By Dave Workman
Editor-in-Chief
A federal judge in California has granted summary judgment in a lawsuit challenging California’s one-gun-per-month (OGM) restriction, handing a significant victory to gun rights groups including the Second Amendment Foundation, which brought the lawsuit in December 2020.
In his 24-page decision, District Judge William Q. Hayes, a George W. Bush appointee, wrote, “Defendants have not met their burden of producing a ‘well-established and representative historical analogue’ to the OGM law. The Court therefore concludes that Plaintiffs are entitled to summary judgment as to the constitutionality of the OGM law under the Second Amendment.”
Judge Hayes stayed his decision for 30 days to allow the State of California an opportunity to announce whether it will appeal.
SAF is joined by the North County Shooting Center, San Diego County Gun Owners Pac, PWGG, LP, Firearms Policy Coalition and six private citizens including Michelle Nguyen, for whom the case is named. They are represented by attorney Raymond M. DiGuiseppe of Southport, N.C. The case is known as Nguyen v. Bonta.
In a prepared statement, SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb called the ruling “a win for gun rights and California gun owners.
“There is no historical justification for limiting law-abiding citizens to a single handgun or rifle purchase during a one-month period, and Judge Hayes’ ruling clearly points that out,” he said.
Further explaining the win, SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut stated, “The state of California tried to justify the OGM law in part on the grounds that it is a lawful regulation imposing conditions on the commercial sale of arms. However, there is nothing in the Second Amendment remotely connected to limiting the number of firearms a person can purchase. This limitation is blatantly unconstitutional, and if this ruling is appealed by the State of California, we intend to defend the lower court’s correct decision.”
Judge Hayes seemed to sum up the state’s failed policy, “Finally, nothing in the text of the Second Amendment suggests that the Second Amendment right is limited to possession and acquisition of a single firearm, or that the acquisition of additional firearms is inherently subject to additional limitations—if anything, the usage of the term ‘arms’ in plural suggests the opposite.”
This ruling could have far-reaching implications if it is upheld, and it signals a shift in judicial reasoning away from arbitrarily restrictive gun laws which appear to be in jeopardy thanks to the Supreme Court’s 2022 Bruen decision, which established new guidelines for how Second Amendment cases are handled. They can no longer be justified on the basis of a compelling government interest. They must show some analogous relationship to the way guns were regulated when the Constitution was ratified.
