Ninth Circuit Unanimously Strikes Down California’s “One-Gun-a-Month” Law: A Landmark Victory for Second Amendment Rights

By Jason Davis, Attorney at The Davis Law Firm (www.calgunlawyers.com)

For Opinion, Click Here.

On June 20, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit delivered a unanimous and resounding victory for Second Amendment advocates in Nguyen v. Bonta, declaring California’s “one-gun-a-month” law facially unconstitutional. This landmark decision, affirming a district court’s summary judgment, reinforces the robust protections of the right to keep and bear arms under the framework established by New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022). As an attorney dedicated to defending Second Amendment rights, I am thrilled to summarize this case, its implications, and what it means for gun owners and future litigation. I also extend heartfelt congratulations to the exceptional legal team that secured this historic win.

Case Background and Facts

California’s “one-gun-a-month” law, codified in California Penal Code § 27535, prohibited most individuals from purchasing more than one firearm within a 30-day period. Enacted in 1999 to curb “straw purchases” (where firearms are bought for those legally ineligible) and initially limited to concealable handguns, the law expanded by 2024 to cover all firearms, including private sales. Exemptions existed for law enforcement, licensed collectors, and certain industries, but the restriction broadly applied to law-abiding citizens.

The plaintiffs—individuals including Michelle Nguyen, Dominic Boguski, and Jay Medina, alongside firearm retailers and organizations like the Firearms Policy Coalition, San Diego County Gun Owners Political Action Committee, and Second Amendment Foundation—challenged the law. They argued that the restriction violated their Second Amendment rights by limiting their ability to acquire multiple firearms for self-defense and other lawful purposes. The United States District Court for the Southern District of California, presided over by Judge William Q. Hayes, granted summary judgment in their favor, enjoining enforcement of the law. California appealed, leading to the Ninth Circuit’s review.

The Ninth Circuit’s Unanimous Opinion

In a unanimous opinion authored by Judge Danielle J. Forrest and joined by Judges John B. Owens and Bridget S. Bade, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling. Applying the Bruen framework, the court conducted a two-step analysis:

1. Plain Text of the Second Amendment: The court determined that the Second Amendment’s plain text, guaranteeing the right to “keep and bear Arms” (plural), covers the regulated conduct—purchasing more than one firearm in a 30-day period. Citing District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and B&L Prods., Inc. v. Newsom (2024), the court held that the Second Amendment protects the possession of multiple firearms and the ability to acquire them without “meaningful constraints.” The court rejected California’s arguments that the Second Amendment only protects possession of a single firearm or that the law’s temporal restriction was permissible. It emphasized that metering constitutional rights—such as limiting purchases to once a month—constitutes an impermissible infringement, akin to restricting free speech or religious exercise to a monthly quota.
2. Historical Tradition: Under Bruen, a regulation infringing on Second Amendment rights is presumptively unconstitutional unless supported by a historical tradition of analogous regulations. California argued that its law addressed modern issues like bulk purchasing and straw transactions, which lacked direct historical parallels, necessitating a “nuanced approach.” The court disagreed, finding that arms trafficking and illegal sales existed in colonial and Reconstruction eras, negating the need for a nuanced analysis. California cited historical laws restricting firearm sales to Native Americans, intoxicated individuals, or specific weapons, as well as licensing and taxing regimes. The court found these analogues insufficient, as they either targeted specific groups or weapons, imposed lesser burdens (e.g., licensing), or did not limit purchases by law-abiding citizens. The closest analogue—a Virginia colonial law limiting the carrying of multiple firearms in certain areas—was deemed too dissimilar, as it did not restrict acquisition and was short-lived.

The court concluded that California’s law lacked a “historical cousin” to justify its broad restriction, rendering it facially unconstitutional. Judge Owens concurred, clarifying that the ruling only addressed the “one-gun-a-month” law and did not preclude other methods to regulate bulk or straw purchasing that might align with historical traditions.

A Robust Defense of Second Amendment Rights

This unanimous decision is a triumph for Second Amendment advocates and law-abiding gun owners. Key strengths include:

• Reaffirmation of Bruen: The court faithfully applied Bruen’s text-and-history test, rejecting California’s attempt to dilute Second Amendment protections through modern policy justifications. This strengthens the precedent that gun regulations must be grounded in historical analogues, not contemporary concerns alone.
• Protection of Ancillary Rights: By recognizing that the right to acquire multiple firearms is integral to the right to keep and bear arms, the court bolstered protections for ancillary rights necessary for self-defense, such as purchasing firearms without arbitrary restrictions.
• Facial Invalidation: The court’s finding that the law is facially unconstitutional—meaning no set of circumstances exists under which it would be valid—delivers a sweeping victory, preventing California from enforcing the law in any context.
• Clarity on Metering Rights: The court’s rejection of temporal restrictions as an infringement sets a powerful precedent against government attempts to ration constitutional rights.
• Unanimous Ruling: The unanimous nature of the decision underscores its strength and reduces the likelihood of intra-circuit conflict, providing a clear mandate for lower courts in the Ninth Circuit.

Procedural Implications and Next Steps

Procedurally, the Ninth Circuit’s affirmance of the district court’s injunction permanently bars California from enforcing the “one-gun-a-month” law unless the decision is overturned. California has 90 days from June 20, 2025, to file a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court (by September 18, 2025). If no petition is filed or certiorari is denied, the ruling stands, and California must comply. An en banc review by the Ninth Circuit is possible but less likely given the unanimous opinion and the court’s alignment with Bruen.

For gun owners, this means immediate relief: Californians can purchase multiple firearms within a 30-day period, subject to other existing regulations (e.g., background checks). Firearm retailers also benefit, as they can engage in these transactions without restriction.

Impact on Other Second Amendment Cases

The Nguyen v. Bonta decision has far-reaching implications for Second Amendment litigation:

• Strengthening Bruen’s Framework: The ruling reinforces Bruen’s text-and-history test as the controlling standard, pressuring states to justify gun regulations with robust historical analogues. This will challenge other California laws, such as assault weapon bans or magazine capacity limits, that lack clear historical precedents.
• Challenging Temporal Restrictions: The court’s rejection of metering constitutional rights could apply to other time-based restrictions, such as waiting periods or licensing delays, if they are deemed “meaningful constraints” on Second Amendment rights.
• Ancillary Rights Precedent: By protecting the right to acquire firearms, the decision supports challenges to regulations limiting access to ammunition, training, or ranges, which are necessary to exercise the core right to self-defense.
• Circuit Court Alignment: As a unanimous Ninth Circuit decision, Nguyen aligns with similar rulings in other circuits (e.g., Heller III in the D.C. Circuit), reducing the likelihood of a circuit split and increasing pressure on states to conform to Bruen.

Congratulations to the Legal Team

I extend my sincerest congratulations to the plaintiffs’ legal team, led by Raymond M. DiGuiseppe of The DiGuiseppe Law Firm PC, for their masterful advocacy. Their rigorous application of Bruen and compelling arguments secured this monumental victory. I also commend C.D. Michel and Anna M. Barvir of Michel & Associates PC, who provided critical support as amici curiae, alongside the many organizations, including the California Rifle & Pistol Association and the National Rifle Association, whose efforts bolstered this case. Your dedication to defending Second Amendment rights is an inspiration to us all.

Looking Forward

The Nguyen v. Bonta decision is a clarion call for the protection of Second Amendment rights, affirming that the right to keep and bear arms is not a “second-class right” (McDonald v. City of Chicago, 2010). At The Davis Law Firm, we remain committed to defending the rights of law-abiding gun owners against overreaching regulations. If you have questions about how this ruling affects you or need assistance with firearms-related legal matters, contact us at www.calgunlawyers.com.

This victory is not the end but a new beginning in the fight to ensure that the Second Amendment is fully respected. We will continue to monitor developments and stand ready to challenge any new restrictions that infringe on your constitutional freedoms.