Ninth Circuit Says “No Firearm Rationing” – California Says “We Don’t Care”

In a bold move that openly defies recent legal rulings, California legislators are pushing forward with a controversial bill that could limit residents to purchasing just three firearms per month. Despite the Ninth Circuit’s recent decision in Nguyen v. Bonta, which clearly stated that limiting firearm purchases is unconstitutional, California lawmakers remain undeterred. This new law, Assembly Bill 1078, is set to create more hurdles for gun owners in the state.

A Legal Smackdown from the Ninth Circuit

The Ninth Circuit recently handed down a significant ruling in the case of Nguyen v. Bonta, declaring that California’s one-gun-a-month law was unconstitutional. The ruling made it clear that rationing firearm purchases directly infringes upon the Second Amendment. As reported by Rick Travis of the California Rifle & Pistol Association (CRPA) on CRPA TV, the Ninth Circuit’s decision was a blow to California’s legislative attempts to restrict gun ownership.

In the wake of this ruling, many thought the state would pause its attempts to push through more restrictive gun laws. However, as William Kirk of Washington Gun Law points out, California seems to have doubled down on its mission to limit citizens’ firearm rights, even when the legal precedents suggest that such restrictions are likely to be struck down again.

What is Assembly Bill 1078?

Assembly Bill 1078, a new piece of legislation currently working its way through the California Senate, aims to limit firearm purchases to just three per month. As described by Travis, AB 1078 is a mishmash of provisions designed to make life harder for California gun owners. Among other things, it includes provisions related to background checks, protective orders, and increased scrutiny of Concealed Carry Weapon (CCW) permits.

Despite the Ninth Circuit ruling that firearm rationing is unconstitutional, the bill’s author, Assemblymember Reggie Jones-Sawyer, argues that limiting purchases to three firearms per month is a reasonable compromise. According to Kirk, this move represents an attempt to circumvent the Ninth Circuit’s ruling by rebranding the one-gun-a-month rule with a slightly less restrictive limit. However, as the Ninth Circuit’s ruling makes clear, this “slight tweak” does not solve the underlying constitutional issue.

Defying the Courts: California’s Unyielding Stance

California lawmakers’ resistance to the Ninth Circuit’s ruling is striking. In a recent committee hearing, as noted by William from Copper Jacket TV, California legislators openly acknowledged that they were aware of the Ninth Circuit’s decision. Yet, they seemed unbothered by it. In fact, some even went so far as to suggest that California should ignore federal court rulings they disagree with.

One particularly troubling moment, as highlighted by Kirk, was when a California legislator stated, “The Supreme Court has taken a completely radical approach to the Second Amendment,” and essentially dismissed the ruling as invalid. This rhetoric suggests that California legislators are willing to push forward with laws they know will likely be overturned in court, simply to advance their ideological agenda.

Legal Challenges: The Fight Continues

As Travis and other gun rights advocates have pointed out, AB 1078 is likely to face a series of legal challenges if it becomes law. Given that California has already lost in court over its one-gun-a-month law, Travis believes that AB 1078 will also be struck down, but not without a cost. Legal battles are expensive, and California taxpayers could end up footing the bill for yet another unconstitutional law.

Travis is confident that AB 1078 will eventually be defeated in court, just as the one-gun-a-month rule was. However, he also warns that the prolonged legal battles are draining resources that could be better spent elsewhere. As he says, “We’re just going to go to court, and it’s going to be proved unconstitutional.” Nevertheless, until the bill is struck down, it remains a threat to the Second Amendment rights of Californians.

The Fiscal Impact: Wasting Taxpayer Money

One of the most concerning aspects of AB 1078, as pointed out by Travis, is the fiscal impact of passing such a law. With California’s history of enacting gun control laws that are later overturned, the state is setting itself up for yet another costly legal battle. The ongoing cycle of passing laws, defending them in court, and then having them struck down places a heavy burden on taxpayers.

Kirk echoes this concern, emphasizing that California taxpayers are effectively paying for a political agenda that has already been proven to be unconstitutional. “Every time a gun control bill gets passed, we know it’s going to court. And we know that California taxpayers will be footing the bill,” says Kirk. The fact that lawmakers continue to push these laws, despite knowing they will likely be overturned, adds to the frustration of gun owners and taxpayers alike.

The “Three Guns a Month” Rule: A Step Too Far?

AB 1078’s proposed limit of three firearms per month may seem like a more moderate approach than the previous one-gun-a-month rule, but it still raises significant constitutional concerns. As noted by Sam Perez of Gun Owners of California, this kind of restriction is a form of “rights rationing,” which the Ninth Circuit has already ruled is unconstitutional. Perez points out that there is no historical precedent for such limitations, and they have no place in a society that values individual freedoms.

The notion of rationing constitutional rights, especially the right to keep and bear arms, is deeply troubling. Perez compares it to limiting religious freedom by saying people can only attend church once a month, illustrating the absurdity of such restrictions. The government has no business deciding how many firearms a citizen can own or purchase within a given period.

A Legislative “Lie” or Misunderstanding?

The continued push for AB 1078, despite clear legal opposition, raises questions about the integrity of California lawmakers. As Travis describes, the author of the bill, Assemblymember Jones-Sawyer, has blatantly ignored the Ninth Circuit’s ruling, asserting that the three-gun-per-month limit complies with the Constitution. This stance appears to be either a deliberate lie or a fundamental misunderstanding of the law.

Regardless of intent, the message from California lawmakers is clear: they are willing to ignore the Constitution and the courts in their efforts to impose more gun control. As Perez and Kirk both argue, this is not just a matter of policy; it is a fundamental attack on constitutional rights.

The Ninth Circuit’s Role in Shaping Gun Laws

The Ninth Circuit’s ruling in Nguyen v. Bonta has had a profound impact on California’s gun laws, and it is likely to continue shaping future legislation. The court’s decision unequivocally stated that laws limiting the number of firearms a person can purchase violate the Second Amendment. This ruling sets an important legal precedent that is hard to ignore.

Yet, despite this, California lawmakers continue to press forward with new laws that skirt the edges of the Ninth Circuit’s ruling. The question remains: will the courts continue to strike down these laws, or will California find ways to bypass the legal system? Only time will tell, but gun rights advocates remain vigilant and ready to take action.

The Role of Gun Rights Advocates

Gun rights organizations like the CRPA and Gun Owners of California have been at the forefront of the fight against restrictive gun laws in California. As Perez and Travis pointed out, these organizations are not only working to block unconstitutional laws but also educating the public about their rights. The ongoing battle over AB 1078 highlights the importance of grassroots advocacy and legal challenges in defending Second Amendment rights.

As Travis and Perez have made clear, the fight is far from over. While California’s gun control laws continue to evolve, gun owners and their advocates will continue to push back against any law that infringes on their constitutional rights.

The Political Backdrop: What’s Next?

As AB 1078 moves through the California Senate, it is clear that the state’s gun control efforts are far from over. If the bill passes, it will likely face a swift legal challenge, but the question remains: how many more unconstitutional laws will California attempt to pass before they learn from their mistakes? Gun rights advocates will continue to stand firm, ready to take legal action to protect the Second Amendment.

The Road Ahead for California Gun Laws

California’s continued efforts to impose restrictions on firearm purchases, despite clear constitutional opposition, illustrate the state’s unyielding stance on gun control. The introduction of AB 1078, which limits gun purchases to three per month, is just the latest in a series of legal battles over the Second Amendment in the state. As gun rights advocates prepare for another round of litigation, the message from California lawmakers is clear: they will continue to push for more restrictions, regardless of the legal consequences.

This battle is far from over, and gun owners must remain vigilant in defending their rights. The Ninth Circuit’s ruling in Nguyen v. Bonta may have been a victory for gun owners, but California’s legislative actions show that the fight for Second Amendment rights is ongoing.