Potential gun buyers in California now have one less hurdle to jump through before they can buy a gun: They're now free to buy as many guns as they want — provided, of course, they comply with the state's other very strict laws.
Last Wednesday, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard the state's appeal of a district court ruling in March that found the state's one-gun-per-month limit unconstitutional. The next day, the panel overturned an earlier ruling from the district court, allowing Californians to buy more than one gun per month.
Brandon Combs, president of the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), which supported the plaintiffs in Nguyen v. Bonta, was pleased:
This order puts into effect our hard-won injunction and allows Californians to apply to purchase multiple firearms within 30 days, unless the Ninth Circuit issues a new injunction.
Whether we like it or not, the FPC intends to force Governor Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta to respect our Second Amendment rights.
A long history of Second Amendment violations
Governors Newsom and Bonta and their anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment predecessors have long violated the constitutional rights of state residents. Potential buyers must first obtain a $25 firearm safety certificate and provide personal information when applying for a license from the state. They must then pass a written exam overseen by a state-certified instructor. After overcoming these hurdles, buyers must wait 10 days to obtain ownership of the firearm they purchased. Additionally, the magazine that loads the firearm cannot hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.
The law in question began in 1999, when the state Legislature limited handgun ownership to one per month. In 2019, lawmakers amended the law to include what many continue to mistakenly but knowingly call “assault weapons”: semi-automatic rifles.
In 2020, FPC sued for the infringement. The district court ruled that under the new judicial system established by the Supreme Court in Bruen, California's law was clearly unconstitutional. Judge William Hayes struck down the law in a 24-page decision, declaring that “Defendants (California) have not met their burden of presenting a 'well-established, representative historical analog' of the OGM (one gun per month) law. Accordingly, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs (FPC et al.) are entitled to summary judgment on the constitutionality of the OGM Law under the Second Amendment.”
But the judge allowed the infringement to remain in place for 30 days to give the state time to appeal. The appeals court extended the stay until Wednesday, when a three-judge panel will hear the state's arguments.
California's case is weak
These arguments were flimsy and unconvincing, and, not surprisingly, they echoed the complaints of notorious anti-gun activist Giffords that giving people the right to buy as many guns as they want, whenever they want, would allow criminals to obtain them through “fake purchases.”
The state argued that the one-firearms-per-month limit isn't actually an infringement. Why? Because it has little to do with the right to “keep and bear arms” and only to do with buying in bulk. The state also said that the “unprecedented societal concern” about gun violence in the state “was not as prevalent during the Founding or Reconstruction eras as it is today.”
He added:
Throughout history, Congress has regulated the firearms trade to keep firearms out of the hands of people who cannot legally possess them. California's regulations impose burdens equal to (or less than) those historical precedents and are equally legitimate.
California lawyers argued that the law would deter “bulk firearm purchases that could facilitate gun trafficking to criminals” — a hackneyed mantra recited by Giffords, of course.
Laws that limit the number of firearms an individual can purchase in a given period of time help reduce the number of firearms on the secondary market, and therefore the number of firearms likely to end up at a crime scene.
Only a handful of states have restrictions on bulk gun purchases, but the policies have been proven effective in reducing gun trafficking and, ultimately, gun violence.
Connecticut limits its residents to three handguns per month. Maryland, New Jersey and Virginia make it illegal for residents to buy more than one handgun per month. New York City goes even further, limiting firearm purchases to one handgun and one rifle or shotgun every 90 days.
A favorable ruling could set a precedent
If the appeals court were to rule that the district court was correct and that the one gun per month limit is indeed unconstitutional, it would set a precedent that the FPC could use in its fight to stop similar Second Amendment violations across the country.
Related Posts:
California's “one gun per month” rule is being repealed
