A panel of three judges in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed the stay against the injunction on California’s one-gun-a-month law. The injunction is now wholly in place, blocking California from enforcing its gun control scheme to bottleneck the process of acquiring firearms.
In 2020, the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), the Second Amendment Foundation, and several others filed Nguyen v. Bonta (then known as Nguyen v. Becerra), challenging California’s “1-IN-30” law in the United States District Court for The Southern District of California. The “1-IN-30” law restricted the number of handguns or center-fired semiautomatic rifles a person could buy to one a month. The plaintiffs claimed that the state violated its citizens’ Second and Fourteenth Amendments.
A District Court Judge would agree with the plaintiffs and issue an injunction against the law. California would announce its appeal to the Ninth Circuit and ask for an emergency stay against the District Court’s injunction. The Circuit Court would grant the state’s request for a stay. A three-judge panel was assigned consisting of two Trump appointees and one Obama appointee and oral arguments were heard on August 14.
The California Attorney General’s Office seemed ill-prepared for the questions asked by the Circuit Court judges. The two Trump-appointed judges and one Obama-appointed judge asked pointed questions, which state attorney Jerry Yen didn’t seem to have good answers to. The day would be a long day for Yen.
Under the Supreme Court’s Bruen opinion, the Courts can only consider the text, tradition, and history of the Second Amendment when deciding if a gun law is constitutional. Once the plaintiff shows that the law falls outside the plain text of the Second Amendment, the onus falls on the defense to provide analogs to show the law is consistent with the tradition and history of the Second Amendment from the founding era.
Although the state did try to provide some analogs, the judges were not impressed. The laws presented by the defense were gunpowder storage laws, which were more about preventing fires than restricting arms. The state also tried to use laws from the founding era that disarmed “bad guys,” but the “bad guys,” in this case, were Native Americans. The judges pointed out that the defense was using racist laws to defend its position.
“Well, there’s troubling analogues based on race and restraints trying to keep people from selling firearms to Native Americans. Are those designed to target ‘bad guys,’ as you put it?” Trump-appointed Judge Bridget Bade asked Yen.
The Second Amendment cannot be treated differently than other rights. Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas said, “The Second Amendment is not a second-class right,” and the judges leaned into that viewpoint. The judges highlighted that if a restriction like California’s “1-IN-30” law was applied to any other right, it wouldn’t survive constitutional muster.
“It would be absurd to think that a government could say you can only buy one book a month because we want to make sure that you really understand the books you read, or you could only attend one protest a month because, you know, there’s some societal drawbacks from having protests so we want to kind of space those out,” Trump appointed-judge People would say that’s absurd,” Trump-appointed Judge Danielle Forrest said.
If Yen thought Obama-appointed Judge John B. Owens would be sympathetic to the defense’s arguments, he was sorely mistaken. Judge Owens brought up a situation where someone needed two guns for two different locations and didn’t currently own any firearms. Yen’s only answer was that the plaintiffs in the case were already gun owners, and since the lawsuit was filed in 2020, they had enough time to buy multiple guns. The judges didn’t seem to buy the arguments.
The next day, the judges would unanimously reverse the stay, enacting the injunction. It is suspected that California will ask for an en banc hearing where the full bench will hear the case. If an en banc is granted, then the three-judge panel’s decision will be vacated.
About John Crump
Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people of all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons and can be followed on Twitter at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.
I’m surprised the wacko left 9th circuit didn’t go for that.
This is what is left for libtards to think about…
rationing and restrictions.
The liberal scheme is to ban hundreds of things eventually. Amusement parks, football games, dry cleaners and steak houses to name a few.
To Include but not be limited to: complete sentences, math, background checks, tests, grammar, achievement, hiring the most qualified, arguing, and eventually freedom.
Trump, through his judicial appointments, changed the character of the Ninth Circuit. But more Constitutionalists need to be appointed. More work is required to get back to the Constitution. Appointments that only one person can make and is willing to make.
i don’t remember the Second Amendment saying anything about 30 days. yen seemed so unprepared for this hearing, laughable and painful at the same time. shouldn’t laws be precisely written to prevent mis-understanding? the plaintiffs lawyer did a great job as opposed to yen. yen should have not taken the rebuttal time, it didn’t help at all. seems like interest balancing, means end is all the state of commiefornia is relying upon. what if i wanted to purchase a firearm for my wife and myself at the same time? DENIED! what if i just purchased a firearm and see a… Read more »
So many wrongs in these “one gun per month” laws. Think about it. You are in a far-flung corner of your state and find a matched pair of something you really wanted, say Colt Peacemakers with consecutive serial numbers. The way SC’s version of that much-hated law went, decades ago, you would need to wait a month, then drive a hundred or so miles back to the store to pick up the second gun.
Glad to see some courts cracking down on this idiocy.
Yes, how would a guy buy a matched pair at the gun show?
You would have to have them put it on layaway for you. Because of the 10 day wait it doesn’t make sense to buy a gun at a show in Kommiefornia anyway unless it’s a screaming deal or something you HAVE to get for your collection . There were a few FFL’s at the one I went to 5 of so years ago. None were local so buying from them at the show would mean at least an hour round trip to take possession of your property.
Thank you sir for addressing this point about consecutive serial numbers. I was going to make the same point, but you beat me to it.
He’s related the Hyena!!!
Which is obvious, and immediately brings up the fact that those who enacted the law could clearly see that it is unconstitutional while they were proposing it. Taking it to the next step, they nonetheless enacted it. That fact confirms that they do not feel themselves encumbered in their actions by the strictures of the Constitution. The notion of a Republic, and a government restricted in the scope of its action by the Constitution, is just a flight of fancy to them. Their rule of thumb is: “Well, this is illegal, but let’s see if we can get away with… Read more »
Such people should be arrested & prosecuted under TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242. Prosecute enough of them and maybe – just maybe – they might get the idea that you can’t screw the people out of their rights with impunity.
Read more: https://www.ammoland.com/2024/08/ninth-circuit-court-shuts-down-californias-one-gun-a-month-law/#ixzz8jBJOYiCV Under Creative Commons License: Attribution Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook shouldn’t laws be precisely written to prevent mis-understanding? That brilliant Secind Article of Ammendmen is about as plain as the difference between night and day at the equator. i first names a RIGHT then declares that right SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. In that same part of our Consitution it names numerous other rights, and puts them into the same category. FOr the most part, these black robed scallywags seem to comprehend that language when applied to, say, press, religion, redress of grievance to… Read more »
Good news. Thanks John for the Hearing Video so we didn’t have to search for it. Yes Yen was not prepared, kept fumbling, possibly he did not know where to go with it deeming limitations in defense a futile fight. John B. Owens not aggressive at all the the 2nd. Amedment. Very surprising for a Democrat on the 9th. Cuircut.
I agree. Thank you John.
I almost feel bad for Yen. Yeah, he may have been ill prepared or he may be inexperienced as a trial lawyer. On the other hand, maybe he knew what a crap sandwich he had been handed and was understandably nervous and apprehensive knowing he would be told to pick it up with his bare hands and stick it in his mouth. Not everyone can find it easy to defend the indefensible.
If this “Yen” guy possess more than two nanogrammes of inegrity he needs to find another job, and that right soon. The very fact he HAS that position indicates he is a government tool, devoid of integrity and personal responsibility.
A facial expression expert could tell us more, but I don’t think Yen believed in the fight; he was more of a Hollywood Actor.
It seems like there are two separate issues here being commingled, for the purpose of obfuscation. One is quantity, the other is frequency. The law as enacted restricts the quantity of firearms that may be purchased in one transaction. That is a clear violation of citizens’ rights; it is not for the state to determine what a citizen’s need is for firearms of type or quantity. The other is that transactions may not take place more often than once a month. That would be onerous enough on its own. Coupled with the quantity restriction, however, it imposes a restraint on… Read more »
they do the same bs with ammo purchase restrictions,
They have the worst of emotions when they pass these laws, anger, rage, hate, hoping their Left-Wing Activist Judges will go along. The only thing McConnell (China-Mitch) ever did for us was keep getting the judges in.
and stop reciprocity from going to the floor because HE felt that they would vote it down after the Las Vegas psyop our government committed.
I’ll never forget that one Musicman. Majority in the Senate and House but China-Mitch feared some bad Left-Wing press directed towards himself so he let us all down instead of pushing it forward.
Thank you Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), the Second Amendment Foundation and President Trump for appointing the two judges. See what Trump did for us without even being there? He can do it again if given the chance so long as he makes smarter choices than the Oregon Judge he appointed Karin Immergut that sided with an unconstitutional gun law voted on by the people of oregone. I which I had a chance to tap his shoulder and tell him. Hey, Donald, look again at her first name before you make this choice. So, are you better off now than you… Read more »
Seriously – can you say “restraint of trade”? Where does California get its hallucinatory justification that it is the arbiter of what constitutes the “right” volume of commerce? That’s a completely different issue from whether or not a citizen has an inalienable right to keep and bear arms without government interference. This bears on the volume of trade that the collective set of gun retailers in the state may conduct. Where else is there such an example? You may only buy a single dozen of eggs a month? What would egg producers say? You can only fill your gas tank… Read more »
Good! now apply this to other states that restrict purchases of firearms such as Connecticut, New York, Illinois, massachusetts etc
If this case makes it to Supreme Court it will apply nationwide. The state will quite likely request an En Banc hearing that they have at least a 50/50 chance of winning. If CA wins our side will of course petition SCOTUS to hear the case. If the 9th Circus doesn’t try to slow roll it like they’ve done with the “assault weapon “ and magazine ban cases, the earliest our side could petition SCOTUS would probably be for the 2025-2026 term.
you know they will slow walk it hoping demons get the trifecta to run interference
When the 9th Circus won’t go along with something, you’ve got to know it must be an egregious affront to accepted law. Either that, or the ruling happened on Backwards Day. Personally, I think there is something even more onerous that’s coming down the pike.
Welp, the Ninth District Circus Court Of Appeals full en banc panel will issue a stay and sit on it as they did the Duncan v Bonta and Miller v Bonta cases. I still applaud the 3 judge en banc panel for upholding the constitution!!!!
Maybe the court hasn’t been paying attention. Liberals refuse to live in the “wild wild west”. And watching everybody buy an extra gun each month will put these frightened liberals smack in the middle of the “wild wild west”.
Please remember one important thing about these cases coming out of California: Kamala Harris was behind every one of these brilliant ideas and a lot more. Enough said. If you want to live in the Soviet Union you no longer have to move to Cuba. Just vote for Harris/Walz.
In Crump’s bio, it says he’s an NRA instructor. With all the NRA’s corruption, etc, I wonder if he’s still an instructor?
it wouldn’t matter one bit.
NRA’s corruption in the organisation has nothing to do with the quality and vallidity of the training the members provide. John Crump has been an instructor since way before Pepe la Pew gained his supremacy at headquarters.
I’m not saying Crump is bad, or corrupt. I was asking, and perhaps I should’ve been more clear, if the NRA still has a certified instructor program? With all their budget cuts and things, was just wondering.
Wasn’t insinuating anything about Crump.
The problem is the Infringers….leftist Communist Democrat Infringers who write these ‘laws’. They need to be extinct.