Appeals Court Reverses Stay, Blocks CA From Enforcing 30-Day Gun Purchase Limit

Last updated on August 16th, 2024 at 01:43 pm

A panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has blocked enforcement of a California law limiting residents to purchase no more than one firearm in a 30-day period.

The three-judge appeals court panel reached its decision on Aug. 15, a day after hearing arguments for and against the gun-rationing law.

The California law in question states a “person shall not make an application to purchase more than one handgun or semiautomatic centerfire rifle within any 30-day period.”

Several individual plaintiffs and gun rights advocacy groups like the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), the Second Amendment Foundation, and the San Diego County Gun Owners PAC began challenging the California law in a December 2020 legal complaint.

In March, Judge William Hayes, of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, ruled the law violates both the Second and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and should be enjoined. By April, the California government had managed to convince the three-judge panel on the Ninth Circuit Court to stay the injunction as the state proceeded with its appeal.

On Thursday, the appeals court panel reversed their earlier stay and once again barred California from enforcing the gun-rationing law.

Arguing for the gun-rationing law this week, Jerry Yen, of the California Attorney General’s Office, insisted the law is meant to disrupt the illegal firearms trade. He specifically argued the measure hinders straw purchasers attempting to obtain firearms in bulk that they can then resell to potentially prohibited buyers.

Yen soon faced questions about how California determined a 30-day period was appropriate and how long the state felt it could block a gun purchase before it would be considered a violation of the Second Amendment.

“The Second Amendment, it doesn’t mention anything about purchasing, it’s keeping and bearing,” Yen said.

Judge Bridget Shelton Bade responded that the ability to purchase a firearm is an ancillary component to the broader 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Yen acknowledged purchasing is indeed an ancillary component of gun ownership, but he insisted the plaintiffs carried the greater burden to argue that the limit on purchases impacts the broader right to keep and bear arms.

Yen later argued the 30-day rationing period is not unlike laws temporarily barring people from purchasing firearms while they’re drunk.

“But they’re not going to be drunk for 30 days, right?” Judge Bade asked.

Yen replied that the drunkard example offered a decent enough analog to compare against California’s 30-day wait between purchases.

Ultimately the panel chose not to extend the stay protecting California’s gun rationing rule.

“This order allows our hard-won injunction to take effect and, unless the Ninth Circuit issues a new stay, Californians may now apply to purchase multiple firearms within a 30-day period,” FPC President Brandon Combs said Thursday. “FPC intends to make Governor Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta respect Second Amendment rights whether they like it or not.”