For once the Ninth Circuit has issued a quick decision that favors gun owners, instead of putting the screws to them. Just two days ago a Ninth Circuit panel of three judges heard oral arguments in a case dealing with California's "1-in-30" gun rationing law that prohibits the sale of more than one handgun in a 30 day period to lawful gun buyers in the state. Late on Thursday, the panel issued its order denying the state's request for a stay of a district court decision that found the law unconstitutional, which means that for now, California cannot enforce the statute. 

In a brief order, the three-judge panel reversed an earlier order granting a stay of the district court's ruling. California Attorney General Rob Bonta still has the option of appealing to an en banc panel on the Ninth Circuit, but based on the less than stellar performance by Cal DOJ attorney Jerry Wen at this week's hearing, I'm not sure that even a larger panel of judges would grant the state's request to keep the gun rationing law in place. 

Jerry Wen, representing Attorney General Rob Bonta, first claimed that the reason for the gun rationing law was to "disrupt" gun trafficking and straw purchasing, but when Judge Bridget Bade asked if the state had any evidence that a 30-day wait between purchases actually does prevent illegal trafficking, Wen could only cite unnamed "some studies" and point to the fact that other states had previously adopted one-gun-a-month statutes. 

Wen then tried to argue that the right to purchase a firearm isn't protected in the text of the Second Amendment, but conceded that the Ninth Circuit has already concluded the right to purchase a firearm is an "ancillary" right. After all, if you don't have the right to acquire a firearm, then you can't keep or bear it.  

Judge Danielle Forrest wondered if someone doesn't own any firearms, and it's impossible for them to legally purchase more than one at a time, how their core Second Amendment right to possess arms for self-defense wouldn't be implicated if they, for instance, wanted to have a gun in their primary residence and a vacation home, or one for their home and another for their business. 

Wen's response was that the individual in question could "borrow" a firearm until they were allowed under California law to purchase another; a circumstance that could only take place if the individual a) knows someone else who owns a handgun and b) is willing to part with it, even temporarily. 

The head of the Firearms Policy Coalition, which litigated on behalf of the plaintiffs in Nguyen v. Bonta along with the Second Amendment Foundation, hailed the panel's order. “FPC intends to make Governor Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta respect Second Amendment rights whether they like it or not," said FPC president Brandon Combs. 

With the law now stayed, California residents are free to purchase as many firearms as they can afford without having to twiddle their thumbs for 30 days. Of course, the state's 10-day waiting period is still in effect, so folks won't be able to acquire those arms once they pass a background check, but that law too is being challenged in federal court in another FPC and SAF case called Richards v. Bonta. The plaintiffs in that case filed a motion for summary judgment in late July, with a hearing before U.S. District Judge Andrew G. Schopler scheduled for mid-November. 

Slowly but surely, many of California's most flagrant infringements on our Second Amendment rights are crumbling under scrutiny by the federal courts, and the latest order in Nguyen is a big win for gun owners across the state. Congratulations to FPC, SAF, and the individual plaintiffs who have successfully challenged the absurd gun rationing law in district court... and so far, have been victorious in the Ninth Circuit as well.