Estimated reading time: 2 minutes
The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its allies have stepped up their legal battle against California’s one-gun-per-month (OMG) law, submitting an appellee’s brief to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. This move challenges the state’s effort to uphold the controversial statute.
SAF clinched a summary judgment at the district court level, but the state of California, not satisfied with the decision, has appealed. The legal battle, initiated in December 2020, continues to draw attention nationwide.
Joining SAF in this fight are the Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc., San Diego County Gun Owners PAC, North County Shooting Center, Inc., PWGG, L.P., and six private citizens, including Michelle Nguyen.
Nguyen’s case against Attorney General Rob Bonta has become emblematic of this broader legal challenge. The group is represented by attorney Raymond M. DiGuiseppe from Southport, NC.
SEE ALSO: Virginia Dad Sentenced in Turks and Caicos for Ammo Possession
Adam Kraut, SAF’s Executive Director, argues vigorously against the state’s stance.
“It should be clear to the court that the text of the Second Amendment covers the conduct prohibited by California’s OMG statute,” said Kraut.
He further criticized the state’s claim that its restriction is “presumptively lawful,” calling it a clear and unlawful impediment to the legitimate rights of law-abiding citizens.
SAF founder and Executive Vice President, Alan M. Gottlieb, also weighed in, noting the historical context of the law.
“There is no historical evidence of any such restriction anywhere in the country at the time the nation was created, and the Constitution was ratified. The Founders would never have considered such a prohibition. Indeed, they would have rejected it immediately as utter nonsense.”
As always, stay tuned for updates.
*** Buy and Sell on GunsAmerica! All Local Sales are FREE! ***
“trust us, we only want a small piece of the cake… or wait, we’ll have seconds. oh, you know what, i have an eating disorder so i’ll just eat the rest too.”
death of a thousand cuts. and of course, they’re emboldened because the paedo joe administration is actively working behind it along with the media to paint the pictures and to sharpen the blades. lawfare. and just blantant illegal laws because, hey! why not? who’s going to stop them?
just keep in mind, the government of the past 100 years is not here to help (anyone but themselves).
Ok , I am Not a fan of Cali. & I AM a pro gun owner. I have happened to buy more than one gun in a month, and I believe it happened once. Unless you are a dealer/gun shop, who “needs” to buy more than one a month? ( I just had my gun shop hold the gun until the “no more than one per week” limit in TX ran out. > All it requires , if you do buy more than one pistol in a week, is more paperwork.) And, I also get not allowing restrictions on legal purchasing of firearms, because when one opens the door to this type of thing, it just invites more of the same. But , shrugs , whatever.
‘…, who “needs” to buy more than one a month?’
So what you would support is a rationing of 2A rights? What other Constitutional rights would you like to see rationed? Why don’t you explain why the government needs this type restriction? I have seen guns become available during a month where I made a previous purchase, so I had to make a second purchase or lose the opportunity. You admit to buying more than one gun a month and with the help of FFL you delayed the paper work, that seems like you violated the spirt of a law that you support, explain why that is OK with you?
I don’t support it, just saying : for most people it won’t come up that often. So, what good does this limit do ? Unless one is an FFL , which it does not apply to .