Quote of the Day
In a sharp and unanimous 3-0 decision, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has struck down California’s controversial “one-gun-a-month” law. This law, which limited law-abiding residents to purchasing just one firearm every 30 days, was found to violate the Second Amendment. The case, Nguyen v. Bonta, has now set a powerful precedent in favor of gun rights and against what the court called “meaningful constraints” on constitutionally protected conduct.
Lisa Greene
June 24, 2025
California’s Firearm Quota Law Just Got Wrecked in Court
The California claims were so unbelievable that we got a unanimous decision out of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals!
This win was brought to you by SAF and FPC. Please consider donating money. I donate thousands of dollars to them every year.
See also the following:
And there will be no penalties for passing that unconstitutional law.
And the “lawmakers” guilty of passing it will now pass something else to fight for years.
“Absolute immunity” — that given to lawmakers, prosecutors, judges, etc., for the laws they pass, uphold, and enforce — is a travesty of justice.
No immunity should be “absolute”. That just makes it ripe for abuse … as these lawmakers and judges often make clear. They know there’s no recourse for their “official” misdeeds.
There should be a penalty for voting for a law that is “quickly” — say, within a decade — ruled unconstitutional. (I’m willing to give some grace for laws that aren’t ruled unconstitutional for many years or decades. Shifting societal/generational norms and morals, and all that.) There should be a much larger penalty, including jail time, for passing a law that was already ruled unconstitutional — think: Heller and Bruen “tantrum” laws — and no level of immunity should apply to that.
(On that last, there is. 18 U.S.C. 241 & 242. Up to 10 years in federal prison and $100k in fines per offense, IIRC, and a lifetime disqualification from holding any public office in the U.S.)
Goes En Banc. Gun control upheld. Just like all the times before.
I think this one will be different. It was just too extreme… even for the ninth circuit.
While I hope you’re right I am not holding my breath.
Shawn has history on his side. At any rate, who the heck buys more than one gun a month. The recently awake?
Lots of people. Just not you.
Tom762
I already have more than I can carry even if I use the truck.
I’ve been known to buy the same pistol in multiple calibers when CDNN was having a blowout sale.
If the BBB passes with the HPA in it, I’m going to be buying three integrally suppressed 5.56 AR-15 uppers. And that’ll count as three ‘firearms’.
Might also be getting three Maxim 9s.
Still keeping the trust for owning them all.
Short barreled Thompson!
I thought the lower was the firearm. I know that ATF was screwing around with this back in Joetato times but I didn’t think it ever was finalized.
I suspect that any suppressor, including integrally suppressed barrels, will be considered firearms.
Anyone who comes across a nice collection at a steal of a price.
I used to by 3 or more every time I drove 350 miles to my favorite gun store. Anything I did not like I sold quickly without a loss.
Still I never owned more than 73.
11 long guns would be a minimum and that would gnaw on me.
Well, it would have made it a lot easier when I bought two SIG pistols at the same time. They were running a deal- buy the .45, get the .22 for free.
Had to pay for them, pick up the first one after the waiting period, couldn’t pick up the second one until the 30 days plus the waiting period.
I predict Shawn will be proven correct.
The Ninth Circuit does have some pro-Constitution judges on it. I don’t know how this case, Nguyen v. Bonta, managed the moonshot — getting a full panel of them — but I expect California will appeal and the en banc court will reverse the panel and uphold the law.
They’ve upheld full carry bans. They’ve upheld onerously-restrictive permitting schemes. They’ve upheld AWB laws. The “one gun a month” law is only mildly unconstitutional compared to those; it’s an easy win for the State. (As Richard implies, very few people buy more than one gun a month. A little patience and planning will get most people all the guns they need in less than a year, so the Constitutional infringement is very slight. That will be the court’s opinion.)
I’m not discounting the level of “winning” at play here, getting this decision out of the Nutty Ninth Circuit. Major Kudos are absolutely in order to the SAF and FPC. Fantastic job!
But it’s too early to celebrate. History says it’ll be reversed in a week, a month tops.
Generally agree. It will likely get “randomly” sent to a full panel of anti-gun judges and overturned. On the bright side, it’s then possible to appeal to SCOTUS and get it overturned and set aright on a national basis. At the current rate, the American Empire will have long fallen by then, but it will be a great vindication.
“…. it’s then possible to appeal to SCOTUS and get it overturned and set aright on a national basis.”
Which may be the only reason The Commie Left just leaves it alone and doesn’t pursue it; this is one decision impacting one state which affects only one anti-gun law in a state loaded to the gills with anti-gun laws. Appealing and eventually having it “Go SCOTUS” because SAF and FPC will push it there, garnering a lot of press (and pro-2A fund raising ability) along the way – and the potential of having other 2A restriction cases get included – might impact all 50 states. The Lefties do not want that.
You get to determine all the guns some one “Needs” ?????
There is no “Needs” in the 2nd Amendment.
Pingback: Instapundit » Blog Archive » ALL IN ALL IT’S JUST: Another Brick in the Wall.
Let’s see what the “en banc” hearing produces…