California’s “One-Gun-a-Month” Law Struck Down: What This Means for Gun Owners
California has long been known for having some of the nation’s strictest gun laws, but a recent federal court decision has dealt a significant blow to one of the state’s key firearm regulations. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed a lower court’s decision striking down California’s “one-gun-a-month” law, ruling that it violates the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This landmark decision has far-reaching implications for gun owners throughout California and sets an important precedent for future Second Amendment challenges.
Our experienced criminal defense attorneys at Wallin & Klarich can guide you through the legal process. Call Wallin & Klarich today toll-free at (877) 466-5245 for your free consultation with one of our appeals attorneys near you.
Understanding California’s One-Gun-a-Month Law
California’s contested law prohibited most individuals from purchasing more than one firearm within any 30-day period. The regulation was designed as a public safety measure, with lawmakers arguing it would help reduce gun trafficking and limit the rapid accumulation of firearms by potentially dangerous individuals. However, this restriction placed significant limitations on citizens’ ability to exercise their Second Amendment rights.
The law contained certain exceptions, but for the vast majority of Californians, purchasing multiple firearms within a month was prohibited regardless of their background, training, or legitimate need for additional weapons. This blanket restriction applied to all types of firearms covered under the law’s definition.
The Legal Framework: Bruen Standard and Second Amendment Analysis
The court’s decision was heavily influenced by the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, decided in 2022. The Bruen decision fundamentally changed how courts must analyze Second Amendment challenges, establishing a new framework that has proven more protective of gun rights.
Under the Bruen standard, courts evaluating Second Amendment challenges must follow a two-step analysis:
Step One: Plain Text Coverage Courts must first determine whether the Second Amendment’s “plain text” covers the regulated conduct. If the challenged law regulates conduct that falls within the scope of the Second Amendment’s protections, the Constitution creates a presumption that such conduct is protected.
Step Two: Historical Tradition If the conduct is covered by the Second Amendment’s plain text, the law can only be upheld if the government can demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with the nation’s “historical tradition of firearm regulation.” This requires showing historical precedent from before, during, and after the founding era that supports comparable restrictions.
This framework represents a significant departure from previous approaches that allowed courts to balance Second Amendment rights against government interests using intermediate scrutiny. The Bruen standard places a much heavier burden on the government to justify firearm restrictions through historical precedent rather than policy arguments.
Real World Example: Nguyen v. Bonta
In this case, individual plaintiffs who desired to purchase more than one firearm per month challenged California’s restriction in federal court. The plaintiffs argued that the one-gun-a-month law facially violated the Second Amendment – meaning that no set of circumstances existed under which the law could be constitutionally applied.
The federal district court agreed with the plaintiffs and granted summary judgment in their favor, finding that California’s law violated the Second Amendment under the Bruen framework. California appealed this decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, hoping to reverse the lower court’s ruling.
The Ninth Circuit’s Analysis
The Ninth Circuit applied the Bruen framework and reached several key conclusions:
Plain Text Coverage: The court determined that purchasing multiple firearms within a 30-day period fell within the Second Amendment’s protection because the right to acquire arms is an “ancillary right necessary to the core right” to keep and bear arms. Without the ability to acquire firearms, the core Second Amendment right would be meaningless.
Meaningful Constraint: The court found that California’s 30-day restriction constituted a “meaningful constraint” on Second Amendment rights, not merely a minor inconvenience or administrative requirement.
Historical Analysis: Most importantly, the Ninth Circuit concluded that California failed to demonstrate a historical tradition supporting such broad purchase restrictions. While the state pointed to some historical examples of regulations targeting specific groups or requiring dealer registration and sales tax tracking, these precedents were found insufficient.
The court noted that early American laws did restrict certain “dangerous” individuals from possessing firearms, but these were targeted restrictions based on individual circumstances, not blanket prohibitions on all citizens. California’s cited examples of dealer regulations were also distinguished because they primarily burdened dealers rather than purchasers and were much more limited in scope.
Implications for Gun Owners and California Law
California can no longer enforce its one-gun-a-month restriction, allowing law-abiding citizens to purchase multiple firearms within a 30-day period, subject to all other applicable regulations and background check requirements.
The decision strengthens Second Amendment protections in the Ninth Circuit, which covers California and several other western states. It demonstrates courts’ willingness to strictly apply the Bruen standard to strike down gun regulations lacking historical support.
Other Considerations for Gun Owners
While this decision removes one restriction, California gun owners must still comply with numerous other state and federal requirements, including:
- Universal background checks
- Waiting periods
- Assault weapon restrictions
- High-capacity magazine bans
- Safe storage requirements
- Various licensing and registration obligations
Gun owners should remain informed about applicable laws and ensure full compliance with all remaining regulations.
How Wallin & Klarich Can Help
Navigating California’s complex web of gun laws can be challenging, and violations can result in serious criminal charges. Whether you’re facing charges related to firearm possession, purchase violations, or other gun-related offenses, experienced legal representation is crucial.
Our criminal defense team stays current with evolving Second Amendment cases and California gun laws. We understand how recent court decisions like this Ninth Circuit ruling may impact pending cases and can help protect your rights if you’re facing gun-related charges.
Contact Wallin & Klarich Today
If you are facing charges related to gun laws, you need to contact an aggressive defense attorney to fight for your freedom. With 40+ years of experience, our attorneys at Wallin & Klarich have helped many clients ensure they receive a fair trial in their criminal defense cases. We know the most effective strategies to argue on your behalf, and we will do everything in our power to help you achieve the best possible result in your case.
At Wallin & Klarich, we have offices all over Southern California: Irvine, Pasadena, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Torrance, Victorville, and Anaheim. Additionally, our law firm can handle many types of cases statewide.
Discover how our team can assist you. Contact us today, toll-free at (877) 466-5245 for a free consultation with a skilled defense attorney near you.
