Nguyen v. Bonta
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · No. 24-2036 · 140 F.4th 1237
👍Favorable to gun rights
Held California's one-gun-a-month purchase limit facially unconstitutional and left the injunction in place.
GunMapUSA assessment of the outcome's direction, not a statement that the court decided rightly or wrongly.
What the court held
Individual buyers, gun-rights organizations, and firearm retailers brought a facial Second Amendment challenge to California's 'one-gun-a-month' law, which bars most people from applying to purchase more than one firearm in any 30-day period. The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment and the injunction for plaintiffs, holding the Second Amendment's text protects possession of multiple firearms and shields the acquisition of firearms from meaningful constraints, and that California's proffered historical analogues, including colonial carry limits, dealer taxes, and licensing schemes, are not relevantly similar. Judge Owens concurred to note the ruling addresses only this law and not other measures against bulk or straw purchasing.
Summarized from the court's opinion.
What this case is about
California law limiting handgun purchases to one per 30 days
GunMapUSA summary of the issue, not a quotation from the court.
Key Dates
- 2025-06-20 — Decided
- 2024-08-14 — Argued
Sources
- CourtListener — retrieved 2026-08-08
Summary of public court records. Not legal advice.