Ninth Circuit Strikes Down California’s “1-In-30” Gun-Rationing Law

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

A unanimous panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has struck down California’s “1-in-30” gun rationing law as unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.

The law restricted citizens to one gun purchase every 30 days and was based on a ridiculous rationale that was shredded by the three-judge panel.

California Penal Code § 27535(a) states that individuals may not apply “to purchase more than one firearm within any 30-day period,” and § 27540(f) prohibits a firearms dealer from delivering any firearm if the dealer is notified that “the purchaser has made another application to purchase a handgun, semiautomatic centerfire rifle, completed frame or receiver, or firearm precursor part” within the preceding 30-day period.

Writing for the court, Judge Danielle Jo Forrest found the California law facially unconstitutional. She wrote:

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.

The court rightfully dismisses the state’s forced and frankly frivolous argument.

It then delivers a particularly lethal line on the historical prong of the analysis.

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.

Here is the opinion: Nguyen v. Bontan