California’s one-gun-per-month law crumbles as 9th Circuit Court delivers shocking blow to gun control advocates.
At a Glance
- 9th Circuit Court blocks California’s law limiting gun purchases to one per month
- Federal district court previously ruled the law unconstitutional under the Second Amendment
- Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) celebrates victory as injunction takes effect
- Decision based on Supreme Court’s NYSRPA v. Bruen case, setting new standard for gun laws
California’s Gun Control Overreach Backfires
In a stunning turn of events that has left gun-grabbing politicians and their media lapdogs scrambling, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has just drop-kicked California’s ridiculous one-gun-per-month law into oblivion. This isn’t just a win for gun rights; it’s a full-blown knockout punch to the face of government overreach and unconstitutional restrictions on our Second Amendment freedoms.
The lawsuit, originally filed as Michelle Nguyen et al. v. California Attorney General Xavier Becerra et al., challenged a law that treats law-abiding citizens like children who can’t be trusted with their own constitutional rights. This asinine piece of legislation, signed by none other than Governor Gavin Newsom – a man who’s never met a gun control law he didn’t like – restricted Californians to purchasing no more than one firearm per month. Because apparently, in the twisted logic of anti-gun zealots, exercising your rights too frequently is dangerous.
A 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel has blocked enforcement of a California law limiting residents to one firearm purchase every 30 days. https://t.co/82vxKB8Oyd
— Daily Press (@VVDailyPress) August 16, 2024
A Victory for Common Sense and Constitutional Rights
The 9th Circuit’s decision follows a federal district court’s ruling that struck down the law as unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. It’s a rare moment of clarity for a court that’s typically about as friendly to gun rights as a vegan is to a steakhouse. But even they couldn’t ignore the blatant violation of constitutional rights this time around.
Firearms Policy Coalition President Brandon Combs didn’t mince words, declaring victory and putting California’s anti-gun politicians on notice. “FPC intends to make Governor Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta respect Second Amendment rights whether they like it or not,” he stated, echoing the frustration of countless Californians who’ve watched their rights erode under the guise of “public safety.”
The Bruen Standard: A Game-Changer for Gun Rights
This ruling is a direct result of the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in NYSRPA v. Bruen, which established a new standard for evaluating gun laws. As U.S. District Court Judge William Hayes pointed out, “When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct,” and the government must justify its regulations based on historical tradition.
In a desperate attempt to justify their constitutional overreach, California’s legal team tried to cite historical gun restrictions targeting Native Americans as precedent. Judge Hayes saw right through this absurd argument, calling it “dubious, at best” and noting that these historical laws didn’t actually limit the quantity or frequency of firearm acquisitions. Nice try, California, but your obscure, historical analogies aren’t going to fly here.
The Fight Continues
While this victory is certainly cause for celebration, the battle for our Second Amendment rights is far from over. California’s Department of Justice may still seek a review by a larger en banc panel of the 9th Circuit, desperately clinging to their unconstitutional law like a toddler to a security blanket. But for now, Californians can rejoice in the fact that they can exercise their rights without arbitrary monthly limits imposed by politicians.
This case serves as a stark reminder that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Organizations like the Firearms Policy Coalition continue to fight on the front lines, challenging unconstitutional laws and defending our rights in courtrooms across the country. It’s up to all of us to support these efforts, stay informed, and never back down in the face of government overreach. After all, our rights are only as secure as our willingness to defend them.
