A federal appeals court ruled Friday that California’s 30-day limit on firearm purchases violates the Second Amendment, marking a significant win for gun rights advocates and another challenge to the state’s restrictive gun laws.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a unanimous 3-0 decision, overturned the state’s law that limited individuals to buying only one firearm every 30 days — a restriction initially imposed on handguns in 1999 and expanded to all firearms in 2023. The court said the measure infringes on the constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
Related posts
This Article Includes
“We doubt anyone would think government could limit citizens’ free-speech right to one protest a month, or their free-exercise right to one worship service per month,” wrote Judge Danielle Forrest, a Trump appointee. “Possession of multiple firearms and the ability to acquire firearms through purchase without meaningful constraints are protected by the Second Amendment.”
The ruling is based on the standard established by the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision that overturned New York’s concealed carry law. In that landmark case, Justice Clarence Thomas declared that modern gun laws must align with the nation’s historical traditions of firearm regulation to pass constitutional muster.
California’s Defense Rejected
California officials argued that the 30-day rule was a public safety measure, aimed at preventing individuals from stockpiling guns or making straw purchases — where someone buys a gun for a person legally prohibited from owning one. However, the court said the law imposes too great a burden on lawful gun ownership without sufficient historical precedent.
Judge Forrest was joined in her opinion by Judge Bridget Bade, also a Trump appointee, and Judge John Owens, appointed by President Obama. While Owens agreed with the decision, he noted separately that other methods to deter straw purchasing may still be constitutionally valid.
“This case does not address other means of reducing bulk and straw purchasing of firearms,” Owens wrote, leaving the door open for more narrowly tailored restrictions in the future.
Gun Rights Advocates Applaud Ruling
Attorney Raymond DiGuiseppe, representing gun companies and individuals who challenged the law, called the decision “the only acceptable outcome in a society where all constitutional rights must stand on equal footing.”
What’s Next?
California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office issued a brief statement reaffirming the state’s commitment to “common-sense gun safety laws” but did not elaborate. Bonta may request a rehearing by a larger panel of the appeals court or ultimately appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
This ruling adds to a growing list of legal challenges reshaping California’s firearms regulations. While some laws — such as bans on gun possession by domestic abusers and restrictions on concealed carry in sensitive areas — have survived recent scrutiny, Friday’s ruling marks a rare defeat for the state’s aggressive gun control framework.
The decision upheld an earlier ruling by U.S. District Judge William Hayes in San Diego.
