Unanimous Ruling Declares California’s One-Gun-Per-Month Law Unconstitutional
In a landmark unanimous decision, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has firmly upheld individual rights by reiterating a lower court’s ruling that California’s “one-gun-per-month” law is unconstitutional.
The case, Nguyen v. Bonta, was initiated by a coalition of individual plaintiffs and pro-Second Amendment organizations, including the Firearms Policy Coalition and the Second Amendment Foundation.
The plaintiffs took issue with California’s stringent regulation that restricts law-abiding citizens to the purchase of only one firearm every 30 days, as reported by Breitbart.
Judge Danielle J. Forrest, alongside Judges Bridget S. Bade and John B. Owens, delivered a straightforward, historically informed dismissal of the law.
Writing for the majority, Judge Forrest articulated:
California’s “one-gun-a-month” law limits most individuals to purchasing no more than one firearm within a 30-day timeframe. The district court determined that this law infringes upon the Second Amendment. We concur. The law is inherently unconstitutional, as the right to possess multiple firearms and to acquire them without significant restrictions is safeguarded by the Second Amendment, a right that is not upheld by California’s legislation.
The court concluded that the government cannot impose limits on how frequently a citizen can acquire firearms—analogizing such a restriction to limiting free speech to one protest per month or confining religious practice to a single service monthly.
The opinion dismissed California’s usual defense, arguing that the law was intended to curb “straw purchases” and illegal gun trafficking.
Highlighting the lack of historical precedent for California’s one-gun-a-month policy, the ruling emphasized that such a broad limitation on rights finds no justification in America’s constitutional tradition.
In response to this victory, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) released a statement:
SAF is collaborating in this case with the Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc., and San Diego County Gun Owners PAC, along with two licensed firearm dealers and six private citizens, including Michelle Nguyen, after whom the case is named.
“Today’s ruling restores a fragment of the Second Amendment rights that California’s government had encroached upon,” stated SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “The one-gun-per-month law clearly violated the Second Amendment, as confirmed by the Ninth Circuit’s unanimous decision. This ruling is a crucial step toward freeing the people of California from the oppressive beliefs of those in power who consider the right to keep and bear arms as secondary.”
The lawsuit targets the California statute that permits the purchase of only one handgun or semi-automatic centerfire rifle (or a combination thereof) from a licensed dealer within a 30-day period. SAF achieved a summary judgment victory at the district court level, a decision that California subsequently appealed to the Ninth Circuit. Today’s ruling upholds SAF’s district win and invalidates the gun rationing law as unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.
“There is no question that the one-gun-per-month restriction was designed to undermine citizens’ full exercise of their Second Amendment rights,” remarked SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “This ruling is a triumph for all who champion the fundamental right to keep and bear arms, and we are eager to continue restoring Second Amendment rights across the nation through our ongoing 55 active cases.”
