A California law that limits gun purchases to one per month is unconstitutional on its face, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled last Friday. The three-judge panel's unanimous conclusion illustrates the continuing impact of the Supreme Court's 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which clarified the constitutional test for gun control laws.
"California's law is facially unconstitutional because possession of multiple firearms and the ability to acquire firearms through purchase without meaningful constraints are protected by the Second Amendment," Judge Danielle J. Forrest, a Donald Trump appointee, wrote in Nguyen v. Bonta, "and California's law is not supported by our nation's tradition of firearms regulation." The opinion was joined by Judge Bridget S. Bade, who also was appointed by Trump, and by Judge John B. Owens, who was appointed by Barack Obama.
The law at issue in Nguyen, originally enacted in 1999, was aimed at preventing "straw purchases"—transactions in which people buy multiple firearms and transfer them to individuals who are not legally allowed to possess them. The restriction, which originally applied only to handguns but was eventually extended to all firearms, applies to all buyers with a few exceptions, including law enforcement agencies, private security companies, and movie studios.
