Gun rights organizations were in a celebratory mood after a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Friday ruled unanimously that California’s one-gun-per-month law, adopted in 1999, is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.
The case, known as Nguyen v. Bonta, was brought by the Second Amendment Foundation, San Diego County Gun Owners Political Action Committee, North County Shooting Center, Firearms Policy Coalition, PWGG, LP, and five private citizens, including Michelle Nguyen, for whom the case is named.
“Today’s decision claws back a portion of Second Amendment rights stolen by California’s government,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut in the aftermath of the win. “California’s one-gun-per-month law was in clear violation of the Second Amendment, as affirmed by the unanimous decision in the Ninth Circuit. This ruling is one step closer to liberating the people of the state from the totalitarian ideals of those in power who believe the right to keep and bear arms is a second-class right.”
SAF and its partners secured a summary judgment win at the district court, which California then appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
Friday’s ruling was also hailed by the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, which declared, “is not just a victory for gun rights, it also serves as a proverbial shot across the bow of anti-gun groups in western states.” To back that up, CCRKBA pointed to Ceasefire Oregon and the Washington-based Alliance for Gun Responsibility, both of which have one-gun-per-month provisions in their legislative agendas. In the Evergreen State, Substitute House Bill 1132 was stalled in the House Rules Committee earlier this year, but by law, remains alive into the 2026 legislative session, CCRKBA noted.
“We are opposed to this Draconian restriction on both sides of the Columbia River,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb in a news release, “and the Ninth Circuit Court panel’s ruling clearly explains why. There is nothing in either the federal or state constitutions which remotely suggests a citizen’s right to bear arms is limited to a single arm. Even Judge Danielle J. Forrest, in her opinion for the court, noted how the language of the Second Amendment uses the term ‘arms,’ which is a plural reference.”
Joining Judge Forrest in her opinion are Circuit Judges John B. Owens and Bridget S. Bade. Judges Forrest and Bade are both Donald Trump appointees, while Judge Owens, who wrote a short concurring opinion, is a Barack Obama appointee.
According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the court decision “was the latest in a series of decisions reassessing the state’s firearms restrictions since the Supreme Court set new limits on gun-control laws” three years ago, in June 2022. At that time, the high court issued its decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. The case declared New York’s century-old restrictive handgun permit law was unconstitutional and established new guidelines for deciding Second Amendment cases.
The newspaper quoted Judge Forrest’s observation: “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.”
“We are encouraged by the Appeals Court panel’s ruling,” CCRKBA’s Gottlieb stated, “because it puts a serious roadblock in the path of gun prohibition extremists who have convinced Democrats up and down the West Coast they should treat the right to keep and bear arms as a government-regulated privilege.”
He pointed to language in both Oregon and Washington state constitutions: Article 1, Section 27 of the Oregon constitution, and Article 1, Section 24 of the Washington constitution.
“They do not provide for restrictions on private citizens,” Gottlieb observed. “Instead, they restrict the government from infringing upon or impairing the right to keep and bear arms, a lesson gun control zealots need to learn.”
