A three-judge panel on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a district court ruling declaring California’s “1-in-30” gun rationing law an unconstitutional infringement on the right to keep and bear arms.
Judge Danielle Jo Forrest, an appointee of Donald Trump, authored the unanimous opinion holding the California law is “facially unconstitutional because the plain text of the Second Amendment protects the possession of multiple firearms and protects against meaningful constraints on the acquisition of firearms through purchase.”
That last bit is particularly interesting, because it calls into question other California gun laws, including attempts by municipalities and counties to zone gun stores out of existence, as well as the state’s prohibition on gun shows on state property.
Next, the panel held that California’s law is not supported by this nation’s tradition of firearms regulation. Bruen requires a “historical analogue,” not a“historical twin,” for a modern firearm regulation to pass muster. Here, the historical record does not even establish a historical cousin for California’s one-gun-a-month law.
That’s a great line, and I hope it’s cited by other judges in 2A cases going forward.
Forrest’s chiding of California lawmakers and Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office continued in the body of the opinion:
California suggests that the Second Amendment only guarantees a right to possess a single firearm, and that Plaintiffs’ rights have not been infringed because they already possess at least one firearm. California is wrong. The Second Amendment protects the right of the people to “keep and bear Arms,” plural. U.S. Const. amend. II (emphasis added). This “guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and carry weapons.” Heller, 554 U.S. at 592 (emphasis added). And not only is “Arms” stated in the plural, but this term refers to more than just guns. It includes other weapons and instruments used for defense. See id. at 581. California’s interpretation would mean that the Second Amendment only protects possession of a single weapon of any kind. There is no basis for interpreting the constitutional text in that way.
It was bold of California to argue that not only is its “1-in-30” law allowed, but legislators could adopt a “1-in-80-years” law if they chose, but I guess when your legal rationale is so weak, you might as well go for broke.
California also argued that the artificial delays imposed by the state are akin to the federal law allowing gun dealers to delay a sale for up to ten days to complete a background check. Once again, Forrest exposed the stupidity of Bonta’s argument. Like it or not, the Fifth Circuit upheld that potential ten-day waiting period because it ostensibly serves a purpose of preventing prohibited persons from illegally acquiring a gun.
But with California’s one-gun-a-month law, delay itself is the purpose. By categorically prohibiting citizens from purchasing more than one firearm of any kind in a 30-day period, California is infringing on citizens’ exercise of their Second Amendment rights.
Congratulations to the Firearms Policy Coalition, Second Amendment Foundation, and San Diego County Gun Owners Political Action Committee, as well as the individual plaintiffs in Nguyen v. Bonta. I’m sure California’s attorney general will appeal today’s decision to an en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit, but with every court that’s considered the issue in agreement that the law is unconstitutional, the Ninth Circuit might actually stay enforcement of the law while the litigation continues.
Read the full article here
