California’s 30-day gun law unconstitutional, appeals court rules
California violates the constitutional right to own guns by limiting purchases to one every 30 days, a federal appeals court ruled Friday. It was the latest in a series of decisions reassessing the state’s firearms restrictions since the Supreme Court set new limits on gun-control laws four years ago.
The state contended its law, which restricted handgun sales in 1999 and was expanded to apply to all firearms last year, was a safety measure to prevent owners from stockpiling weapons and making “straw sales” to people who could not legally buy them. But the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the restriction unduly interferes with the right to keep and bear arms.
“We doubt anyone would think government could limit citizens’ free-speech right to one protest a month, their free-exercise right to one worship service per month, or their right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures to apply only to one search or arrest per month,” Judge Danielle Forrest said in the 3-0 ruling.
“Possession of multiple firearms and the ability to acquire firearms through purchase without meaningful constraints are protected by the Second Amendment,” Forrest said, “and California’s law is not supported by our nation’s tradition of firearms regulation.”
She was referring to the standard set by the Supreme Court in 2022 when it overturned New York’s ban on carrying concealed handguns in public. In that ruling, Justice Clarence Thomas said government restrictions on firearms are unconstitutional unless they are shown to be “consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”
Firearms advocates have challenged a number of California laws under that standard. But courts have upheld the state’s restrictions on carrying concealed weapons in areas such as parks, banks and government buildings. A state law banning gun possession by domestic violence abusers survived when the Supreme Court upheld a similar federal law last year. And the appeals court has upheld a ban on gun sales on state property.
In Friday’s decision, however, Forrest said limiting where guns can be sold “is a significantly lesser interference with an individual’s ability to acquire (and therefore possess) firearms than banning the purchase of more than one firearm in a 30-day period.”
Forrest, appointed by President Donald Trump, was joined by Judges Bridget Bade, another Trump appointee, and John Owens, appointed by President Barack Obama. Owens said in a separate opinion that he agreed with Forrest’s reasoning but added that the case “does not address other means of reducing bulk and straw purchasing of firearms, which our nation’s tradition of firearm regulation may support.”
The ruling upheld a decision by U.S. District Judge William Hayes of San Diego.
Raymond DiGuiseppe, lawyer for gun companies and individuals who challenged the law, said Friday’s ruling was “the only acceptable outcome in a society where all constitutional rights must stand on equal footing.”
Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office said the state “is committed to defending our common-sense gun safety laws” and declined to comment further. Bonta could ask the full appeals court for a new hearing before a larger panel.
California violates the constitutional right to own guns by limiting purchases to one every 30 days, a federal appeals court ruled Friday. It was the latest in a series of decisions reassessing the state’s firearms restrictions since the Supreme Court set new limits on gun-control laws four years ago.
The state contended its law, which restricted handgun sales in 1999 and was expanded to apply to all firearms last year, was a safety measure to prevent owners from stockpiling weapons and making “straw sales” to people who could not legally buy them. But the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the restriction unduly interferes with the right to keep and bear arms.
“We doubt anyone would think government could limit citizens’ free-speech right to one protest a month, their free-exercise right to one worship service per month, or their right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures to apply only to one search or arrest per month,” Judge Danielle Forrest said in the 3-0 ruling.
“Possession of multiple firearms and the ability to acquire firearms through purchase without meaningful constraints are protected by the Second Amendment,” Forrest said, “and California’s law is not supported by our nation’s tradition of firearms regulation.”
She was referring to the standard set by the Supreme Court in 2022 when it overturned New York’s ban on carrying concealed handguns in public. In that ruling, Justice Clarence Thomas said government restrictions on firearms are unconstitutional unless they are shown to be “consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”
Firearms advocates have challenged a number of California laws under that standard. But courts have upheld the state’s restrictions on carrying concealed weapons in areas such as parks, banks and government buildings. A state law banning gun possession by domestic violence abusers survived when the Supreme Court upheld a similar federal law last year. And the appeals court has upheld a ban on gun sales on state property.
In Friday’s decision, however, Forrest said limiting where guns can be sold “is a significantly lesser interference with an individual’s ability to acquire (and therefore possess) firearms than banning the purchase of more than one firearm in a 30-day period.”
Forrest, appointed by President Donald Trump, was joined by Judges Bridget Bade, another Trump appointee, and John Owens, appointed by President Barack Obama. Owens said in a separate opinion that he agreed with Forrest’s reasoning but added that the case “does not address other means of reducing bulk and straw purchasing of firearms, which our nation’s tradition of firearm regulation may support.”
The ruling upheld a decision by U.S. District Judge William Hayes of San Diego.
Raymond DiGuiseppe, lawyer for gun companies and individuals who challenged the law, said Friday’s ruling was “the only acceptable outcome in a society where all constitutional rights must stand on equal footing.”
Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office said the state “is committed to defending our common-sense gun safety laws” and declined to comment further. Bonta could ask the full appeals court for a new hearing before a larger panel.