Is Virginia’s one-handgun-a-month law unconstitutional? A California case may provide the answer.

In Nguyen v. Bonta, a case challenging California’s one-gun-a-month (OGM) law, the United States District Court for the Southern District of California has ruled that the OGM law is unconstitutional and must be enjoined under the historical analog test laid out in N.Y. Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022).

In the opinion, the District Court held that “[Buying more than one firearm in a specific period of time] is presumptively protected because it is covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment”.  They went on to note that the State failed to satisfy its burden of “producing a ‘well-established and representative historical analogue’ to the OGM law,” as required by Bruen.

The state has appealed the ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and, regardless of the outcome, the Supreme Court will almost certainly be asked to weigh in on the case.

While it is too soon to make predictions, this case may well be the beginning of the end for these types of unconstitutional restrictions on the rights of law-abiding citizens acquiring arms during the time period of their choosing.

This entry was posted in 2A, 9th Circuit, Bruen Decision, Court Rulings, Criminal Law, Federal Court, One Handgun a Month, SCOTUS, Second Amendment, US Supreme Court. Bookmark the permalink.