar
The appellants also contended:
“[E]ven if it were assumed that the text of the Second Amendment includes the right to keep and bear more than one singular arm, California’s law does not inhibit any person from possessing multiple firearms; individuals may acquire as many firearms as they would like as long as they wait 30 days before buying the next one.”
Unpersuaded, Forrest said:
“[I]f the Second Amendment’s plain text protects the ability to possess multiple arms, which we conclude that it does, then it also protects the ability to acquire multiple arms.”
Infringement on Right
The jurist elaborated:
“By categorically prohibiting citizens from purchasing more than one firearm of any kind in a 30-day period, California is infringing on citizens’ exercise of their Second Amendment rights….
“We are not aware of any circumstance where government may temporally meter the exercise of constitutional rights in this manner. And we doubt anyone would think government could limit citizens’ free-speech right to one protest a month, their free-exercise right to one worship service per month, or their right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures to apply only to one search or arrest per month.”
She continued:
“If the frequency with which constitutional rights can be exercised could be regulated in this manner without infringement, what would limit 20vernment from deciding that a right need only be available every six months or once a year or at any other interval it chooses? California had no answer to this concern at oral argument. “The point is that the Second Amendment is more robust than California accepts.”
‘Historical Tradition’
Bonta and Mendoza asserted that “[e]ven if the Court were to hold (or assume) that the challenged law covers conduct presumptively protected by the Second Amendment, the law is consistent with ‘the historical tradition’ of firearms regulation,” citing Bruen.
Thomas said there:
“[C]ases implicating unprecedented societal concerns or dramatic technological changes may require a more nuanced approach. The regulatory challenges posed by firearms today are not always the same as those that preoccupied the Founders in 1791 or the Reconstruction generation in 1868.”
He added that although the meaning of the Second Amendment “is fixed according to the understandings of those who ratified it, the Constitution can, and must, apply to circumstances beyond those the Founders specifically anticipated.”
Forrest said in yesterday’s opinion:
“It cannot reasonably be disputed that firearm manufacturing and availability are different today than they were in our early history. But arms trafficking is not a new problem. Early colonial and American laws prohibited certain categories of individuals deemed dangerous from possessing arms.”
‘Nuanced Approach’ Unnecessary
She provided examples of early laws and commented:
“[T]he modem problems that California identifies as justification for its one-gun-a-month law are perhaps different in degree from past problems, but they are not different in kind. Therefore, a nuanced approach is not warranted.”
She went on to say:
“Because the one-gun-a-month law establishes no exemption or pathway by which a law-abiding citizen can purchase more than one firearm within a 30-day period, we reject California’s attempt to draw a comparison to the licensing analogues.”
Forrest declared:
“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. And while Bruen does not require a ‘historical twin’ for a modem firearm regulation to pass muster, 597 U.S. at 30, here the historical record does not even establish a historical cousin for California’s one-gun-a-month law.
Joining in the opinion were Circuit Judges John B. Owens and Bridget S. Bade.
Concurring Opinion
Owens said in a concurring opinion:
“I write separately to note that our opinion only concerns California’s ‘one- gun-a-month law. It does not address other means of restricting bulk and straw purchasing of firearms, which our nation’s tradition of firearm regulation may support.”
Hayes enjoined enforcement of the statute pending appeal but a Ninth Circuit motions panel issued a stay of the injunction. Oral argument took place on Aug. 14, 2024 and the following day, Forrest, Bade and Owens lifted the stay.
The case is Nguyen v. Bonta, 24-2036.
Copyright 2025, Metropolitan News Company