{"id":1542995,"date":"2025-06-22T02:10:00","date_gmt":"2025-06-22T06:10:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/bugaluu.com\/news\/?p=1542995"},"modified":"2025-06-22T02:10:00","modified_gmt":"2025-06-22T06:10:00","slug":"ninth-circuit-strikes-down-californias-1-in-30-gun-rationing-law","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/bugaluu.com\/news\/ninth-circuit-strikes-down-californias-1-in-30-gun-rationing-law\/1542995\/","title":{"rendered":"Ninth Circuit Strikes Down California’s “1-In-30” Gun-Rationing Law"},"content":{"rendered":"

Ninth Circuit Strikes Down California’s “1-In-30” Gun-Rationing Law<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Authored by Jonathan Turley,<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n

A unanimous panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has struck down California\u2019s \u201c1-in-30\u201d gun rationing law as unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.<\/p>\n

The law restricted citizens to one gun purchase every 30 days and was based on a ridiculous rationale that was shredded by the three-judge panel.<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

California Penal Code \u00a7 27535(a) states that individuals may not apply \u201cto purchase more than one firearm within any 30-day period,\u201d<\/strong> and \u00a7 27540(f) prohibits a firearms dealer from delivering any firearm if the dealer is notified that \u201cthe purchaser has made another application to purchase a handgun, semiautomatic centerfire rifle, completed frame or receiver, or firearm precursor part\u201d within the preceding 30-day period.<\/p>\n

Writing for the court, Judge Danielle Jo Forrest found the California law facially unconstitutional. She wrote:<\/p>\n

California suggests that the Second Amendment only guarantees a right to possess a single firearm, <\/strong>and that Plaintiffs\u2019 rights have not been infringed because they already possess at least one firearm. <\/em><\/p>\n

California is wrong. <\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

The Second Amendment protects the right of the people to \u201ckeep and bear Arms,\u201d plural. U.S. Const. amend. II (emphasis added). <\/em><\/p>\n

This \u201cguarantee[s] the individual right to possess and carry weapons.\u201d <\/strong>Heller, 554 U.S. at 592 (emphasis added).<\/em><\/p>\n

And not only is \u201cArms\u201d stated in the plural, but this term refers to more than just guns. It includes other weapons and instruments used for defense. See id. at 581. California\u2019s interpretation would mean that the Second Amendment only protects possession of a single weapon of any kind. There is no basis for interpreting the constitutional text in that way.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

The court rightfully dismisses the state\u2019s forced and frankly frivolous argument.<\/p>\n

It then delivers a particularly lethal line on the historical prong of the analysis.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Next, the panel held that California\u2019s law is not supported by this nation\u2019s tradition of firearms regulation. Bruen requires a \u201chistorical analogue,\u201d not a \u201chistorical twin,\u201d for a modern firearm regulation to pass muster. Here, the historical record does not even establish a historical cousin for California\u2019s one-gun-a-month law.<\/em><\/p>\n

Here is the opinion:\u00a0Nguyen v. Bonta<\/em>n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Tyler Durden<\/a><\/span>
\nSat, 06\/21\/2025 – 22:10<\/span><\/p>\n

\u200bhttps:\/\/www.zerohedge.com\/political\/ninth-circuit-strikes-down-californias-1-30-gun-rationing-law<\/a>\u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Ninth Circuit Strikes Down California’s “1-In-30” Gun-Rationing Law Authored by Jonathan Turley, A unanimous panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":0,"featured_media":1542996,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1542995","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-news","wpcat-1-id"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/bugaluu.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1542995","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/bugaluu.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/bugaluu.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bugaluu.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1542995"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/bugaluu.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1542995\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bugaluu.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1542996"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/bugaluu.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1542995"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bugaluu.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1542995"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bugaluu.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1542995"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}