The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held in Nguyen v. Bonta[1]that a California law that prohibits most people from buying more than one firearm in a 30-day period violates the Second Amendment.
Background
In 1999, the California Legislature enacted a “one-gun-a-month” law that prohibits most people from buying more than one firearm in a 30-day period.[2] Originally, it was focused on concealable handguns, but over time, the one-gun-a-month restriction was extended to more firearms. By 2024, it applied to all firearms.[3] California Penal Code section 27535(a) currently states that individuals may not apply “to purchase more than one firearm within any 30-day period,” and Section 27540(f) prohibits a firearms dealer from delivering any firearm if the dealer is notified that “the purchaser has made another application to purchase a handgun, semiautomatic centerfire rifle, completed frame or receiver, or firearm precursor part” within the preceding 30-day period. Some individuals and entities are exempt from this restriction, including law enforcement and correctional facilities.[4]
Plaintiffs were individuals who wanted to purchase more than one firearm a month, three organizations whose members wanted to do the same, and two firearm retailers and their respective owners who wanted to engage in these transactions. They sued claiming that California’s one-gun-a-month law facially violated the Second Amendment. Applying N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 24 (2022) (“Bruen”), the District Court granted summary judgment for Plaintiffs and enjoined California from enforcing its law. California appealed, and a motions panel stayed the District Court’s injunction pending appeal. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the stay after oral argument.
Discussion
The Second Amendment guarantees that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” U.S. Const. amend. II. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals explained that the analysis of a Second Amendment challenge is rooted in the constitutional text and in our nation’s history and tradition of firearm regulation. Bruen, 597 U.S. at 24. Courts first ask (1) whether “the Second Amendment’s plain text” covers the regulated conduct at issue. Id. If it does, “the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct.” Id. That presumption can be overcome only if (2) “‘historical precedent’ from before, during, and even after the founding evinces a comparable tradition of regulation.” Id. at 27 (quoting District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 631 (2008)).
The Court identified the regulated conduct as buying more than one firearm from a licensed dealer in a 30-day period, and the parties did not dispute this framing. Applying Bruen, the Court first concluded that the Second Amendment protects such conduct. The Ninth Circuit observed that the core Second Amendment right to bear arms would not mean much without the ability to acquire arms. See Teixeira v. County of Alameda, 873 F.3d 670, 677 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc). Thus, the Ninth Circuit had “consistently held that the Second Amendment . . . ‘protects ancillary rights necessary to the realization of the core right to possess a firearm for self-defense.'” B&L Prods., Inc. v. Newsom, 104 F.4th 108, 118 (9th Cir. 2024) (quoting Teixeira, 873 F.3d at 677), cert. denied — S. Ct. —, 221 L. Ed. 2d 738, 2025 WL 1211774 (2025). The Court noted that the Circuit Court had held “that the plain text of the Second Amendment only prohibits meaningful constraints on the right to acquire firearms.” Id. (quoting Teixeira, 873 F.3d at 678) (emphasis added).
The Ninth Circuit concluded that the plain text of the Second Amendment protects the right to possess multiple firearms. California argued in part that the conduct it regulates does not fall within the protection of the Second Amendment because restricting citizens from purchasing only one firearm in a 30-day period does not prohibit them from possessing multiple firearms. However, the Ninth Circuit observed that the Circuit had held that the Second Amendment protects against meaningful constraints on the acquisition of firearms through purchase. See B&L Prods., 104 F.4th at 118. The Court stated that if the Second Amendment’s plain text protects the ability to possess multiple arms, and the Court concluded it does, then it also protects the ability to acquire multiple arms.
The Court held that by categorically prohibiting citizens from purchasing more than one firearm of any kind in a 30-day period, California infringed on citizens’ exercise of their Second Amendment rights. The Ninth Circuit stated that California’s monthly metering of firearm purchases meaningfully constrains the right to purchase and possess firearms and is thus presumptively unconstitutional. U.S. Const. amend. II; B&L Prods., 104 F.4th at 118-20.
To overcome the presumption of invalidity, California then had to demonstrate that its law was supported by our “historical tradition of firearm regulation.” Bruen, 597 U.S. at 24. The Court explained that this inquiry requires “reasoning by analogy.” Id. at 28. Courts consider “whether the [challenged] law is ‘relevantly similar’ to laws that our tradition is understood to permit, ‘apply[ing] faithfully the balance struck by the founding generation to modern circumstances.'” United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680, 692 (2024) (alteration in original) (quoting Bruen, 597 U.S. at 29). Courts look for a “historical analogue” to the challenged regulation, not a “historical twin.” Bruen, 597 U.S. at 30. “Why and how the regulation burdens the [Second Amendment] right are central to this inquiry.” Rahimi, 602 U.S. at 692 (emphases added). If historical laws “regulated firearm use to address particular problems, that [is] a strong indicator that contemporary laws imposing similar restrictions for similar reasons fall within a permissible category of regulations.” Id. But if a modern law “regulates arms-bearing for a permissible reason,” it nonetheless violates the Second Amendment “if it doesso to an extent beyond what was done at the founding.” Id.
California argued that there were historical analogues that imposed “relevantly similar” burdens as its one-gun-a-month law for “relevantly similar” reasons. After reviewing the relevant historical evidence, however, the Ninth Circuit concluded that California’s law was not relevantly similar to the historical landscape. The Court found that many of California’s proposed historical analogues imposed no burden on an individual’s ability to acquire, keep, or bear arms.
California also identified certain historical licensing regimes, but the Ninth Circuit stated that requiring a law-abiding citizen to apply or qualify for a license as a barrier to entry is a different (and lesser) burden than prohibiting an individual from engaging in the regulated conduct all together for a 30-day period. Because the one-gun-a-month law established no exemption or pathway by which a law-abiding citizen can purchase more than one firearm within a 30-day period, the Ninth Circuit rejected California’s attempt to draw a comparison to the licensing analogues.
The Ninth Circuit stated that Second Amendment expressly protects the right to possess multiple arms and protects against meaningful constraints on the right to acquire arms because otherwise the right to “keep and bear” would be hollow. The Court stated that while Bruen does not require a “historical twin” for a modern firearm regulation to pass muster, 597 U.S. at 30, here the historical record did not even establish “a historical cousin” for California’s one-gun-a-month law. Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.
HOW THIS AFFECTS YOUR AGENCY
Agencies may observe that the standard established in Bruen continues to impact California’s firearm statutory framework, piece by piece. Multiple challenges have been filed, with many achieving success. However, some of these legal challenges will likely require intervention by the Supreme Court to achieve finality as to several California firearm restrictions, and similar laws in other states. We will continue to update you as these legal challenges to statutes restricting firearm ownership and use wind their ways through the courts.
As always, if you wish to discuss this matter in greater detail, please feel free to contact Jim Touchstone at (714) 446–1400 or via email at jrt@jones-mayer.com
Information on www.jones-mayer.com is for general use and is not legal advice. The transmission of this Client Alert Memorandum is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client-relationship.
[1] 140 F.4th 1237 (9th Cir. 2025).
[2] 1999 Cal. Stat. 1759, 1767.
[3] 2022 Cal. Stat. 3358, 3370.
[4] See Penal Code section 27535(b).