And at no point does it allow for the rationing of firearms to law-abiding citizens.
Despite this, California embarked on a silly scheme to limit legal gun purchases to one every 30 days. The rationale behind the law is fuzzy at best, and there was never a doubt that it would face a strong court challenge.
Thursday evening, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals surprised some observers by reaching a conclusion in favor of gun owners. The panel was to decide on the state’s request for a stay of a district court decision striking down the “1-in-30” statute.
The Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) spearheaded the legal effort in Nguyen v. Bonta to overturn the contentious law.
The FPC filed the case in December 2020, and it was joined by the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and private plaintiffs.
California officials doubtless did not expect this outcome. But the latest in a long string of state overreaches proved too much even for the Ninth Circuit, which denied the request.
The Golden State remains unable to enforce the controversial law.
The state could still turn to the broader Ninth Circuit in its search for a favorable ruling, but the panel shredded arguments for gun rationing.
Attorney General Rob Bonta sent Jerry Wen before the judges, and he was dumbfounded by the simplest of questions. For example, Wen was asked if there is any proof that the state’s assertion that limiting firearm purchases to only one a month impedes illegal trafficking.
The attorney could only meekly claim that studies exist and that other states have similar laws.
Amazingly, Wen stumbled further when he argued that the right to purchase a weapon is not enshrined in the Second Amendment. But, time and again, courts have reached the obvious conclusion that in order to keep and bear arms, there must be the freedom to acquire them.
The Ninth Circuit already confirmed this logical reasoning, making the state’s position untenable.
One of the judges, Danielle Forrest, made an observation that the state could not refute. She asked about the legality of preventing a person who does not own firearms from acquiring them to defend themselves in different locations.
For example, at their primary residence and at a beach house.
Wen weakly replied that the concerned citizen could borrow a firearm until the 30-day period expired. The right to keep and bear arms is not based on the ability to “borrow.”
FPC President Brandon Combs celebrated the legal triumph. “This order allows our hard-won injunction to take effect and, unless the Ninth Circuit issues a new stay, Californians may now apply to purchase multiple firearms within a 30-day period.”
Combs added that the gun rights organization plans to force California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) and Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) to abide by the Second Amendment “whether they like it or not.”
The result is that Californians continue to be able to purchase more than one firearm in 30 days instead of having to wait due to an arbitrary and unconstitutional restriction.
California is at the forefront of states determined to bypass the Constitution and suppress gun rights. Brick by brick, it attempts to build a wall between the good people and legal gun ownership while turning a blind eye to lawbreakers.
However, advocacy groups determined to defend personal freedoms consistently fight this effort in court. While there is still much to be done, it is gratifying to see the tide turning against state tyranny in favor of upstanding citizens.
They say the first step to solving a problem is admitting there is one.
Well, the Pew Collectors Anonymous is your way of admitting you have a problem buying guns but you have no intentions of solving that problem, because Pew Collectors Anonymous isn’t about solving a problem; it’s about embracing it.
So be sure to hit the link above and grab your Pew Collectors Anonymous T-Shirts, Hats, and Drinkware.
Click below to purchase.
