In a rare pro Second Amendment ruling last Thursday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed a stay issued against an injunction against California’s “1 in 30” ban. The ban prohibits Californian’s from purchasing more than one firearm in a 30-day period. The ruling by a three-judge panel in the case of Nguyen v. Bonta is short and to the point. “The order (Dkt. 9) granting Defendants’ motion for a stay pending appeal (Dkt. 3) is REVERSED.” There was no stay included in the reversal of the stay, so the order was effective immediately.
The original lawsuit against the ban was filed in federal court on December 18, 2020, when the 1 in 30 ban only covered handgun purchases. The ban was expanded on July 1, 2021, to include semiautomatic, centerfire rifles as well. The law was expanded again on January 1, 2024, to include any firearm, completed frames or receivers, or so-called “firearm precursor parts”.
The 1 in 30 ban was struck down on March 11, 2024, by District Court for the Southern District of California by Judge William Q. Hayes. The judgement was stayed in the original order for 30 days to facilitate the State’s appeal. A stay pending the outcome of the appeals was granted on April 24, 2024, by a separate three-judge panel.
The justification for the 1 in 30 ban was explained by the State in the motion for a stay as:
“California law does not limit the total number of firearms that any person may possess, the OGM (one-gun-a-month) law addresses the particular dangers associated with bulk purchases that occur within a relatively brief period of time, such as straw purchases and illegal firearms trafficking. The law makes it more difficult for criminals to acquire firearms by reducing the flow of guns into the black market and thus curtailing the illegal gun market. The law also makes it more difficult for individuals to stockpile firearms for criminal activity.”
During the defense of the stay, the California DOJ attorney claimed that the reason for the gun rationing law was to “disrupt” gun trafficking and straw purchasing. When pressed for evidence the 1 in 30 ban actually does this, the DOJ attorney cited unnamed “some studies” and that other states had adopted one-gun-a-month statutes.
The state also claimed anyone who needed an additional firearm in that 30 days could “borrow” a firearm until they were allowed to purchase another. This of course is against the law in California as it is illegal to loan or otherwise transfer a firearm to another private party, except between immediate family members, without conducting a Private Party Transfer at a federal firearms dealer and waiting the required 10 days. It is also illegal to transfer ammunition to another private party without going through an “ammunition vendor” and paying for a background check, along with any wait imposed by the State for the completion of the background check.
The 1 in 30 ban serves as a prime example of California’s draconian approach to gun control. The basis for the law was conjecture based not on factual evidence, but a desire to systemically reduce the number of firearms a person could lawfully obtain. “Some studies”, while not even cited in this case, are usually result of biased, State funded “research” where they start with the outcome and work to create “facts” and numbers to support the outcome. This law also demonstrates the scope creep commonly found in gun control. What started out as a one-handgun-a-month ban, expanded to include semi-automatic, centerfire rifles, then expanded to ALL firearms, frames, receivers and even so-called “firearm precursor parts”.
The State was very cautious to include in their testimony that they do not limit the number of firearms a person can own, only how quickly they can obtain them. However, if you examine the State’s history of continuously tightening the regulations on lawfully purchasing and the possession of firearms, it is painfully obvious it will only be a matter of time before a hard limit of how many firearms the State will ‘allow’ you to own is imposed.
The State has the option of appealing the reversal to an en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Considering one three-judge panel issued the stay and a different three-judge panel reversed it, an appeal by the State is almost guaranteed. The State has also fared far better with their hand selected en banc panels. We should expect nothing different in this case.
The latest news indicates the State is still updating the DROS (Dealer Record of Sale), the registration and background check system, to comply with the reversal of the stay, although there is nothing to say this process won’t be dragged out indefinitely pending their obtaining another stay and reversal of the original court decision.
I’m going to keep saying this, fighting gun control laws after they are passed is a fool’s errand. It is a long shot to even get the right appeal and we the citizens of the United States are not only funding the appeal but the defense of unconstitutional laws. In this game, only the lawyers win and we the people lose our rights in the process.
What does work? Electing representatives at the local, county, state and federal level who will NOT sell our constitutionally protected rights to the gun control zealots. EVERY seat on EVERY board matters. Yes, even in Kalifornistan.
Bob
#Oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #2A, #GunControlFails, #Kalifornistan, #NoNewGunLaws, #FactsMatter, #GunVote, #medium, #mewe, #gab, #gettr, #truthsocial, #threads, #oddstuffing.com
