Earlier this year, California’s gun rationing law that limits purchasers to only one firearm in any 30-day period, was struck down. District Court Judge William Hayes ruled that restricting the number of guns citizens can buy violates both the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. Judge Hayes, however, stayed his ruling to allow the state to appeal.
Arguments by both sides regarding the stay in the case (Nguyen v. Bonta) were heard by a Ninth Circuit three-judge panel on Wednesday. The case presented by the gun rights side must have been really persuasive because a little more than 24 hours later, the Ninth Circuit ended the stay on the lower court’s ruling. That means Californians can now buy as many guns as they like, as often as they like.
They will, of course, still have to deal with the state’s ludicrous 10-day waiting period to get their guns out of jail, but they’ll be able to buy as many as they like, as often as they choose. Here’s the FPC’s press release announcing the win . . .
Firearms Policy 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. The order, along with other case documents, can be viewed at firearmspolicy.org/nguyen.
“This order allows our hard-won injunction to take effect and, unless the Ninth Circuit issues a new stay, Californians may now apply to purchase multiple firearms within a 30-day period,” explained FPC President Brandon Combs. “FPC intends to make Governor Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta respect Second Amendment rights whether they like it or not.”
The Nguyen case, initially filed in December of 2020, is part of FPC’s high-impact FPC Law strategic litigation program to eliminate immoral laws and create a world of maximal liberty. FPC is joined in this case by four individual members and two retailer members as well as San Diego County Gun Owners PAC and the Second Amendment Foundation. Plaintiffs are represented by attorney Raymond M. DiGuiseppe of The DiGuiseppe Law Firm.
What was the political make-up of the 3-judge panel, and will the 9th immediately assign it to the usual full en-bank panel when things don’t go their way?
I don’t know the make up, but it will be up to the State of California to appeal this decision to bring it in front a 9th Circuit En Banc Review.
What’s encouraging is that another 9th Circuit Judge is ruling this case acording to constitutional principles. Finally.
“I don’t know the make up, but it will be up to the State of California to appeal this decision to bring it in front a 9th Circuit En Banc Review.”
That’s potentially risky for them, because the next stop after that will be the SCotUS, so they may elect to cut their losses to the 9th rather than risk cert. being granted by Thomas and friends, and losing nation-wide, no?
At this point, I have a hard time believing the Obama appointee having a genuine ‘Come to Jesus’ moment on the 2A in general. Their judges usually work in lock-step with Leftist political ideals.
(It is nice to see the Trump appointees both being politically-reliable and voting correctly on this one, tho…)
Two of the judges were Trump appointees (Bridget Bade, Danielle Forrest) and the third, shockingly, was an Obama appointee (John Owens). The decision was 3-0. Hell has officially frozen over.
“The decision was 3-0. Hell has officially frozen over.”
You ain’t kidding, I hope this is a trend, but won’t be holding my breath…
2 Republican and 1 Obama appointed judge
California may begin limiting auto gas purchase limits to 5-10 gallons per purchase depending on how close you live to any border state.
All pump nozzles will be required to have a GLSI(gas level shutoff indicator) attached to insure that tanks can only contain 5-10 gallons of gas.
Similar limits are under consideration for EV.
?