Previous Message

That's an appeals court, not the SCOTUS. Decided on Friday. The reasoning looks sound to me, following the "Bruen" decision, and perhaps that will end the matter. The concept of unreasonable restrictions are part of why you can't ban or overregulate ammunition, too. From Reason.com:

" California's law is facially unconstitutional because possession of multiple firearms and the ability to acquire firearms through purchase without meaningful constraints are protected by the Second Amendment ," Judge Danielle J. Forrest, a Donald Trump appointee, wrote in Nguyen v. Bonta, "and California's law is not supported by our nation's tradition of firearms regulation." The opinion was joined by Judge Bridget S. Bade, who also was appointed by Trump, and by Judge John B. Owens, who was appointed by Barack Obama.

The law at issue in Nguyen, originally enacted in 1999, was aimed at preventing "straw purchases"—transactions in which people buy multiple firearms and transfer them to individuals who are not legally allowed to possess them....


California "suggests that the Second Amendment only guarantees a right to possess a single firearm, and that Plaintiffs' rights have not been infringed because they already possess at least one firearm ," Forrest noted. "California is wrong. The Second Amendment protects the right of the people to 'keep and bear Arms,' plural. This 'guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and carry weapons.' And not only is 'Arms' stated in the plural, but this term refers to more than just guns. It includes other weapons and instruments used for defense. California's interpretation would mean that the Second Amendment only protects possession of a single weapon of any kind. There is no basis for interpreting the constitutional text in that way."

California also argued that its law does not ban possession of multiple firearms, provided 30 days elapse between purchases. "We have held that the Second Amendment does protect against meaningful constraints on the acquisition of firearms through purchase," Forrest wrote.... By categorically prohibiting citizens from purchasing more than one firearm of any kind in a 30-day period, California is infringing on citizens' exercise of their Second Amendment rights."

Forrest noted that such a burden would be plainly unacceptable if it were applied to other rights guaranteed by the Constitution. " We are not aware of any circumstance where government may temporally meter the exercise of constitutional rights in this manner ," she wrote. "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." ....