In a major ruling released June 20, 2025, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declared California’s “one-gun-a-month” law unconstitutional. The law, which had prohibited most people from purchasing more than one firearm within a 30-day period, was ruled to be a clear violation of the Second Amendment. According to the opinion by Judge Danielle J. Forrest, this kind of “monthly metering” of a constitutional right simply can’t stand.
The case, Nguyen v. Bonta, was brought by multiple plaintiffs, including individual gun buyers, firearms dealers, and national gun rights groups like the Firearms Policy Coalition and Second Amendment Foundation. The plaintiffs argued that limiting how often law-abiding citizens can buy firearms was an infringement on their constitutional rights – not a public safety measure.
The Legal Standard: Bruen Test at the Center
The court relied on the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen decision from 2022 to evaluate California’s law. Under Bruen, judges must first ask whether the Second Amendment covers the regulated conduct. If it does, the law is presumed unconstitutional unless the government can prove the restriction fits within the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
In this case, the court ruled that both purchasing and possessing multiple firearms are plainly covered by the Second Amendment. “Arms” is plural, the judges emphasized. The state’s attempt to limit that right by forcing a 30-day wait between purchases was not backed by any relevant historical precedent.
Tom Grieve: “Imagine Metering Any Other Right”
Attorney and former prosecutor Tom Grieve provided sharp commentary on the case in his recent video. Grieve explained how absurd California’s position sounds when applied to other rights. “What if you could only worship once a month? Protest once a month? Or be free from unreasonable searches only once every 30 days?” he asked. The analogy hits hard.
Grieve also noted how the judges posed this very question to California’s lawyers at oral argument – and received no answer. The government could not name another constitutional right that’s lawfully “metered” like this. That silence said everything.
Historical Analogy Fails: No Cousin, Twin, or Even Distant Relative
To justify its law, California tried to argue that gun trafficking and straw purchases are modern problems that require modern solutions. But the court didn’t buy it. In the opinion authored by Judge Forrest, the court said the burden is on the state to provide historical laws that are “relevantly similar” to the modern regulation. And none of the state’s examples fit.
California pointed to colonial laws restricting the sale of weapons to Native Americans and to 19th-century dealer tracking requirements. But the court said those either applied only to specific dangerous groups or focused on regulating dealers, not banning regular citizens from buying guns. Even old laws that taxed or tracked guns didn’t block multiple purchases.
California’s Arguments Fall Flat in Court
Tom Grieve broke down California’s top three arguments in his video and showed how all of them collapsed under legal scrutiny. First, California said the law stops straw purchases and gun trafficking. But the court reminded them that public safety, while important, can’t override a constitutional right unless backed by historical precedent.
Second, California claimed the rule was just a “modest limit.” But the court said there’s no known example of the government being allowed to “meter” a right by time. Not for speech, religion, voting, or any other amendment. “Even a modest constraint on frequency impermissibly restricts the right,” the opinion stated.
Third, California tried comparing the rule to waiting periods. But the court said that’s not even close. A waiting period delays access but doesn’t cap the number of guns someone can buy. California’s law imposed a “recurring categorical cap,” which is much more severe.
Who Was Involved in the Lawsuit
The plaintiffs were a mix of individual citizens and groups. According to the court documents, they included people like Michelle Nguyen, Dominic Boguski, and Jay Medina – all of whom wanted to buy more than one firearm in a 30-day span. Organizations like North County Shooting Center and the San Diego County Gun Owners Political Action Committee also joined, claiming the law hurt business and membership rights.
Backing the plaintiffs were national legal teams, including attorneys from Clement & Murphy PLLC and the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action. On the other side, California Attorney General Rob Bonta and DOJ officials tried to defend the law, but their arguments didn’t sway the panel.
A Surprising Unanimous Decision
One of the most surprising parts of this ruling was that it wasn’t a narrow 2-1 decision with a political divide. It was unanimous. Even the judge appointed by President Obama sided with the two Trump-appointed judges in declaring the law unconstitutional. This isn’t something that can be brushed off as a partisan move.
Grieve pointed this out too: “This wasn’t just the Trump judges ganging up on the law. Even the Obama judge saw the problem here.” That made it harder for California to argue the decision was political. It was based on clear constitutional standards.
The “Metering” Concept Gets Slammed
What really stood out in both the court opinion and Grieve’s commentary was the idea that you can “pause” a right based on time. As Grieve pointed out, if this kind of metering was allowed, it opens the door to limiting rights in all kinds of dangerous ways. Once the state is allowed to restrict how often you can use a right, it’s just a matter of who’s in power.
The court agreed. “What would stop the government from saying you can only go to church every six months?” Judge Forrest wrote. “Or only protest once a year?” There was no limiting principle – and that’s why the court had to stop it here.
California’s Law Went Too Far
In simple terms, the court found that California’s law banned lawful behavior that’s protected by the Constitution. The plaintiffs weren’t criminals. They weren’t buying on behalf of someone else. They just wanted to purchase more than one firearm per month – something that, until recently, was common and legal.
California argued this was about public safety, but the court ruled that without a historical tradition supporting it, even good intentions aren’t enough. Bruen made clear that the Second Amendment protects the right to acquire firearms – plural.
What Happens Next?
According to Tom Grieve, California will likely try to appeal this to the full Ninth Circuit for an “en banc” hearing, where all 29 judges on the court would reconsider the case. But that might not work. As Grieve noted, “Even the Obama judge sided with gun owners here. That makes it hard to claim this was just a fluke.”
If the full court doesn’t overturn the ruling, California could try to take it to the U.S. Supreme Court. But based on the current legal standards, it’s not looking good for the one-gun-a-month law.
Metering Rights Is a Dangerous Precedent
Here’s what’s fascinating – and deeply concerning. If this law had stood, it would have opened the door to “metering” other rights. The government could say you can only speak out once a month, or only read certain books every few weeks. That’s not just a gun issue. That’s a liberty issue.
What makes the Second Amendment different is how often it’s treated like a second-class right. The court made it clear: no more. Constitutional protections don’t come with a time limit.
A Win for Rights, Not Just Guns
This case wasn’t just about how many guns someone can buy. It was about whether the government can ration the Bill of Rights like it’s handing out tickets at a deli counter. The court said no. And that’s a win not just for gun owners – but for every American who values freedom.
As Tom Grieve reminded viewers, “The Constitution doesn’t say ‘You can exercise your rights, but only on our schedule.’” That’s a message worth remembering.
Ed spent his childhood in the backwoods of Maine, where harsh winters taught him the value of survival skills. With a background in bushcraft and off-grid living, Ed has honed his expertise in fire-making, hunting, and wild foraging. He writes from personal experience, sharing practical tips and hands-on techniques to thrive in any outdoor environment. Whether it’s primitive camping or full-scale survival, Ed’s advice is grounded in real-life challenges.
