The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals just handed a major win to gun owners in Nguyen v. Bonta, striking down California’s “one-gun-a-month” law as unconstitutional.
California had banned most individuals from buying more than one firearm within a 30-day window. The state argued the restriction would help stop illegal gun trafficking and straw purchases. The court wasn’t buying it.
The panel ruled that the Second Amendment protects both the right to own multiple firearms and the ability to acquire them without excessive delay. According to the judges, restricting how often someone can buy a gun amounts to a “meaningful constraint” on that right.
The court followed the framework set by the Supreme Court in Bruen, which requires states to show that modern gun laws align with historical traditions. California came up short.
Judges reviewed dozens of laws from the colonial period through Reconstruction. They found nothing even remotely similar to California’s blanket purchase limit. Laws from early America banned sales to specific groups like Native Americans or the intoxicated—but never restricted the timing or number of purchases for ordinary citizens.
The panel also dismissed California’s argument that new technology and modern crime required a “nuanced approach.” They found no evidence that bulk purchases were a unique modern problem. In fact, firearm availability and trafficking existed long before the current era.
While some historical laws tracked sales or imposed licensing requirements, none flat-out banned law-abiding citizens from buying multiple guns. The court emphasized that constitutional rights—including the right to keep and bear arms—can’t be rationed by calendar days.
The ruling doesn’t prevent the state from using other tools to combat illegal gun sales. But the judges made clear that delaying or limiting lawful purchases isn’t one of them.
This decision adds to a growing list of victories for gun rights under the Bruen standard. California can appeal to the full Ninth Circuit or the Supreme Court, but for now, the law is dead.
Gun rights advocates hailed the ruling as a decisive blow against incremental disarmament. The fight over what “infringement” means continues—but this round goes to the Constitution.
*** Buy and Sell on GunsAmerica! ***
Read the full article here