The Second Amendment Law Center applauds the Ninth Circuit's ruling today in Nguyen v. Bonta, a case challenging California's one gun per month purchase limit. This ruling was somewhat expected, given that the panel had lifted the stay on the district court's injunction against the law just one day after oral argument. The panel thus clearly knew it was going to strike the law, and did not feel it needed to remain in effect any longer.
The ruling was unanimous despite including an Obama-appointed judge. First, the panel confirmed that the conduct at issue easily implicates the plain text of the Second Amendment because possessing multiple firearms at once is covered conduct. Turning to history, the panel explained that the historical record does not even establish a historical cousin for the one gun per month law, let alone a proper analogue.
The Second Amendment Law Center, joined by the California Rifle & Pistol Association and Operation Blazing Sword-Pink Pistols, had done an amicus brief in support of the Nguyen plaintiffs. Our brief made several arguments, but the highlight was pointing to 19th century gun advertisements clearly demonstrating that purchasing multiple guns at once was not only possible, but completely normal. This rebutted the State's unserious argument that purchasing multiple guns at once was not feasible prior to 1900 due to a supposed lack of mass production.
We were pleased to see that the panel borrowed from our amicus brief in a couple of places. Most notably, the panel borrowed almost verbatim from the point our brief made about the State taking a conflicting position in its Chavez v. Bonta briefing, where it had acknowledged that the advent of mass production of firearms began in the 19th century.
This is a great win, especially in the Ninth Circuit…but you KNOW there’s always a new gun control idea coming out of the Golden State! Help us fight!