Court Halts Enforcement of California Gun Law

A 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel has blocked a California law that limits residents to one firearm purchase per month—but what does this mean for the future of firearm regulations in the Golden State?

At a Glance

A 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel blocked enforcement of California’s law limiting residents to one firearm purchase every 30 days.
A federal district court had previously struck down the law as unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.
The government obtained a stay, which was later reversed by the three-judge panel, barring enforcement without further court order.
The lawsuit was filed by plaintiffs including the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) in late 2020.
It remains unclear if the Department of Justice plans to seek a review by a larger en banc panel of the 9th Circuit.

9th Circuit Panel Blocks California’s One-Gun-Per-Month Law

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel has recently blocked the enforcement of California’s law limiting residents to purchasing only one firearm per month. This decision came after Judge William Hayes of the U.S. District Court had already struck down the law as unconstitutional under the Second Amendment in March. The government had obtained a stay on this ruling from the 9th Circuit Court, but a three-judge panel reversed the stay, making the law unenforceable without further court orders.

California’s One-Gun-a-Month Law Blocked as Appeals Court Removes Stay

The California law bars people from buying more than one handgun per 30 day period.https://t.co/KLCoQ8SE99

— The Epoch Times (@EpochTimes) August 16, 2024

Details of the Law and Legal Battle

The blocked law, signed by Governor Gavin Newsom, initially intended to curb “straw purchasers,” individuals who buy multiple guns to sell on the black market. The law was modified in 2021 to include centerfire semiautomatic rifles and further extended in 2022 with Assembly Bill 1621 to add purchases of firearm parts. The lawsuit, Michelle Nguyen et al. v. California Attorney General Xavier Becerra et al., was filed in late 2020 by plaintiffs including the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC). The case was renamed after Rob Bonta became California Attorney General.

The three-judge panel expressed doubts about the law’s constitutionality based on a key U.S. Supreme Court decision from 2022. The court mentioned that historical analogues cited by California, such as gun restrictions and licensing laws targeting Native Americans, were “dubious” and did not include limits on the quantity or frequency of firearm acquisitions.

Implications and Reactions

Deputy Attorney General Jerry T. Yen defended the 1999 statute during oral arguments. However, the judges noted the law did not specifically target gun purchases by dangerous persons. Judge Hayes based his ruling on the U.S. Supreme Court case NYSRPA v. Bruen, establishing that if the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, it must be protected unless the government can justify its regulation based on historical tradition.

Firearms Policy Coalition President Brandon Combs praised the decision: “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. FPC intends to make Governor Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta respect Second Amendment rights whether they like it or not.”

What Now?

It remains uncertain if California’s Department of Justice will seek a review by a larger en banc panel of the 9th Circuit. Given the panel’s reversal and the judiciary’s track record, the law’s future will be closely monitored by proponents and opponents alike. The ruling aligns with a growing trend of courts questioning and often overturning strict gun control measures as unconstitutional under recent interpretations of the Second Amendment.

Ultimately, this ongoing legal battle underscores the complexities surrounding Second Amendment rights and the varying interpretations offered by state and federal courts. With continued advocacy and legal scrutiny, the final outcome remains uncertain but significant for both gun rights supporters and gun control proponents.