1-in-30 Law Struck Down by 9th Circuit

[SomeOne]

Adding to that,,,,,

Get rid of the following,

Hand gun roster
Standard capacity magazine ban
Ammo background check
AW ban (modern semi automatic sporting arms)

Incase I forgot something I'll just add this, etc, etc, etc!!

Let's generalize. Get rid of all the gun control laws in California, also ban each and every politician who championed such a law, or voter for such a law. That would make California much better place.

 

[morooster]

They only did that because they didn’t have LCMs for their firearms.

It reads like establishing precedence, aimed at the argument that guns were less lethal when the 2a was written. and also i just had no idea that people carried multiple single shot pistols on their body like in the movies.

 

[Hit Factor]

It reads like establishing precedence, aimed at the argument that guns were less lethal when the 2a was written. and also i just had no idea that people carried multiple single shot pistols on their body like in the movies.

I think it’s intended to show that not only is there no historical analogue for limiting the number of guns people can acquire, keep, and bear, but that actually the opposite is true. Historically, people have been allowed to keep and bear numerous arms, and acquire multiple guns at the same time. I understand that in the amicus brief it filed, the CRPA even presented 19th century advertisements showing that it was common practice to sell/purchase multiple guns in a single transaction.

 

[ZeroFoxGiven]

Let's generalize. Get rid of all the gun control laws in California, also ban each and every politician who championed such a law, or voter for such a law. That would make California much better place.

That would be a very dangerous precedent. Especially in California.

 

[Pythonfan]

How does this affect the Los Angeles ban? I'd imagine that is now void as well?

 

[SLORNR]

Let's do a poll on whether State will appeal En Banc for this one?

No way they appeal. The state is taxing all new gun sales at an additional 11%. This was more than likely all by design.

 

[OlderThanDirt]

Am I wrong to be optimistic when I read stuff like this

For most of my life it has been common to sell collector pistols as a matched set. Also, it was also pretty much the norm for gun stores to upsell you on an additional firearm (or two or three) because there was space on the DROS form for multiple firearms.

 

[DrPete]

On a very simply note, I've often said (to myself) if a politician wants to restrict my gun rights they have to have no personal protection (bodyguard) and cannot own any type of weapon. Problem solved. Dreamer huh

 

[SomeOne]

Don't celebrate too early. AB1078

California AB1078 | 2025-2026 | Regular Session

Bill Text (2025-10-10) Firearms. [Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 570, Statutes of 2025.]

legiscan.com

NO PERSON SHALL MAKE AN APPLICATION TO PURCHASE ONE OR MORE FIREARMS THAT WOULD RESULT IN THE PURCHASE OF MORE THAN THREE FIREARMS CUMULATIVELY WITHIN ANY 30-DAY PERIOD

 

[Dvrjon]

Don't celebrate too early. AB1078

California AB1078 | 2025-2026 | Regular Session

Bill Text (2025-10-10) Firearms. [Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 570, Statutes of 2025.]

legiscan.com

NO PERSON SHALL MAKE AN APPLICATION TO PURCHASE ONE OR MORE FIREARMS THAT WOULD RESULT IN THE PURCHASE OF MORE THAN THREE FIREARMS CUMULATIVELY WITHIN ANY 30-DAY PERIOD

That language was put in a bill to be enacted only if the 1-in-30 rule failed constitutional scrutiny. The are fishing for the “right” level of infringement on the Right.

27535 (c) This section shall become operative on the 30th day after the issuance, if any, of a mandate following an appeal reversing, in whole or in part, the district court order and judgment in Nguyen v. Bonta, S.D. Cal. No. 3:20-cv-02470, thereby allowing the state to limit firearm sales to one firearm within any 30-day period. Otherwise, this section shall not take effect.

However, regardless of the issuance of the mandate, any limit on purchases within specified time frames would run afoul of the Opinion’s (Page 12, bottom) concerns against “temporal metering” of Constitutional Rights.

 

[OlderThanDirt]

That language was put in a bill to be enacted only if the 1-in-30 rule failed constitutional scrutiny. The are fishing for the “right” level of infringement on the Right.

However, regardless of the issuance of the mandate, any limit on purchases within specified time frames would run afoul of the Opinion’s (Page 12, bottom) concerns against “temporal metering” of Constitutional Rights.

View attachment 82406

Also fishing for more time and to burn up the limited resources of gun rights organizations. The state has basically unlimited resources to churn out and defend unconstitutional laws.

 

[SLORNR]

Also fishing for more time and to burn up the limited resources of gun rights organizations. The state has basically unlimited resources to churn out and defend unconstitutional laws.

Yep.

 

[OlderThanDirt]

I checked the court docket today and it doesn't look like the DOJ filed anything by yesterday's deadline. Maybe punting to the new 3-in-30 limitation so they can start the clock over on a new lawsuit?

 

[rfgCA]

I checked the court docket today and it doesn't look like the DOJ filed anything by yesterday's deadline. Maybe punting to the new 3-in-30 limitation so they can start the clock over on a new lawsuit?

Yes, yesterday was indeed the last day for them to keep their fight against the 1/30 ruling, and so far I have not seen anything come across the wires. So can we call this officially DEAD?

They can try to come back with 3/30 -- it's perplexing to witness how much time and effort they actually waste to try and make our lives hard, when their fight has not made a bit of damn difference, going on for 3 decades now. They are all nothing but a political popularity parade. Sorry, just a rant-by-reflex.

EDIT -- Summary and Confirmation below

 

[OlderThanDirt]

Well, it’s official that 1 in 30 is dead.

“The full panel of the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has refused to review a lower court’s ruling that California’s one gun per month purchase limit violates the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment. The mandate made final the June decision against the California law.”

California’s 1-Gun-per-Month Purchase Limit Violates Second Amendment, Appeals Court Rules

 

[Dvrjon]

No pay wall:

Final Judgement from 9th Circuit Strikes Down California Gun Rationing Law

The most left-leaning federal appeals court in the nation on Thursday closed the coffin lid on California's controversial "one-gun-per-month" law.

www.guns.com

“California has managed to do what many thought impossible: violate the Second Amendment so blatantly that even the Ninth Circuit won’t uphold it,” explained FPC Action Foundation President Cody J. Wisniewski, counsel for FPC. “We are proud to have secured the rights of peaceable people and look forward to many more wins against California’s unconstitutional laws.”

The Mandate:

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/5882/attachments/original/1755190980/2025.08.14_057-1_Mandate.pdf?1755190980

 

[OlderThanDirt]

Near the bottom of the page:

“Continue Without Registration”

Not sure how many articles you can read before registering.

 

[Dvrjon]

Near the bottom of the page:

“Continue Without Registration”

Not sure how many articles you can read before registering.

Aha! They lost me at;

You have exclusive access to this article
Log in or create your free account to continue getting truthful news.