The full panel of the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has refused to review a lower court’s ruling that California’s one gun per month purchase limit violates the Second Amendment. The mandate made final the June decision against the California law.

In June 2024, a three-judge panel ruled that the state failed to prove that the law met the standard set in the June 2022 Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen.

The state requested that the full en banc panel hear the case, but on Aug. 14, the court issued a three-line mandate, basically declaring the case over, the decision final, and sending it back to the lower courts.

“The judgment of this Court, entered June 20, 2025, takes effect this date. This constitutes the formal mandate of this Court,” the Aug. 14 ruling reads.

Under Bruen, a law must comport with the plain language of the Second Amendment and have a “historical analogue.” That analogue is a similar law, not necessarily an identical law, the high court ruled.

The judges wrote that the Second Amendment protects the right to purchase and own multiple firearms and that the state found no comparable law from the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification in 1791.

“And while Bruen does not require 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,” the decision reads.

Circuit Judge John B. Owens concurred with the opinion, but wrote separately that it applied only to the one-gun-per-month purchase limit.

“It does not address other means of restricting bulk and straw purchasing of firearms, which our nation’s tradition of firearm regulation may support,” Owens wrote.

The Firearms Policy Coalition, one of the plaintiffs, issued a statement celebrating the mandate.

“California has managed to do what many thought impossible: violate the Second Amendment so blatantly that even the Ninth Circuit won’t uphold it,” said Cody J. Wisniewski, counsel for the group and president of the group’s Action Foundation.

A man fires a pistol during a pistol self-defense class at Burro Canyon Shooting Park in Azusa, Calif., on Feb. 12, 2023. (Frederic J. Brown/AFP via Getty Images)

“Between Heller and Bruen, every case heard by a panel which concluded the law was contrary to the Second Amendment was reheard en banc by the court and ultimately upheld. This is a historic victory for Second Amendment rights in the Ninth Circuit,” Adam Kraut, executive director of the Second Amendment Foundation, said in a statement released after the decision.

The National Rifle Association, which had filed an amicus brief in the case, also praised the decision in an email to The Epoch Times.

“Since its inception, California’s radical ‘one-gun-per-month’ rule has been an affront to the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens. Today, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals finalized its ruling that this law is unconstitutional, dealing yet another blow to Gavin Newsom and his progressive allies’ extreme gun control agenda,” John Commerford, executive director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action, said.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office did not respond to a request for comment by publication time.

The state of California contended that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to purchase and own one firearm at a time. The state argued that the plaintiffs’ rights were not infringed because they already have at least one firearm, according to Forrest.

“California is wrong,” Circuit Court Judge Danielle Forrest wrote in the June 20 decision. “The Second Amendment protects the right of people to ‘keep and bear arms,’ plural.”

After the district court found the law unconstitutional, the state appealed to the Ninth Circuit.

California’s “one-gun-a-month” purchase limit law was passed in 1999 and originally covered only concealable firearms. In 2024, the law was expanded to limit the purchase of any firearm and firearm parts.

The law was meant to prevent “straw purchases.” A straw purchase occurs when a person buys a gun for someone who cannot legally buy one.

Eleven plaintiffs—including six individuals—challenged the law in the Southern District of California.

The defendants were Allison Mendoza, director of the California Department of Justice Bureau of Firearms, and Bonta, in their official capacities.

Jill McLaughlin contributed to this report.