California’s “one-gun-a-month” law violates the Second Amendment, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on June 20, affirming a lower court’s decision.

“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,” Circuit Judge Danielle Forrest wrote in the opinion.

California suggested in its argument that the Second Amendment guarantees only a right to possess a single firearm and that the plaintiffs’ rights were not infringed because they already have at least one firearm, according to Forrest.

“California is wrong,” Forrest wrote. “The Second Amendment protects the right of people to ‘keep and bear arms,’ plural.”

Several gun-rights organizations and six residents sued the state in December 2020, challenging the gun-buying restrictions, which were first passed in 1999. Joining the residents were Poway Weapons & Gear Ltd., North County Shooting Center, Firearms Policy Coalition, San Diego County Gun Owners Political Action Committee, and the Second Amendment Foundation.

The state’s initial “one-gun-a-month” law applied only to concealable firearms. On Jan. 1, 2024, the law was expanded to limit the purchase of any firearm and firearm parts.

The law was meant to “stop one gun purchaser from buying several firearms and transferring a firearm to another person who does not have the legal ability to buy a gun him/herself.”

Plaintiffs argued the law violated the Second Amendment and the 14th Amendment right to equal protection.

U.S. Circuit Judge William Hayes first ruled on the case in March 2024, siding with the plaintiffs and finding the law unconstitutional because it did not fit within the nation’s tradition of firearms regulations.

The judge referred to the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision in 2022. The historic case set a framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges. First, the court examines whether the gun restriction is covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment when it was originally adopted in 1791.

Attorney General Rob Bonta speaks as Gov. Gavin Newsom looks on during a news conference at Gemperle Orchards in Ceres, Calif., on April 16, 2025. (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

Second, judges analyze how close the law comes to the core of the Second Amendment right and consider the law’s burden on that right.

Governments must justify a regulation by showing that it is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation, according to the Bruen decision.

The appeals court found that the state did not provide an example of any law that would relate to its one-gun-a-month law, as required.

“The panel held that California’s law is not supported by this nation’s tradition of firearms regulation,” Forrest wrote. “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.”

Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office responded to the ruling on June 23 but did not say whether he planned to appeal.

“California is committed to defending our common-sense firearm safety laws,” a spokesperson for Bonta told The Epoch Times in an email. “We are reviewing the opinion.”

The National Rifle Association (NRA), with 4.2 million members, filed a court brief in 2024 in support of the lawsuit.

“NRA filed an amicus brief in the case, and the court’s ruling marks a big win for gun rights!” the NRA stated in a social media post on June 20.

The San Diego-based Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) applauded the decision and said the group expected to continue fighting gun restrictions passed by state lawmakers.

“Another week, another California gun control law declared unconstitutional by a federal court,” said Cody Wisniewski, FPC’s counsel. “California’s one-gun-a-month law directly violates California residents’ right to acquire arms and has no basis in history.

The court’s judgment is on hold for 30 days to give the state a chance to appeal.