A three-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Friday that California’s one-gun-per-month restriction violates the Second Amendment of the Constitution.
The ruling was authored by Circuit Judge Danielle J. Forrest, a Donald Trump appointee. A concurring opinion was authored by Judge John B. Owens, a Barack Obama appointee. The third member of the panel was Judge Bridget S. Bade, another Trump appointee.
The case is known as Nguyen v. Bonta, and was brought by the Second Amendment Foundation, San Diego County Gun Owners Political Action Committee, PWGG, LP, Firearms Policy Coalition, North County Shooting Center and five private citizens, including Michelle Nguyen, for whom the case is named.
In her 24-page ruling, Judge Forrest notes, “California’s law is facially unconstitutional because possession of multiple firearms and the ability to acquire firearms through purchase without meaningful constraints are protected by the Second Amendment and California’s law is not supported by our nation’s tradition of firearms regulation.”
Judge Forrest further observes, “California nonetheless argues that its law is constitutional because (1) the Second Amendment does not guarantee a right to possess multiple firearms and (2) even if it did, restricting the frequency of purchase does not prevent someone from acquiring multiple firearms. Both arguments fail.”
Later in the ruling, Judge Forrest states, “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.”
This ruling is vital beyond California’s borders. Washington State is also in the Ninth Circuit, and a bill proposing the same limit of one gun purchase within a 30-day time period is still alive and could be, say some sources, revived for action in 2026. Washington has become a hotbed of extremist gun control politics, with majority Democrats in the Legislature essentially following the agenda of the billionaire-backed Alliance for Gun Responsibility, a Seattle-based gun prohibition lobbying group.
Washington’s Substitute House Bill 1132 contains this language:
“A dealer may not deliver more than one firearm to a purchaser or transferee within any 30-day period. (b) A dealer may not deliver more than 100 rounds of .50 caliber ammunition or more than 1,000 rounds of any other caliber of ammunition to a purchaser or transferee within any 30-day period.”
SHB 1132 stalled in the House Rules Committee earlier this year, but in the Evergreen State, legislation can be carried over from one session to the next.
In its fight to protect the one-gun law, which was enacted back in 1999 and gradually expanded, California argued that the Second Amendment only guarantees a right to possess a single firearm. The state contends that the one-gun law therefore does not infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms, protected by the amendment.
When the law was originally adopted, it only applied to concealable handguns. Over the course of time, the restriction was expanded until it ultimately applied to all firearms, as noted in Friday’s ruling.
“California’s interpretation would mean that the Second Amendment only protects possession of a single weapon of any kind,” Judge Forrest writes. “There is no basis for interpreting the constitutional text in that way.
“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,” Judge Forrest explains.
Concluding her opinion, Judge Forrest notes, “The Second Amendment expressly protects the right to possess multiple arms. It also protects against meaningful constraints on the right to acquire arms because otherwise the right to ‘keep and bear’ would be hollow.”
In his terse concurring opinion, Judge Owens bluntly states, “I concur fully in the majority opinion. I write separately to note that our opinion only concerns California’s ‘one gun-a-month’ law. It does not address other means of restricting bulk and straw purchasing of firearms, which our nation’s tradition of firearm regulation may support.”
Whether the state appeals or requests a full en banc hearing remains to be seen. Traditionally, with Second Amendment cases in the liberal Ninth Circuit, that’s what happens. But for the time being, Friday’s ruling amounts to a one-two punch because it affirms the District Court’s earlier ruling, and reversed a stay issued by the District Court while the appeal was in progress.
About Dave Workman
Dave Workman is a senior editor at TheGunMag.com and Liberty Park Press, author of multiple books on the Right to Keep & Bear Arms, and formerly an NRA-certified firearms instructor.
