Federal Appeals Court Strikes Down California’s Gun Rationing Law, Ruling It Unconstitutional

A federal appeals court has struck down California’s one-gun-a-month restriction, ruling it violates the Second Amendment. The unanimous decision affirms a lower court ruling in favor of gun rights groups and private citizens.

Key Facts:

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against California’s law limiting firearm purchases to one per month.
The case, Nguyen v. Bonta, was brought by SAF, Firearms Policy Coalition, San Diego County Gun Owners PAC, two FFL dealers, and six citizens.
Judges on the panel were John B. Owens, Bridget S. Bade, and Danielle J. Forrest.
Judge Forrest wrote the opinion affirming the lower court’s decision that the law is unconstitutional.
SAF’s Adam Kraut called the decision a step toward restoring stolen Second Amendment rights in California.

The Rest of The Story:

The Ninth Circuit ruled that California’s one-gun-a-month law is unconstitutional.

Judge Danielle J. Forrest, writing for the majority, stated that the law lacks support in “our nation’s tradition of firearms regulation” and burdens the constitutional right to bear arms.

The law barred most people from purchasing more than one firearm in a 30-day period.

The court found this limitation facially invalid under the Second Amendment.

The decision comes in Nguyen v. Bonta, a case brought by the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), Firearms Policy Coalition, San Diego County Gun Owners PAC, licensed dealers, and private individuals.

Adam Kraut of SAF said, “Today’s decision claws back a portion of Second Amendment rights stolen by California’s government,” calling it a victory against what he described as “totalitarian ideals” from state leaders.

BREAKING: In a 3-0 panel decision, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has UPHELD SAF's Summary Judgment win in Nguyen v. Bonta, our challenge to California's "One Gun Per Month" gun rationing law. The panel held that California’s law is facially unconstitutional because the plain… pic.twitter.com/zPUZD1Xdip

— SAF (@2AFDN) June 20, 2025

Commentary:

This decision is a win for the Constitution and a necessary correction to California’s long-standing assault on lawful gun ownership.

The state’s one-gun-a-month restriction never had real legal grounding—just political posturing.

It punished law-abiding citizens while doing nothing to disarm violent criminals.

The Ninth Circuit got it right.

As Judge Forrest explained, there is no historical precedent for limiting the number of firearms someone can purchase per month.

The right to bear arms includes the right to obtain them.

If the state can limit that to one, why not one a year—or none at all?

California’s approach continues to reflect a deep mistrust of its own citizens.

While cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles struggle with skyrocketing crime, state lawmakers spend their time crafting laws that target the wrong people.

Instead of cracking down on criminals, they aim to make it harder for honest people to defend themselves.

This ruling also sends a message to lawmakers in other blue states who want to copy California’s gun control blueprint.

Courts are no longer giving a pass to policies that openly trample constitutional rights.

California will likely appeal this ruling, hoping the Supreme Court will weigh in.

But with recent SCOTUS precedent strengthening Second Amendment protections, there’s a good chance the high court will decline to intervene.

That would leave this ruling intact—and that’s a good thing.

Imagine what California could achieve if its leaders put even half as much effort into stopping gang violence, drug trafficking, or border crime as they do into harassing lawful gun owners.

Maybe then the Golden State wouldn’t resemble a collapsing third-world regime in parts of its urban core.

This isn’t just a gun case.

It’s a constitutional one.

The court reaffirmed that rights granted by the Founders cannot be overridden by politicians with an agenda.