Estimated reading time: 2 minutes
The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) has opposed California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s motion for a summary judgment regarding the state’s one-handgun-per-month law. This comes in the ongoing Nguyen v. Bonta case from December 2020.
The SAF has teamed up with groups like the Firearms Policy Coalition and San Diego County Gun Owners PAC. They’re challenging both Attorney General Rob Bonta and Luis Lopez, the head of the state’s Firearms Bureau.
Their fight started in San Diego, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. Here, the SAF recently submitted their opposition document, represented by attorney Raymond M. DiGuiseppe.
In their statement, the SAF emphasized the delay in resolving the case. They argue the “OGM law” — the one-gun-a-month rule — is unconstitutional. They’ve felt this way even before the Bruen case.
Alan M. Gottlieb, SAF’s founder, highlighted the state’s attempt to delay the legal process. He accuses California of avoiding the scrutiny the OGM law rightfully deserves.
SEE ALSO: Bonta Files Motion to Stay Decision Overturning California’s Mag Ban
“We’re seeing a troubling pattern in litigation in which defendants try to drag out the process,” said Gottlieb. “As we note in our opposition, in moving for a summary judgment, the state is trying to ‘spare the OMG law the full brunt of proper scrutiny, steer the analysis right back into the prohibited field of “means-end” scrutiny, and hopefully avoid its otherwise inevitable constitutional demise.’ Clearly, California is trying to defend the indefensible while protecting an unconstitutional law and the state will be dragged kicking and screaming to the 21st Century reality that the law is wrong.”
Adam Kraut, SAF’s Executive Director, reinforced that the historical facts don’t back California’s law. He says there’s no evidence to support such limits when the Second Amendment was penned, making the law unconstitutional.
“The material facts, alone, make it clear the OGM law can’t survive constitutional scrutiny,” explained Kraut.
“Especially since Bruen, the state cannot provide any historical analogous evidence such limits existed at the time the Second Amendment was written,” he continued. “Therefore, the law must be found unconstitutional.”
*** Buy and Sell on GunsAmerica! All Local Sales are FREE! ***
