One in 30 day rule apply to lever action rifles?

[bmaksdad]

Can you purchase a pistol caliber lever action rifle and a handgun on the same day? I can’t find a definite answer on whether lever action rifles are exempt from the rule because technically they aren’t semi auto.

Thank you

 

[bonesurf]

The one in 30 rule is dead

 

[Beastmar]

The 1 in 30 rule no longer applies. We can buy as many as we can afford!

 

[joefrank64k]

1-in-30 is currently enjoined pending appeals. Buy as many guns at once as you'd like.

 

[bmaksdad]

The 1 in 30 rule no longer applies. We can buy as many as we can afford!

Thank you for the responses.

 

[M_N04H]

Just gotta deal with 11% tax now

 

[MOPAR-man]

A bit off topic but does that 11% charge apply to private ammo sales...or only if you buy from a store?

 

[M_N04H]

A bit off topic but does that 11% charge apply to private ammo sales...or only if you buy from a store?

If no one knows you bought it privately...

 

[Dvrjon]

A bit off topic but does that 11% charge apply to private ammo sales...or only if you buy from a store?

Retail.

 

[21SF 2.0]

It’s dead, but if it wasn’t what would make you believe a lever action would be exempt?

 

[Dvrjon]

Can you purchase a pistol caliber lever action rifle and a handgun on the same day? I can’t find a definite answer on whether lever action rifles are exempt from the rule because technically they aren’t semi auto.

Thank you

The last iteration of the law did not provide for the ability to purchase both a handgun and a rifle at the same time and didn’t address the caliber or action of the firearm.

27535. ​

(a) A person shall not make an application to purchase more than one firearm within any 30-day period. This subdivision does not authorize a person to make an application to purchase a combination of firearms, completed frames or receivers, or firearm precursor parts within the same 30-day period.

 

[Dvrjon]

The one in 30 rule is dead

It’s hibernating. The Court didn’t rule on the merits; it ruled on the stay.

Coalition (FPC) announced that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has issued an order reversing the previously issued stay in FPC’s Nguyen v. Bonta lawsuit, which challenges California’s “one-gun-per-month” gun ban law. With the stay reversed, the final judgment and injunction FPC secured at the district court is now in effect, which prevents the state from enforcing its “1-in-30” ban unless and until further order from the Court.

With that, the District Court’s judgement enjoining the statute is in force. But, the ability for the State to appeal the merits of the Decision still appears open.
However, the 9th Court of Appeals has stayed the case and held all further proceedings pending the results on the submitted Writ for Certiorari (distributed for conference on April 25, 2025) in the B&L Productions (Gun Shows on state property) case.

While the Courts recognize the Second Amendment affirms the rights to keep and bear arms, there is now discussion as to whether the right to acquire arms is inherent to the 2A or not. B&L deals with this "ancillary right" to acquire arms (First and Second Amendment issues). The 9th CA is bound by their Opinion in that case and they see this case as directly related as it involves a type of restriction on acquisition.

 

[Michael the Beloved]

Keep in mind the 30 day rule applied to the purchase of new firearms at retail shops. One could do all the private party transfers (PPT) they wanted, regardless of what type of firearm, and how many they wanted on the same day. So before the injunction, one could’ve bought a lever gun and handgun, on the same day, via a PPT.

 

[westsidearms]

Keep in mind the 30 day rule applied to the purchase of new firearms at retail shops. One could do all the private party transfers (PPT) they wanted, regardless of what type of firearm, and how many they wanted on the same day. So before the injunction, one could’ve bought a lever gun and handgun, on the same day, via a PPT.

This is partially incorrect and now I cannot remember exactly what changed. I think the PPT exemption for anything other than long guns was over on 1/1/24 and then there was going to be zero PPT exemption on 1/1/25. Then the court case mooted that. So technically in the PC is a no exemption for PPT right now. Yet, thanks to the courts, buy as many guns as you would like as often as you like!

 

[Malibu]

This is partially incorrect and now I cannot remember exactly what changed. I think…..

I nominate you for a position on the 9th circuit. If you have no interest, I nominate you for a position on the California State Assembly Public Safety Committee. In jest of course.

 

[Dvrjon]

Process/History:

Injunction:

The Court declares that California Penal Code sections 27535 and 27540(f),
and Defendants’ enforcement policies, practices, customs, and actions related to
enforcement of California Penal Code sections 27535 and 27540(f), violate the right
to keep and bear arms protected under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to
the United States Constitution;

////////​

California Code, Penal Code - PEN § 27535 (operative until Jan. 1, 2024.)​

(a) A person shall not make an application to purchase more than one handgun or semiautomatic centerfire rifle within any 30-day period. This subdivision does not authorize a person to make an application to purchase both a handgun and semiautomatic centerfire rifle within the same 30-day period.

California Code, Penal Code - PEN § 27535 (operative Jan. 1, 2024.)

(a) A person shall not make an application to purchase more than one firearm within any 30-day period. This subdivision does not authorize a person to make an application to purchase a combination of firearms, completed frames or receivers, or firearm precursor parts within the same 30-day period.

California Code, Penal Code - PEN § 27540(f).​

A dealer, whether or not acting pursuant to Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 28050), shall not deliver a firearm to a person, as follows:[…’

(f) A firearm shall not be delivered whenever the dealer is notified by the Department of Justice that within the preceding 30-day period, the purchaser has made another application to purchase a handgun, semiautomatic centerfire rifle, completed frame or receiver, or firearm precursor part, and that the previous application to purchase did not involve any of the entities or circumstances specified in subdivision (b) of Section 27535.

(g) This section shall become operative on January 1, 2024.

 

[DeagleDan]

One in 30 rule only applies to your wallet.

 

[Michael the Beloved]

This is partially incorrect and now I cannot remember exactly what changed. I think the PPT exemption for anything other than long guns was over on 1/1/24 and then there was going to be zero PPT exemption on 1/1/25. Then the court case mooted that. So technically in the PC is a no exemption for PPT right now. Yet, thanks to the courts, buy as many guns as you would like as often as

Then I may stand corrected. I understand there is currently an injunction in effect, which allows one to purchase as many firearms as they want on a given day at a retail shop, including multiple handguns. But I always thought the one in 30 rule only applied to new purchases at retail shops. First it was handguns, and then they added long guns and shotguns. Regardless of the injunction, I thought the legislature didn’t touch PPT transactions, only new purchases at retail

 

[Dvrjon]

Then I may stand corrected. I understand there is currently an injunction in effect, which allows one to purchase as many firearms as they want on a given day at a retail shop, including multiple handguns. But I always thought the one in 30 rule only applied to new purchases at retail shops. First it was handguns, and then they added long guns and shotguns. Regardless of the injunction, I thought the legislature didn’t touch PPT transactions, only new purchases at retail

AB 1483 in 2023, amended CA PEN 27535 to eliminate the PPT exclusion to the 1-in-30 rule, with an operational date of 1/1/25. The previous language was:

(8) Any transaction conducted through a licensed firearms dealer pursuant to Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 28050). {That's the PPT statute}.

The current language is:

(8) Any private party transaction where the seller is, at the time of the transaction, required under state law or by court order to relinquish all firearms.
(9) Any private party transaction where the seller is any of the following:
(A) The personal representative of a decedent’s estate who is transferring the firearms to one or more heirs or beneficiaries of the decedent’s estate pursuant to the decedent’s will or the laws of intestate succession.
(B) The holder of the decedent’s property who is transferring the firearms pursuant to Section 13101 of the Probate Code to the successor of the decedent, as defined in Section 13006 of the Probate Code, or to the surviving spouse of the decedent pursuant to Section 13500 of the Probate Code.
(C) The trustee of a trust who is transferring the firearms to one or more trust beneficiaries upon the death of a settlor of the trust.

The curent Injunction should also cover the PPT issues.

 

[westsidearms]

Then I may stand corrected. I understand there is currently an injunction in effect, which allows one to purchase as many firearms as they want on a given day at a retail shop, including multiple handguns. But I always thought the one in 30 rule only applied to new purchases at retail shops. First it was handguns, and then they added long guns and shotguns. Regardless of the injunction, I thought the legislature didn’t touch PPT transactions, only new purchases at retail

Yup good old California always making things illegal without you noticing if you do not pay close attention.