Estimated reading time: 2 minutes
The legal battle against California’s restrictive One-Gun-A-Month law culminated in a win for the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) as the federal court granted summary judgment in their favor.
U.S. District Judge William Q. Hayes highlighted the absence of historical justification for such a purchase limitation in his detailed 24-page decision.
SAF’s spearhead, Alan M. Gottlieb, celebrated the ruling as a significant victory for gun rights and for Californians who wish to purchase more than a single firearm each month.
Joining SAF in their cheers was the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), which pointed out the court’s finding of no “well-established and representative historical analogue” to uphold the law.
SEE ALSO: SAF Continues to Challenge California’s One-Gun-A-Month Law
The coalition’s Vice President, Cody J. Wisniewski, criticized California’s persistent gun control efforts as constitutionally unfounded. He pledged to continue the fight against what they see as the state’s overreach into gun ownership rights.
While the judgment is stayed for 30 days, paving the way for an appeal by the state, the SAF and its allies, including six private citizens and several gun rights groups represented by attorney Raymond M. DiGuiseppe, are confident in their legal standing.
They argue that the Second Amendment contains nothing to support a limit on the number of firearms a person can buy, deeming the state’s one-gun-a-month law patently unconstitutional.
The case, which began in December 202, is known as Nguyen v. Bonta. As the dust settles, SAF and FPC prepare to defend this legal triumph should California choose to challenge the court’s decision.
*** Buy and Sell on GunsAmerica! All Local Sales are FREE! ***
For every victory, California passes three more offensive laws, and every time it loses, it appeals knowing that the Ninth Circuit will hold the case in limbo for as long as it can, by hook or by crook. This term, laws have been proposed to 1) require that all firearms must be secured by a lock or a DOJ approved safe unless in one’s personal possession, 2) impose an annual registration renewal for every single firearm you own (at an unspecified registration fee) along with mandatory registration of all firearms, serialized or not, 3) mandatory reporting of the number of firearms and places where stored to one’s lessor’s or homeowner’s insurance carrier (with optional reporting of that information to the state DOJ), 4) mandatory reporting of all lost or stolen firearms within 48 hours after the owner “knows or should know” of the loss, 5) an expanded list of misdemeanors that result in a ten year ownership ban, and 6) a ban on possession of any firearm without having a current firearms safety certificate (renewed every two years for $25 with a multiple choice test of safe gun handling and laws, and previously only required at the time of purchase). Last year they imposed an ADDITIONAL 11% excise tax on all firearms and ammunition purchases (over and above sales tax), and passed a new CCW law that went into effect January 1 that, like the NY law, severely restricted the places where one could carry a concealed firearm
Sure am glad I left California back in 73′.
Told my lawyer I was trying to stick to one a month and he just laughed.