Posted on 06/21/2025 4:17:01 PM PDT by CFW
It’s been an interesting week for the Ninth-Circus. First they slapped down a former Supreme Court Justice’s brother’s attempt to take control of the California National Guard away from the President of the United states. Today, in another 3-0 panel opinion, the court has ruled that limiting Californians to purchasing only one gun a month is a violation of their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
The case, Nguyen v.Bonta, was brought by the Firearms Policy Coalition, the Second Amendment Foundation and others. In the court’s opinion:
Affirming the district court’s summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs, the panel held that California’s “one-gun-a-month” law, which prohibits most people from buying more than one firearm in a 30-day period, facially violates the Second Amendment.
Applying NY State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the panel first asked whether the Second Amendment’s plain text covers the regulated conduct. If so, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. That presumption can be overcome only if historical precedent from before, during, and even after the founding evinces a comparable tradition of regulation.
The panel held that California’s law is facially unconstitutional because the plain text of the Second Amendment protects the possession of multiple firearms and protects against meaningful constraints on the acquisition of firearms through purchase.
Next, the panel held that California’s law is not supported by this nation’s tradition of firearms regulation. Bruen requires a “historical analogue,” not a “historical twin,” for a modern firearm regulation to pass muster. Here, the historical record does not even establish a historical cousin for California’s one-gun-a-month law.
Concurring, Judge Owens wrote separately to note that the panel’s opinion only concerns California’s “one-gun-amonth” law. It does not address other means of restricting bulk and-straw purchasing of firearms, which this nation’s tradition of firearm regulation may support.
(Excerpt) Read more at shootingnewsweekly.com ...
Court's ruling here
Guns are a collector’s viagra.
OWENS, BADE, and FORREST
Danielle J. Forrest [Trump judge]
Bridget S. Bade [Trump judge]
John B. Owens [Obama judge]
“””Guns are a collector’s viagra.””
I tell the wife it is not an addiction. I am merely buying inventory for my eventual estate sale. So...it’s an investment.
It would be great to pass a law that says a registered democrat can make only one comment a month on social media. Their heads would explode.
“I tell the wife it is not an addiction. I am merely buying inventory for my eventual estate sale. So...it’s an investment.”
Hubby says something similar. It’s an investment in the gkids’ inheritance. They’ll appreciate them years (hopefully) from now.
OWENS, BADE, and FORREST
Danielle J. Forrest [Trump judge]
Bridget S. Bade [Trump judge]
John B. Owens [Obama judge]
Trump adding more Constitutional judges to the Ninth during his first term and definitely balanced that circuit somewhat. Now, he needs to add more.
Notice the Senate is slow-walking Trump’s nominees to just about every position. The Democrats, by now, would have filled every vacancy; and the GOP would have helped them do it.
I am surprised they didn’t say it should be ZERO guns a month. /s
I don’t know anything about Justice Owen’s, but I’ll say this: there are tons of good judges out there who rule on the facts and the law. It’s the tyrants who act as legislators that give them all a bad name
The Ninth Circus is no more?
Will the full 9th Circus reverse the panels ruling, as usually happens?
How is this possible? Multiple posters have said female judges can’t rule on the facts and the law.
Dang!
Wondered about that flock of pigs that flew over today...
I can still hear Rush call them that and think of them that way. Sure do wish the Republicans would get all of Trumps appointments in place. Worthless POC’s
The 9th Circus?! Wow.
Does this apply to other states with similar restrictions such as NJ? It’s amazing how a single district court judge can issue a ruling that automatically applies to the entire nation when it comes to enforcing immigration law, but a ruling such as this has to go through a painstakingly detailed process in EVERY jurisdiction before it applies to that jurisdiction. Very inconsistent.
Seems as if the 9th Circus is learning?!?
Now it is time to allow NON-VIOLENT felons to purchase firearms.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.