Court strikes down California gun restriction as unconstitutional
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has struck down a California law that violated the Second Amendment.
California Penal Code section 27535 states: "A person shall not make an application to purchase more than one firearm within any 30-day period. This subdivision does not authorize a person to make an application to purchase a combination of firearms, completed frames or receivers, or firearm precursor parts within the same 30-day period."
Gun rights groups filed a lawsuit against California last year, and the district court ruled the one-gun-a-month law unconstitutional. But the state appealed, and the Ninth Circuit temporarily stayed the decision. In June, the three-judge panel agreed with the lower court that the law violates the Second Amendment rights of Californians, and issued a mandate on August 14th putting the ruling into effect.
“We are not aware of any circumstance where government may temporally meter the exercise of constitutional rights in this manner,” the court wrote in its decision. “And we doubt anyone would think government could limit citizens' free-speech right to one protest a month, their free-exercise right to one worship service per month, or their right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures to apply only to one search or arrest per month.”
The state tried to cite historical laws as precedent for the restriction. A Virginia law, for example, limited the "carrying of more than one gun and ten charges of powder when traveling near any Native town or more than three miles away from an English plantation." But the appellate court noted that not only did this law expire long before the United States was founded, but it only restricted carrying firearms, not owning them.
"By the founding era, the historical record suggests that it was common for Americans to 'carry two, four, or even six single shot pistols on their belt' and that 'pistols were often sold . . . in pairs,’” the court said.
“The Second Amendment expressly protects the right to possess multiple arms. It also protects against meaningful constraints on the right to acquire arms because otherwise the right to 'keep and bear' would be hollow,” concluded the court.
The Ninth Circuit’s ruling is one of two major victories against state gun restrictions this month.
Victory in New Mexico
On Tuesday, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that New Mexico’s Waiting Period Act, which imposes a seven-day waiting period on gun purchases, likely violates the Second Amendment.
“Cooling-off periods do not fit into any historically grounded exceptions to the right to keep and bear arms, and burden conduct within the Second Amendment’s scope,” wrote Judge Timothy Tymkovich in the 2-1 ruling. ”We conclude that New Mexico’s Waiting Period Act is likely an unconstitutional burden on the Second Amendment rights of its citizens.”
Democratic Governor. Michelle Lujan Grisham expressed “deep disappointment” about the ruling and claimed it will cost lives.
“New Mexico’s waiting period law was carefully crafted to minimize gun violence while respecting Second Amendment rights,” said Lujan Grisham. “Waiting periods prevent impulsive acts of violence and suicide, giving people time to step back and reassess their emotions during moments of crisis.”
In 2023, Lujan Grisham declared gun violence a public health emergency and prohibited taxpayers from carrying firearms for 30 days, a timeframe she said she might extend. The order was widely panned as unconstitutional. Albuquerque Police Chief Harold Medina and Bernalillo County Sheriff John Allen refused to enforce it, and even Democratic New Mexico Attorney General Raul Torrez refused to defend it in court.
