Defending Your Second Amendment Rights: Challenging California’s One-Handgun-Per-Month Limit

• California’s One-Handgun Limit: Nguyen v. Bonta challenges the state’s monthly purchase restriction based on Second Amendment rights.

• Historical Precedent: SAF claims California’s law lacks backing from historical norms at the time of the Second Amendment’s inception.

• Delay Tactics: SAF accuses California of prolonging legal proceedings to shield an unconstitutional law.

The Second Amendment Foundation has filed its opposition to a motion by California Attorney General Rob Bonta for summary judgment in a December 2020 case challenging the state’s one-handgun-per-month limit. The case is known as Nguyen v. Bonta.

Editors Backstory on Nguyen v. Bonta: The One-Handgun-Per-Month Limit

The case of Nguyen v. Bonta centers around a contentious law introduced by the state of California that limits the purchase of handguns to just one per month. This restriction was challenged in December 2020 by several gun rights advocates, including the plaintiff, Nguyen, who argued that the regulation infringes upon their Second Amendment rights.

California’s stance has been to defend the law as a measure to prevent gun trafficking and reduce gun violence. They argue that limiting the number of handgun purchases makes it more difficult for individuals to buy guns in bulk for resale to criminals or other illicit purposes.

However, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), along with its allies, contests that this limit violates the rights of lawful gun owners and lacks historical precedent. Their primary argument is that there was no such limit in place at the time the Second Amendment was written, making the law unconstitutional.

The ongoing litigation has seen multiple rounds of arguments, with each side presenting their case passionately. With the state moving for a summary judgment, the SAF and its partners are determined to ensure that the law undergoes rigorous scrutiny.

The outcome of Nguyen v. Bonta could set a significant precedent for future gun rights cases in the United States.

The Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc., San Diego County Gun Owners PAC, North County Shooting Center, Inc., PWGG, L.P., a limited partnership, and six private citizens are joining SAF in the lawsuit. In their official capacities, the defendants are California Attorney General Rob Bonta and Luis Lopez, director of the state Department of Justice, Bureau of Firearms. The original lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California in San Diego, and so was SAF’s new opposition document. Attorney Raymond M. DiGuiseppe of Southport, N.C., represents the plaintiffs.

As noted in the response, SAF and its partners tell the court, “After almost three years of litigation, three rounds of dispositive briefing, and being on the cusp of yet another expansion of the 30-day commercial firearm purchase ban at issue here (the “OGM law”), a proper resolution is not just long overdue but of pressing need. The right outcome was clear way back before Bruen, when this case was first filed…the OGM law must be stricken as unconstitutional.”

“We’re seeing a troubling pattern in litigation in which defendants try to drag out the process,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb.

“As we note in our opposition, in moving for a summary judgment, the state is trying to ‘spare the OMG law the full brunt of proper scrutiny, steer the analysis right back into the prohibited field of “means-end” scrutiny, and hopefully avoid its otherwise inevitable constitutional demise.’ Clearly, California is trying to defend the indefensible while protecting an unconstitutional law and the state will be dragged kicking and screaming to the 21st Century reality that the law is wrong.”

“The material facts, alone, make it clear the OGM law can’t survive constitutional scrutiny,” added SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “Especially since Bruen, the state cannot provide any historical analogous evidence such limits existed at the time the Second Amendment was written. Therefore, the law must be found unconstitutional.”

Second Amendment Foundation

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 720,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.