MAJOR Ruling – Gun Ban REVOKED!

MAJOR Ruling - Gun Ban REVOKED!

The Ninth Circuit Court overturned California’s one-gun-per-month law, igniting a national debate over Second Amendment rights.

At a Glance

  • A 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel blocked enforcement of a California law limiting residents to one firearm purchase every 30 days.
  • In March, a federal district court struck down the law as unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.
  • The decision followed oral arguments heard at the federal courthouse in Pasadena.
  • The lawsuit, Michelle Nguyen et al. v. California Attorney General Xavier Becerra et al., was filed in late 2020.
  • FPC President Brandon Combs praised the decision, stating it allows Californians to apply to purchase multiple firearms within a 30-day period.

Court Overturns One-Gun-Per-Month Law

On Thursday, a three-judge panel from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned California’s restrictive legislation limiting residents to purchasing one firearm per month. The decision reverses a previous stay on enforcing the law, allowing Californian gun owners greater freedom in exercising their Second Amendment rights. The initial lawsuit, Michelle Nguyen et al. v. California Attorney General Xavier Becerra et al., was filed in December 2020 by multiple plaintiffs, including the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC).

In March, a federal district court had already struck down the law, citing its unconstitutionality under the Second Amendment. Despite this, the government obtained a stay on the ruling from the Ninth Circuit, pending further review. Thursday’s reversal by the Ninth Circuit panel has now allowed the district court’s final judgment and injunction to take effect, marking a significant victory for proponents of gun rights.

Broader Implications for Gun Rights and Regulations

The decision to overturn the law has far-reaching implications beyond the borders of California. It sends a clear signal to other states contemplating similar restrictions on firearm purchases. Advocates for gun ownership argue that such laws are not only needlessly burdensome but also violate constitutionally protected rights. The Ninth Circuit’s ruling essentially reinforces the idea that any regulation must adhere to the historical traditions of firearm control in the United States.

“This order allows our hard-won injunction to take effect and, unless the Ninth Circuit issues a new stay, Californians may now apply to purchase multiple firearms within a 30-day period,” said Firearms Policy Coalition President Brandon Combs. “FPC intends to make Governor Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta respect Second Amendment rights whether they like it or not.”

California cited historical gun restrictions, taxes, and licensing laws targeting Native Americans as precedent in defending its legislation. However, U.S. District Court Judge William Hayes, who based his ruling on the U.S. Supreme Court case NYSRPA v. Bruen, found these historical analogues presented by California to be “dubious” and not inclusive of limits on the quantity or frequency of firearm acquisition.

Future Steps and Legal Considerations

It remains unclear if the Department of Justice will seek a review by a larger en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit. Nonetheless, the Firearms Policy Coalition continues to pursue its mission to eliminate what it considers immoral laws and to promote maximal liberty. The organization engages in litigation, research, publications, legislative action, activism, education, and outreach to defend these constitutional rights.

“This is a major victory for Second Amendment advocates and all freedom-loving Americans,” remarked an observer. The Ninth Circuit’s decision is a substantial setback for those who push for more restrictive gun control measures and a monumental step forward for proponents of individual liberties.

​

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR