More Than 1 Gun in 30 Days in Kalifornistan?
On Monday, March 11, San Diego based Federal Judge William Q Hayes ruled in the case of Nguyen v. Bonta that California’s one-gun-a-month (OGM) law is unconstitutional. The enforcement of the judgment was stayed for 30 days for the State to appeal.
This case adds to the growing list of California’s do-nothing-to-increase-public-safety gun control laws to be ruled unconstitutional. This ruling (linked below) is significant as it comes from a second federal judge rather than numerous rulings from Judge Roger T. Benitez.
It should be noted California hasn’t been deterred by other states repealing their own 1-in-30 laws or having them struck down in court. In recent years, the State decided to double down and expand its own 1-in-30 law in a classic case of gun control scope creep. We can only speculate as to what would be next.
When initially enacted in 2000, the limitation only applied to handguns. It was expanded in 2021 to include all semiautomatic centerfire rifles (or combination of rifle and handgun) and expanded again in 2024 to include any firearm, including completed frames or receivers, or so-called “firearm precursor parts”.
While officially justified as to “stop one gun purchaser from buying several firearms and transferring a firearm to another person who does not have the legal ability to buy a gun him/herself”, I clearly recall the rhetoric from the initial 1-in-30 handgun ban, and the subsequent expansions saying this was needed since ‘no one should be able to buy an arsenal all at once’. After all, straw purchases, buying a gun on behalf of a prohibited person, is already illegal in California, as well as the rest of the country, so why would this law even be needed?
The reaction from California’s Governor/Yet-To-Be-Announced Presidential Candidate was as predictable as it was ignorant with him choosing to insult the judge and push his own ridiculous anti-gun 28th Amendment.
“Another day, another common sense gun safety law struck down by a right-wing judge. This is exactly why we need to amend the U.S. Constitution to establish a Right to Safety.”
Let’s not forget where this all begins, the Second Amendment:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Just as other cases have ruled that the right to keep arms “necessarily involves the right to purchase them”, purchasing more than one firearm (or ammunition) from a licensed dealer is covered by the Second Amendment.
Once again, the United States Supreme Court’s New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen (Bruen) ruling is the key element. Post Bruen, all Second Amendment related laws must be consistent with the “text, history, and tradition” of the country, with the burden of proof falling on the State when a law is challenged.
The State’s justifications for “text, history, and tradition” in this case provides an insight into how little they regard individual rights and the Constitution.
The State relied on “expert testimony” that firearms were not widely owned or purchased during the Founding and Reconstruction era, logic not backed up by actual historical data.
The state referenced laws regulating the storage, sale, and transport of gunpowder which in fact were fire-safety laws, not gun control laws. Also referenced were laws which restricted the sale and trade of firearms and gunpowder to Native Americans due to the risk of “Native violence” or carrying firearms and gunpower more than a certain distance from a settlement lest they fall into Native American hands.
Similar to previous Bruen “text, history, and tradition” arguments, the State relied on racist laws from the colonial era to justify the constitutionality of modern day gun control laws.
As with the other cases involving the invalidation of unconstitutional California gun control laws, the State will appeal this to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. There is zero doubt the “Nutty Ninth” will issue a stay for Nguyen v. Bonta and begin the torturously slow appeals process. We can expect the case will be slow walked, delayed, stalled and motioned to death until the current 5–4 conservative majority of the Supreme Court flips to a liberal majority, either by the replacement of a justice or packing of the Court with new liberal justices.
Meanwhile, your unlimited tax dollars will be used to argue against your rights, and your donations will be used to argue for them. While a final ruling on this case is likely years away, the lawyers on both sides will be the big winners while your rights are on hold.
Remember, gun control does absolutely nothing to increase public safety and the answer to fix that shortcoming is always to implement more gun control.
The ONLY way to keep more gun control laws from being passed is to STOP electing people who will not protect our natural, constitutionally protected rights.
Yes, it does matter who you vote for!
Bob
https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/akvemjzqgvr/03112024california.pdf
#Oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #2A, #GunControlFails, #NoNewGunLaws, #FactsMatter, #GunsSaveLives, #GunVote, #medium, #mewe, #gab, #gettr, #truthsocial, #oddstuffing.com
