US Edition9th Circuit affirms San Diego judge’s ruling that California’s ‘one-gun-a-month’ law is unconstitutional
- On June 20, 2025, a federal appellate court based in San Francisco unanimously affirmed a lower court’s decision that California’s restriction limiting gun purchases to one per month violates the Constitution.
- The decision came after gun owners, advocacy groups, and retailers filed a lawsuit arguing that the law unlawfully restricted their constitutional right to purchase firearms by limiting the number of guns they could buy within a given time frame.
- The law, first enacted in 1999 for handguns and expanded in 2019 to semiautomatic rifles, aimed to reduce straw purchases by restricting residents to one firearm purchase every 30 days.
- Circuit Judge Danielle Forrest, in her ruling, noted that there is no known precedent for the government to regulate the timing or frequency with which constitutional rights are exercised, and found that California’s law lacked any historical foundation.
- The ruling allows Californians to buy firearms more frequently and implies that government cannot impose arbitrary temporal limits on constitutional rights, while Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office reviews options for appeal.
14 Articles
14 Articles
Ninth Circuit Strikes Down California’s “1-in-30” Gun Rationing Law
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-…
9th Circuit affirms San Diego judge’s ruling that California’s ‘one-gun-a-month’ law is unconstitutional
A California law that limited residents to one gun purchase every 30 days is unconstitutional, meaning state residents can continue purchasing firearms as frequently as they want, a federal appellate panel ruled Friday in a case originating in San Diego. State lawmakers said the restriction on frequent firearm acquisitions, known as the “one-gun-a-month” law, was aimed at deterring straw purchases, when someone buys a gun on behalf of someone wh…
Ninth Circuit Strikes Down California's One-Gun-Per-Month Law In Major SAF Victory
In a victory for Second Amendment advocates, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today unanimously affirmed a lower court ruling in favor of the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners, striking down California’s restrictive “one-gun-per-month” rationing law. The decision in Nguyen v. Bonta marks a significant setback for gun control measures in California and […] Ninth Circuit Strikes Down California’s One-Gun-Per-Month Law In Major S…
Ninth Circuit Strikes Down California "One-Gun-a-Month" Law
From today's opinion in Nguyen v. Bonta, written by Judge Danielle Forrest and joined by Judges John Owens and Bridget Bade: [The] "core Second Amendment right … 'wouldn't mean much' without the ability to acquire arms." Thus, we have "consistently held that the Second Amendment … 'protects ancillary rights necessary to the realization of the core right to possess a firearm for self-defense.'" While we have not defined "the precise scope" of pro…
Coverage Details
Bias Distribution
- 55% of the sources lean Right
To view factuality data please Upgrade to Premium
