9th Circus Officially Ends 1-per-30 Day Firearm Purchase Restriction in Calfornia

[The Gleam]

I see the update in "2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion" but the title of that 5-year long running thread being the name of the lawsuit ( Nguyen vs Becerra 2020-Dec: USDC SDCA: challenge new 1 in 30), doesn't have the same summarized impact of this final ruling - figured I would post this here for general view. Very important news.

In any case.....

The California Rifle & Pistol Association proudly applauds today’s unanimous decision by the Ninth Circuit in Nguyen v. Bonta, which declared California’s arbitrary “one‑gun‑per‑30‑days” purchase restriction unconstitutional.

The three‑judge panel—iron‑clad and unanimous, even including an Obama appointee—confirmed that the statutory limit clearly encroaches on conduct protected by the plain text of the Second Amendment: owning multiple firearms . Turning to historical precedent, the court found no meaningful analogue for California’s cap, nor even a close cousin in American tradition.

https://crpa.org/news/press-release/...nates-1-in-30/

https://crpa.org/wp-content/uploads/...54_OPINION.pdf


----

[yacko]

About time........

Now that 10 day wait.....

[Avocado Toast]

Don't get too giddy over this.

This was a 3 judge panel who issued the decision, and Bonta has the right, like all litigants. to ask for the full 9th panel rehearing.

The full 9th majority is liberal and not very gun friendly. They issued a prior decision affirming that CA can limit mag capacity to10 rounds, under the theory that no one has a legit reason for more than 10 rounds at a time and if you need more ammo during a SD shooting, you can simply reload.

This three judge panel will be overturned, without any doubt.

[splithoof]

Oh Enbanc, Oh Enbanc, where are you?….not to worry, Rob and his friends on the 9th will likely be along shortly.

[The Gleam]

Don't get too giddy over this.

This was a 3 judge panel who issued the decision, and Bonta has the right, like all litigants. to ask for the full 9th panel rehearing.

The full 9th majority is liberal and not very gun friendly. They issued a prior decision affirming that CA can limit mag capacity to10 rounds, under the theory that no one has a legit reason for more than 10 rounds at a time and if you need more ammo during a SD shooting, you can simply reload.

This three judge panel will be overturned, without any doubt.

Giddy is not something I do. But ridiculous to not see the upside, and go straight to casting a negative instead. It may not be so streamline on this one.

Regardless....

1) Unanimous decision, which makes it more of an uphill climb from an outlook purview. Their en banc challenges in the past always had an outlier and benefit from at least one dissenting opinion. Not so here.

2) They know, that we know, that they even know that putting a limit on any number of purchases in a time frame is nonsense no matter what the inanimate object may be. Prevents nothing other than they want to reduce the number of guns in private hands which is on par with what King George sought to do in his day - and here they are pleading 'No Kings' as they push this tyrannical bullcrap.

On that basis alone, there is little way this would stand a test at SCOTUS. They'll waste a lot of money only to lose and they know it - which may serve to be a deterrent.

3) The fabricated intent originally was to stop straw-purchases, particularly on handguns, supposedly used in crimes. I guarantee nobody in CA with its rigid DROS system is flipping a large number of guns in any great volume to prohibited people, if at all, with every bit of their information registered to those guns.

4) Such limits have been shot down in other states. Buying 4 cars at one time makes you no more likely to go out and rob a bank with a car, drive drunk, or run down a group of kids waiting to get on a school bus any more than buying only 1 car a month. Same goes for guns, in any volume, regarding crimes. The Stephen Paddock psycho up in Las Vegas would have done what he did, whether he bought his guns all at once or over the course of 10 years. Even then, he acted alone, he only needed one gun in the manner by which he used them.

5) So just about every way they try to justify it, it comes off as nonsense, even more than how they tried to justify magazine capacity limits.

6) Should they resort to en banc, it will be at least another 2 years of hemming and hawing, and then another 2 years or so to get to SCOTUS where it will stand unenforceable in the mean time.

I'll qualify the above with 'I hope' because I would never underestimate the spiteful hate and quest for absolute power the Leninist factions running this once great state into the ground maintain - but the prospects for this are much better than what we saw with AW and magazine capacity concerns.

---

[L.A. Saiga]

Amen!

[MajorSideburns]

They knew this was coming and already have a new law ready to pass that bumps up the restriction to 3 guns in 30 days.

[pythonfan]

How does this affect Los Angeles's ban on 1 in 30?

[OLD-skool454#3]

If only there were enough cool guns to buy so that the 1 in 30 would matter... I'd even be happy with 1 in 10-15 months nowadays. None of the current guns wow me.

[G-forceJunkie]

Time to fire up the old en banc and reverse this...

[M1A Rifleman]

Yea, we win, now for the 9th to En-Banc and make it a loss, and for SCOTUS to not accept a cert, and add to the continued anti gun legislations from the state Femocrats. Move out of the state while your young

[The Gleam]

If only there were enough cool guns to buy so that the 1 in 30 would matter... I'd even be happy with 1 in 10-15 months nowadays. None of the current guns wow me.

Over 150 years of centerfire firearms and you can't find enough 'cool guns' to buy 1 in 30?

That problem is you - or your lack of awareness of '"cool guns'. I can think of thousands of guns that have thousands more times of wow factor than any current guns could muster.

---

[The Gleam]

How does this affect Los Angeles's ban on 1 in 30?

I suspect it will kill that too, because it's a state law deemed unconstitutional by a Federal court.

It would not be the first time thar LA City had to shelve a petty ordinance because a Federal court ruled one of California's state laws built on the same thene was unconstitutional.

---

[The Gleam]

They knew this was coming and already have a new law ready to pass that bumps up the restriction to 3 guns in 30 days.

Wishful thinking on their part.

The ruling was clearly written to nullify any number of their quota limitation wet-dreams, on that legislation too. It's dead on arrival. Whether 1 per 30 or 50 per 30, doesn't matter.

---

[The Gleam]

Time to fire up the old en banc and reverse this...

Yea, we win, now for the 9th to En-Banc and make it a loss, and for SCOTUS to not accept a cert, and add to the continued anti gun legislations from the state Femocrats. Move out of the state while your young

I swear, it's as if you guys are wishing for it to happen only to make your lives more interesting, or have something to bitch about for lack of anything else of purpose.

Are you bored?

Here, go look in a mirror and chant 3 times - 'I believe in Gavin Newsom, 'I believe in Gavin Newsom, I believe in Gavin Newsom" - and he just might show up to give you your thrills.

---