Ninth Circuit Strikes Down California’s One-Gun-a-Month Law

By Cameron Schlagel and Michael Reynolds

Introduction

In Nguyen v. Bonta,¹ the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals addressed the constitutionality of California’s “one-gun-a-month” law, which prohibits purchasing more than one firearm within a 30-day period. The Court affirmed the District Court’s ruling that the law violates the Second Amendment, holding that the restriction constitutes a “meaningful constraint” on the right to acquire and possess multiple firearms. The opinion is significant for its robust application of the Supreme Court’s New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen² framework, and its clear articulation of the Second Amendment’s protection of both the acquisition and possession of multiple firearms.

Background

California’s one-gun-a-month law originated in 1999, initially targeting handguns and later expanding to all firearms by 2024. Codified at California Penal Code § 27535(a), the statute restricts most individuals from applying to purchase more than one firearm within any 30-day period, with certain exemptions for law enforcement, security companies, and other specified groups. The legislative intent was to curb “straw purchases” and illegal gun trafficking by limiting bulk acquisitions.³

The Plaintiffs — including individuals, firearm retailers, and advocacy organizations — challenged the law as a facial violation of the Second Amendment. The District Court, applying the Bruen standard, granted summary judgment for the Plaintiffs and enjoined enforcement of the statute. The state appealed, and the Ninth Circuit reversed a stay of the injunction after oral argument, setting the stage for the appellate review.⁴

Opinion

The Ninth Circuit, in an opinion by Judge Forrest, conducted a two-step analysis under Bruen: (1) whether the Second Amendment’s plain text covers the regulated conduct, and (2) whether the regulation is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

Step One: The Scope of the Second Amendment

Relying on a recent Ninth Circuit decision, the Court began its Second Amendment analysis by identifying “the conduct the regulation prevents plaintiffs from engaging in,” i.e., “what the plaintiffs want to do and what the challenged law prevent[s] them from doing.”⁵ On that score, the Court identified the regulated conduct as “buying more than one firearm from a licensed dealer in a 30-day period.”⁶

The Court next asked whether this conduct is protected by the plain text of the Second Amendment.⁷ The Court noted that the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to “keep and bear arms” includes “ancillary rights necessary to the realization of the core right to possess a firearm for self-defense.”⁸

The Court explained that while the Second Amendment does not guarantee absolute convenience or preference in acquiring firearms, it does prohibit “meaningful constraints” on that right.⁹ This means that regulations which merely affect the manner or location of firearm acquisition — such as zoning ordinances that limit where gun stores may operate, or bans on sales at specific venues — do not rise to the level of a constitutional violation if alternative means of acquisition remain reasonably available. For instance, in Teixeira v. County of Alameda¹⁰ and B&L Productions, Inc. v. Newsom¹¹ the Ninth Circuit concluded that a zoning and location restriction and a venue-specific sale ban, respectively, were minor inconveniences as opposed to “meaningful constraints.” 

In contrast to the laws in Teixeira and B&L Productions, the Nguyen Court found that California’s one-gun-a-month law imposes a substantial burden on the right to acquire firearms. This is for two reasons.
First, rejecting California’s argument that the Second Amendment guarantees a right to possess only a single firearm, the Court emphasizes that the Second Amendment plainly protects the right to “‘keep and bear arms,’ plural.” By restricting the ability to acquire more than one firearm in a given period, the law imposes a “meaningful constraint” on the exercise of the right itself, not just its manner or convenience.¹²

Second, the law imposes a categorical and temporal restriction — it prohibits most individuals from purchasing more than one firearm of any kind within a 30-day period. This is not a restriction on where or how a firearm can be purchased, but a direct, categorical limit on the frequency with which a person can exercise their right to acquire arms.¹³ The Court further clarified the distinction by analogizing to other constitutional rights. It noted that the government could not, for example, limit the right to free speech to one protest per month or the right to religious exercise to one worship service per month.¹⁴

Step Two: Historical Tradition

Turning to history, the Court required California to demonstrate that its law is supported by a “historical tradition of firearm regulation.”¹⁵ The Court rejected California’s argument for a “nuanced approach” to historical analysis, finding that while modern firearms manufacturing and distribution differ in degree from the founding era, the underlying problems of arms trafficking and illegal sales are not new.¹⁶ 

The Court surveyed historical regulations cited by California, including colonial and Reconstruction-era laws restricting sales to certain groups (e.g., Native Americans, intoxicated persons), licensing regimes, and tax measures. Critically, the Court found that these analogues either targeted only specific groups deemed dangerous, regulated only certain types of arms, or imposed burdens on sellers rather than purchasers. None imposed a categorical, temporal ban on the acquisition of multiple firearms by law-abiding citizens.¹⁷

The closest historical analogue — a colonial Virginia law limiting the number of guns carried near Native towns — was found to be both temporally and substantively distinct, as it regulated carrying, not acquisition, and was short-lived.¹⁸ The Court thus concluded that “the historical record does not even establish a historical cousin for California’s one-gun-a-month law.”¹⁹

Conclusion

Nguyen v. Bonta is a landmark decision that clarifies the analytical framework for Second Amendment challenges post-Bruen. The Ninth Circuit’s opinion affirms that the right to keep and bear arms includes the right to acquire multiple firearms without “meaningful constraints” such as categorical, temporal bans. The Court’s historical analysis sets a demanding standard for states seeking to justify modern firearm regulations, requiring not just a “historical twin” but at least a “historical cousin.” The decision will likely impact future firearms regulations, reinforce the robust protection of Second Amendment rights, and provide clear guidance for lower courts and legislatures alike.

*Any opinions expressed are those of the authors, and not necessarily the firm or their colleagues.