In a sharp and unanimous 3-0 decision, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has struck down California’s controversial “one-gun-a-month” law. This law, which limited law-abiding residents to purchasing just one firearm every 30 days, was found to violate the Second Amendment. The case, Nguyen v. Bonta, has now set a powerful precedent in favor of gun rights and against what the court called “meaningful constraints” on constitutionally protected conduct.
The opinion, written by Judge Danielle Forrest and joined by Judges Bridget Bade and John Owens, concluded that California’s purchase quota law is not just a bad idea – it’s unconstitutional. The court’s reasoning? The Second Amendment protects both the possession and acquisition of firearms. That means placing a hard cap on how often someone can legally buy a gun crosses the line.
The Court Rejected California’s Argument – Hard
At the heart of California’s defense was a claim that the Second Amendment doesn’t actually guarantee the right to buy multiple guns – just to own one. According to the court, that logic doesn’t hold water. “California is wrong,” Judge Forrest wrote bluntly. “The Second Amendment protects the right to possess multiple firearms.”
This opinion aligns with the view long held by pro-2A attorneys and gun rights advocates. As reported by Washington Gun Law’s William Kirk, the state essentially argued that as long as a person owns one firearm, they’ve met their Second Amendment quota. Kirk ridiculed the logic, asking rhetorically, “Would we ever allow the First Amendment to be limited to one protest a month?”
Washington Gun Law: “No Quotas on Rights”
William Kirk of Washington Gun Law broke down the absurdity of California’s position in simple terms: “Imagine being allowed to go to church only once a month. Imagine only being free from illegal search and seizure on certain days. That’s the kind of logic California applied to the Second Amendment.”
He praised the plaintiffs and legal teams from the Second Amendment Foundation and Firearms Policy Coalition, who brought the case as a facial challenge. Facial challenges are especially difficult to win – they require proving a law is unconstitutional under all circumstances. The court agreed.
Kirk also warned lawmakers in Washington State who attempted to pass a near-identical bill. “Let this serve as a warning,” he said. “House Bill 1132 should stay dead.”
Copper Jacket TV: “Not Even a Historical Cousin”
Will from Copper Jacket TV celebrated the ruling as a “huge win” and an unexpected surprise from the historically anti-gun Ninth Circuit. He noted that the court’s language could even block new legislation currently moving through California’s legislature, which would limit gun purchases to three per month.
The court found that the law fails both the text and history tests set out in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. Specifically, the panel wrote that “the historical record does not even establish a historical cousin” for this kind of restriction.
Will emphasized how rare it is for the Ninth Circuit to come down so firmly on the side of gun rights, saying, “Usually they bend the rules to favor the state. Not this time.”
Mark Smith: “This Law Had No Historical Footing”
Mark W. Smith of The Four Boxes Diner gave a detailed legal breakdown of the opinion, calling it “a big win for freedom” and a massive defeat for Governor Gavin Newsom. He highlighted the court’s rejection of California’s claim that gun trafficking is a new threat that justifies modern restrictions. The court countered with centuries of historical evidence showing that illegal arms sales have always existed, and were never addressed by limiting lawful purchases.
Smith explained that rights like speech, religion, or self-defense don’t suddenly become negotiable just because the government says they’re hard to manage. “Could they limit the number of Bibles you buy a month?” he asked. “What if I wanted to go to church every day? Should they stop me after one visit?”
“Arms” Means Plural – And the Court Agreed
One of the most important takeaways from the ruling was the emphasis on the word “arms.” The court made it crystal clear that the plural form matters. “Keep and bear arms” doesn’t mean just one. It means the right to possess and acquire more than one firearm. The panel even referenced the D.C. Circuit’s ruling in Heller III, which held that 30-day purchase limits interfere with an individual’s right to own multiple weapons.
This point blew a hole in California’s logic. If the right is plural, any law that artificially limits how often someone can add to their personal defense tools is on shaky ground from the start.
Historical Analogues? California Came Up Empty
Following Bruen, courts must now look to American history to justify modern gun regulations. California tried, but failed, to produce any historical equivalents to its law. The court noted that even during times of colonial warfare and gun trafficking fears, governments never resorted to rationing lawful gun sales to prevent crime.
In fact, the closest example California offered was a short-lived 17th-century Virginia law limiting how many guns a person could carry near Native towns. The court dismissed it as unrelated—it was about movement and location, not purchase rights.
The Court: You Can’t “Meter” Rights Like That
Perhaps the strongest part of the Ninth Circuit’s ruling came when it compared California’s law to restrictions on other constitutional rights. The panel wrote, “We doubt anyone would think government could limit citizens’ free speech right to one protest a month, or their free exercise right to one worship service per month.”
That language echoes a larger concern: once the government claims the right to ration constitutional freedoms, there’s no logical end point. As William Kirk put it, “If they can limit one right to once a month, what’s to stop them from limiting them to once a year?”
A Victory With Broader Implications
This ruling is a clear signal that courts are taking the Second Amendment more seriously than before. The idea that it’s a “second-class right,” as the Supreme Court put it in McDonald v. Chicago, is starting to fade. More importantly, this decision reminds lawmakers that good intentions do not outweigh constitutional limits.
It also raises questions about similar laws in other states. How many other restrictions could now be challenged using the same legal framework? For gun owners, this ruling could have ripple effects far beyond California.
Why This Win Matters Right Now
California’s attempt to limit lawful gun purchases under the guise of public safety was not just misguided – it was fundamentally flawed. The court saw right through it. This wasn’t about crime prevention. It was about control. And that’s the real story here.
The fact that this case won in the Ninth Circuit, the same court that’s often criticized for bending over backwards to uphold gun control, makes the ruling even more significant. It suggests that Bruen has changed the playing field, and even the most liberal-leaning circuits now have to play by the new rules.
Looking Ahead: Is the Fight Over?
Probably not. California may request an en banc review or take it to the Supreme Court, though experts like Mark Smith believe they’re unlikely to succeed. The legal reasoning here is too solid, too thorough, and too grounded in constitutional text and history.
Meanwhile, lawmakers in other states should take note. Bills like Washington’s failed HB 1132, which mirrored California’s quota law, are now exposed as legally vulnerable. As William Kirk put it bluntly, “That’s where it should stay – dead in committee.”
A Constitutional Gut Check
Nguyen v. Bonta isn’t just a win for gun owners – it’s a reaffirmation of constitutional principle. You can’t ration rights. Not speech. Not religion. Not the right to keep and bear arms. This ruling sends that message loud and clear. California’s law didn’t just fail to meet historical standards. It failed the common-sense test, too.
With this ruling, the court reminded everyone, from Sacramento to Seattle, that the Constitution isn’t optional. It’s the law. And for now, at least, it looks like that law still means something.
A former park ranger and wildlife conservationist, Lisa’s passion for survival started with her deep connection to nature. Raised on a small farm in northern Wisconsin, she learned how to grow her own food, raise livestock, and live off the land. Lisa is our dedicated Second Amendment news writer and also focuses on homesteading, natural remedies, and survival strategies. Lisa aims to help others live more sustainably and prepare for the unexpected.