California’s strict gun purchase limits have been struck down, delivering a sweeping win for Second Amendment rights and setting off alarm among gun control advocates.
Story Snapshot
- The Ninth Circuit unanimously overturned California’s “one-gun-a-month” law, declaring it unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.
- The decision relied on the Supreme Court’s Bruen “text-and-history” test, expanding protections to firearm acquisition.
- The law’s defeat may trigger challenges to similar restrictions nationwide, emboldening gun rights supporters.
- California officials fear increased risks of gun trafficking, while advocates celebrate restored individual liberty.
Judicial Victory for Second Amendment Advocates
On June 20, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a unanimous decision overturning California’s “one-gun-a-month” law. This restriction, in force since 1999 and expanded in 2024 to cover all firearms, prohibited most citizens from purchasing more than one firearm within thirty days. The court ruled that the law was a “meaningful constraint” on the constitutional right to acquire and possess firearms, and found no historical tradition supporting such limits. The decision marks a pivotal moment for gun rights advocates, who argued the law infringed upon individual liberty and the Second Amendment.
California’s law was originally designed to target “straw purchases,” in which individuals buy guns for those legally prohibited from owning them. Over time, the restrictions expanded to include private sales and all types of firearms. Exemptions existed for law enforcement and licensed collectors, but the majority of law-abiding citizens faced strict purchase limitations. In recent years, advocacy organizations and individual plaintiffs challenged the law in federal court, citing its incompatibility with constitutional protections and claiming it was a product of excessive government overreach rather than effective public safety policy.
Bruen Framework and the Legal Shift
The Ninth Circuit’s decision was heavily influenced by the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which established the “text-and-history” test for evaluating Second Amendment challenges. Judges found that California’s law failed this test, as there was no historical precedent for restricting firearm purchases in this manner. Legal scholars highlight the robust application of this framework in the Ninth Circuit’s opinion, noting it expands protections beyond mere possession to acquisition itself. This approach signals a shift in federal courts toward more rigorous scrutiny of gun regulations that lack clear historical support.
As a result, the law is no longer enforceable in California, and the state’s attorney general must comply with the court’s mandate. Gun rights organizations hailed the decision as a landmark victory, emphasizing that the ruling restores individual freedoms and curbs what they view as government intrusion into personal choices. Meanwhile, gun control proponents and state officials warn of increased risks, arguing that the law was an essential tool in combating illegal gun trafficking and violence. The divide reflects ongoing tension between state-level attempts at regulation and federal constitutional standards.
Broader Impacts and National Implications
The overturning of California’s “one-gun-a-month” law has immediate and far-reaching consequences for gun owners, retailers, and policymakers. In the short term, individuals in California can now purchase multiple firearms within a thirty-day period, potentially increasing sales for gun retailers and manufacturers. Longer-term, the decision may serve as precedent for challenging similar laws in other states, emboldening Second Amendment advocates and potentially reshaping the regulatory landscape nationwide. Legal experts believe that courts will be more receptive to challenges against gun laws lacking historical analogues, especially after Bruen.
Ninth Circuit Overturns California‘s ‘One-Gun-Per-Month‘ Restriction https://t.co/7tlp1zAQPa via @BreitbartNews
— C Horse (@Cap128456) August 15, 2025
Public safety advocates express concern about the potential for increased gun trafficking and illegal sales, arguing that bulk purchases could facilitate criminal activity. Nonetheless, the ruling has ignited renewed debate about the balance between individual rights and collective safety. Political leaders and interest groups on both sides are likely to pursue further legislative and judicial strategies, either seeking to reinforce constitutional protections or craft new regulations that can withstand court scrutiny. The outcome of this case underscores the importance of judicial interpretation in shaping core American liberties.
Sources:
Ninth Circuit Strikes Down California’s One-Gun-A-Month Law (Snell & Wilmer LLP)
Ninth Circuit Strikes Down CA’s One-Gun-A-Month Law (NRA Institute for Legislative Action)
Click this link for the original source of this article.
Author: editor
This content is courtesy of, and owned and copyrighted by, https://republicannews.org and its author. This content is made available by use of the public RSS feed offered by the host site and is used for educational purposes only. If you are the author or represent the host site and would like this content removed now and in the future, please contact USSANews.com using the email address in the Contact page found in the website menu.
