California’s Law Limiting Gun Purchases Overturned as Unconstitutional

California gun owners are celebrating after a federal judge struck down the state’s law limiting handgun purchases to one per month. In a major victory for Second Amendment rights, U.S. District Judge William Hayes ruled that California’s “one-gun-a-month” regulation violates the constitutional right to bear arms.

Brought by firearm advocates and owners, the case challenged the decades-old law that supporters claimed reduced gun trafficking and violence. But Hayes determined the statute went too far in limiting law-abiding citizens’ ability to acquire firearms, lacking historical precedent for such restrictions.

One-Gun-a-Month Law

California’s One-Gun-A-Month (OGM) law limited most citizens to purchase only one handgun or rifle per 30-day period.

The law aimed to curb the supply of firearms by limiting bulk purchases, in turn reducing gun trafficking and violence. However, the law was recently struck down in federal court.

California’s One-Gun-a-Month Law Struck Down

In a major blow to gun control advocates, Judge William Hayes ruled California’s law limiting gun purchases to one per month unconstitutional.

His decision affirmed that the law violated the Second Amendment rights of citizens to keep and bear arms.

A Win for Gun Rights Supporters

Gun rights groups and firearms owners celebrated the ruling as a victory for constitutional rights. The law had placed what they saw as an unjustified burden on law-abiding citizens.

“There is no historical justification for limiting law-abiding citizens to a single handgun or rifle purchase during one month,” said Alan Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation.

An Evolving Legal Landscape Around Gun Rights

The decision reflects the changing legal landscape around gun rights following the Supreme Court’s ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen.

That case required courts to evaluate gun laws based on the text of the Second Amendment and historical tradition. Because one-gun-a-month laws lack historical precedent, they face an uphill battle under the new standard.

Continued Legal Battles Ahead

While celebrated by gun rights groups, the ruling is likely to be appealed by gun control advocates concerned over loosening restrictions.

The decision adds to a string of federal court rulings overturning state gun laws, fueling an ongoing debate over how to balance Second Amendment rights with regulations aimed at public safety.

Lack of Historical Support Limiting Firearms

A key factor in Judge Hayes’ decision was the lack of historical laws limiting firearm purchases to one per month. Citing the Supreme Court ruling in NYSRPA v. Bruen, Judge Hayes emphasized that regulations that burden.

Second Amendment rights must be consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The OGM law failed to meet this standard.

OGW Placed an Unjustified Limitation

Judge Hayes also found that the OGM law placed an unjustified limitation on law-abiding citizens purchasing firearms for lawful purposes.

Although the law did not completely prevent firearm purchases, it still burdened individuals’ Second Amendment rights in a manner unsupported by history or evidence.

Plain Text of the Second Amendment

The judge also found that the OGM law infringed on conduct covered by the actual text of the Second Amendment, which protects the right to “keep and bear arms.”

While the law did not completely prevent individuals from acquiring firearms, it still placed a burden on their ability to do so. Under the standard set in Bruen, if a law burdens conduct protected by the Second Amendment, it is much more difficult for states to justify it as constitutional.

Gun Control Advocates Voice Concerns

Gun control advocates argue that regulations like purchase limits can help curb violence and save lives. They point out that mass shootings and gun deaths remain high in the U.S. compared to other nations with stricter laws.

Groups like the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence support “common-sense” reforms such as background checks, waiting periods, and restrictions on assault weapons.

Other State Gun Laws Overturned Recently

While California’s one-gun-a-month law was struck down in Nguyen v. Bonta, it is not the only firearm regulation to be overturned recently. Several other states have seen their gun laws challenged in court following the Bruen decision.

According to reports, federal judges have issued rulings against state laws banning assault weapons, limiting handgun purchases, and requiring background checks for ammunition in New Jersey, Delaware, Colorado, and Rhode Island.

The Rulings Don’t Invalidate Existing Laws

Legal experts note that the rulings do not necessarily invalidate the laws but require states to provide substantial evidence that the regulations are “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

The lack of convincing historical evidence for certain restrictions has led judges to issue preliminary injunctions halting their enforcement.

Additional String To Federal Court Rulings Being Overturned

The decision adds to a string of recent federal court rulings overturning various state gun laws, including assault weapon bans, limits on firearm purchases, and background checks for ammunition sales.

The repeal of the OGM law may face appeals, and states like California will likely continue enacting gun safety laws aimed at balancing public health and safety with Second Amendment rights.

Debate Around Interpreting and Determining Scope of The Second Amendment

The ruling highlights the ongoing debate around interpreting the Second Amendment and determining the scope of permissible restrictions on firearm ownership.

There are open questions about the role of policy objectives like reducing violence in evaluating laws that burden gun rights.

The Legal Battle To Bear Arms

As pro-gun organizations celebrate these legal victories, the debates around the constitutionality of gun laws are sure to intensify.

The Second Amendment landscape is changing rapidly, so stay tuned as the legal battles over the right to bear arms heat up.