Unanimous Panel of the Ninth Circuit Strikes Down California’s ‘1-in-30’ Gun Rationing Law

In June 2022, U.S. Supreme Court issued a critical decision in New York Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen striking down a New York gun law that put unconstitutional restrictions on concealed carry of a gun out in public. And because this is the law of the land, California with its extremely restrictive gun laws, was put on notice.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the majority opinion in the 6-3 ruling:

“The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not ‘a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.’ The exercise of other constitutional rights does not require individuals to demonstrate to government officers some special need. The Second Amendment right to carry arms in public for self-defense is no different. New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms in public.”

That didn’t stop California’s elected gun-control zealots, who pushed forward stacks of bills every session, restricting the Second Amendment rights of Californians.

Well, they’ve been struck down again.

“Affirming the district court’s summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs, the panel held that California’s ‘one-gun-a-month’ law, which prohibits most people from buying more than one firearm in a 30-day period, facially violates the Second Amendment.”

That is the opening of the unanimous panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which just struck down California’s “1-in-30” gun rationing law as unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.

“The panel held that California’s law is facially unconstitutional because the plain text of the Second Amendment protects the possession of multiple firearms and protects against meaningful constraints on the acquisition of firearms through purchase.”

Ouch. That’s going to leave a mark.

“Next, the panel held that California’s law is not supported by this nation’s tradition of firearms regulation. Bruen requires a ‘historical analogue,’ not a
‘historical twin,’ for a modern firearm regulation to pass muster. Here, the historical record does not even establish a historical cousin for California’s one-gun-a-month law.”

California’s one-gun-a-month program started in 1999 with legislation focused on concealable handguns only. Over time, the one-gun-a-month restriction was
extended to more firearms, and by 2024, it applied to all firearms.

From the decision:

“Plaintiffs-Appellees are individuals who desire to purchase more than one firearm a month, three organizations whose members want to do the same, and two firearm retailers and their respective owners who want to engage in these transactions. They sued claiming that California’s one- gun-a-month law facially violates the Second Amendment. Applying Bruen, the district court granted summary judgment for Plaintiffs and enjoined California from enforcing its law. California timely appealed, and a motions panel stayed the district court’s injunction pending appeal. We reversed the stay after oral argument.”

“California’s interpretation would mean that the Second Amendment only protects possession of a single weapon of any kind. There is no basis for interpreting the constitutional text in that way,” Judge Danielle Jo Forrest wrote.

“For these reasons, we easily conclude that the plain text of the Second Amendment protects the right to possess multiple firearms, and we are not alone.”

Read the entire opinion here.