The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco issued an order on August 15 reversing a previously issued stay in the Nguyen v. Bonta lawsuit, which challenges California’s “one-gun-per-month” gun ban law.
With the stay reversed, the final judgment and injunction issued at the district court is now in effect, which prevents the state from enforcing its “1-in-30” ban unless there’s a further order from the Court.
In March 2024, Judge William Q. Hayes of the Southern California District Court wrote in a summary ruling that “nothing in the text of the Second Amendment suggests that the Second Amendment right is limited to possession and acquisition of a single firearm, or that the acquisition of additional firearms is inherently subject to additional limitations — if anything, the usage of the term ‘arms’ in plural suggests the opposite.”
“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,” explained Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) President Brandon Combs.
Judge Hayes also said, “…[T]he fact that the OGM [one-gun-per-month] law burdens Plaintiffs’ Second Amendment right rather than outright prevents Plaintiffs’ from keeping and bearing arms is not determinative of whether the proposed conduct is covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment. The Court concludes that Plaintiffs’ proposed conduct is presumptively protected because it is covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment.”
The Nguyen case, initially filed in December of 2020, was brought by four individual FPC members and two retailer members, as well as San Diego County Gun Owners PAC and the Second Amendment Foundation.
California prohibits the average, peaceable person from purchasing more than one handgun, or semi-automatic centerfire rifle (or combination of the two), from a licensed dealer within a 30-day period.
On December 18, 2020, Second Amendment Foundation filed its complaint, along with numerous individuals who wish to purchase multiple arms within 30 days, several retailer plaintiffs who desire to be able to conduct those sales, and two other civil rights organizations. The complaint alleges that California’s “One Gun per Month” law violates the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief.
The state’s 10-day waiting period is still in effect.
