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.
caguns.net
Welcome to CAguns.net!
Join our growing community where you can ask questions, share knowledge, or browse our classifieds section.
Sign up for a free account today and unlock full access! Once registered, you can search, post, and take advantage of exclusive features unavailable to guests.
A note on why more of the site now requires an account: automated scrapers and AI systems have been crawling our forums and classifieds at a scale. Requiring sign-in for those sections is the most effective tool we have. It takes a minute to register, it's free, and it keeps what happens here between actual members.
New to California gun ownership or trying to keep up with the changing laws? Check out our sister site CA2A.com — free courses, plain-English legal updates, and step-by-step guides built for California owners.
Advanced features are available only to registered members. Register today!
1-in-30 Law Struck Down by 9th Circuit
- Thread starter Hit Factor
- Start date
morooster
Member
- Messages
- 26
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.
- Messages
- 939
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.
- Messages
- 1,149
- Classified ads
- 3
That would be a very dangerous precedent. Especially in California.
No way they appeal. The state is taxing all new gun sales at an additional 11%. This was more than likely all by design.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 106
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.
Don't celebrate too early. AB1078
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
California AB1078 | 2025-2026 | Regular Session
Bill Text (2025-10-10) Firearms. [Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 570, Statutes of 2025.]
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
- Messages
- 1,257
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.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.]
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
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.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 106
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.
- Messages
- 106
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?
- Messages
- 198
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
Last edited:
- Messages
- 106
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
“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
- Messages
- 1,257
No pay wall:
www.guns.com
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
The Mandate:
Last edited:
- Messages
- 106
Near the bottom of the page:
“Continue Without Registration”
Not sure how many articles you can read before registering.
“Continue Without Registration”
Not sure how many articles you can read before registering.
- Messages
- 1,257