The idea that restricting how often someone can buy a gun somehow makes people safer has never made a lot of sense to me. Sure, it might limit straw buys, but straw buyers aren't buying firearms by the case. They're mostly just buying one here and one there. Meanwhile, if someone is going to get one from a gun store, how many do they need to hurt someone?
Luckily, most don't get them from gun stores. Almost none, actually, and those who did often had them for years and years before they ever crossed the line.
Yet California, like some other states, has gun rationing. You can only buy one gun per month, and they think that does something.
Or, they did.
It seems that the Ninth Circuit smacked the state down on Thursday, and the Second Amendment Foundation is loving it.
From a press release:
The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners secured a major victory today after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a mandate overturning California’s “one-gun-per-month” restriction, setting a historic precedent.
In June, a unanimous decision from the Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of SAF and its partners in Nguyen v. Bonta, SAF’s challenge to California’s one-gun-per-month gun rationing law. SAF is joined in the case by the Firearms Policy Coalition and San Diego County Gun Owners PAC, two FFL gun dealers, and six private citizens including Michelle Nguyen, for whom the case is named.
“Today's mandate issued by the Ninth Circuit marks the first time the court has issued a final decision striking down a law for infringing on the Second Amendment,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “Between Heller and Bruen, every case heard by a panel which concluded the law was contrary to the Second Amendment was reheard en banc by the court and ultimately upheld. This is a historic victory for Second Amendment rights in the Ninth Circuit and marks a measurable defeat for Governor Newsom and the legislature's attempts to curtail the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms in California.”
Nguyen v. Bonta challenges the California statute that only allows for the purchase of one handgun or semi-automatic centerfire rifle (or combination thereof), from a licensed dealer within a 30-day period. SAF secured a summary judgment win at the district court, which California then appealed to the Ninth Circuit, where the court ruled in favor of SAF and its partners.
“Today’s mandate from the Ninth Circuit is a testament to SAF’s efforts to restore the Second Amendment rights of all Americans,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “This win is a huge step forward in one of the most gun-restrictive states in America, and we will not rest until Californians can exercise their full constitutional rights.”
For the record, I'd like to note that in addition to criminals just avoiding gun stores as a general rule, the worst school shooting in American history took place in Virginia, which had gun rationing in place at the time.
The killer just waited another month to get a second gun.
Which is yet another reason why this whole gun rationing thing is the product of a mentally deficient mind.
All this really does is become a pain in the posterior for law-abiding citizens who would like to exercise their Second Amendment rights. Maybe there's a threat against the family, and they feel they need to have multiple guns so multiple family members can protect themselves. Maybe they're taking up a shooting sport like three-gun, and they need multiple firearms to train and compete.
Or maybe it doesn't matter because the words "shall not be infringed" are supposed to actually mean something.
Regardless, California got the smackdown from the Ninth Circuit's panel. A unanimous smackdown, in fact, which didn't include Judge Robert Benitez, who is the usual pro-gun voice on the Ninth Circuit.
Let that sink in here, and we can see that California has no choice in the matter. They might take it up the chain, and if it's accepted by the en banc panel, they might get some relief, but I doubt it, and there's no way the Supreme Court will side with California on this one.
So let's just enjoy this setback for Gavin Newsom and the anti-gun zealots of the Golden State.
Sucks to be them.
Editor's Note: Gavin Newsom and his radical anti-gun allies aren't going to give up, though. They'll keep trying to infringe on the right of not just Californians to keep and bear arms, but all of us.
Help us to continue exposing their efforts and their hypocrisies. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership.
