The 9th Circuit Says California’s One-Per-Month Limit on Gun Purchases Is Unconstitutional
A California law that limits gun purchases to one per month is unconstitutional on its face, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled last Friday. The three-judge panel’s unanimous conclusion illustrates the continuing impact of the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which clarified the constitutional test for gun control laws.
“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,” Judge Danielle J. Forrest, a Donald Trump appointee, wrote in Nguyen v. Bonta, “and California’s law is not supported by our nation’s tradition of firearms regulation.” The opinion was joined by Judge Bridget S. Bade, who also was appointed by Trump, and by Judge John B. Owens, who was appointed by Barack Obama.
The law at issue in Nguyen, originally enacted in 1999, was aimed at preventing “straw purchases”—transactions in which people buy multiple firearms and transfer them to individuals who are not legally allowed to possess them. The restriction, which originally applied only to handguns but was eventually extended to all firearms, applies to all buyers with a few exceptions, including law enforcement agencies, private security companies, and movie studios.
The plaintiffs in this case, including individual gun owners, two firearm retailers, and three gun rights groups, argued that California’s restriction violated the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Last year, U.S. District Judge William Q. Hayes, a George W. Bush appointee, agreed that the law failed the Bruen test, and the 9th Circuit upheld that decision.
“When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct,” the Supreme Court said in Bruen. “To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s ‘unqualified command.'”
California “suggests that the Second Amendment only guarantee
Article from Reason.com
The Reason Magazine website is a go-to destination for libertarians seeking cogent analysis, investigative reporting, and thought-provoking commentary. Championing the principles of individual freedom, limited government, and free markets, the site offers a diverse range of articles, videos, and podcasts that challenge conventional wisdom and advocate for libertarian solutions. Whether you’re interested in politics, culture, or technology, Reason provides a unique lens that prioritizes liberty and rational discourse. It’s an essential resource for those who value critical thinking and nuanced debate in the pursuit of a freer society.
