A US district court judge in California granted summary judgment against the state’s one-gun-a-month (OGM) law, finding it unconstitutional.
Plaintiffs including the Second Amendment Foundation and Firearms Policy Coalition had argued the law violated the right to bear arms.
While the state claimed the law did not prevent gun ownership outright, the judge noted it still burdened Second Amendment rights.
Applying the Bruen precedent to require historical justification, the judge determined licensing and tax laws cited by the state were not relevantly similar as they imposed no purchase limits or frequency restrictions.
As the state failed to provide a well-established historical analogue, the court ruled the plaintiffs were entitled to summary judgment, striking down the OGM law.
“The fact that the OGM law burdens Plaintiffs’ Second Amendment right rather than outright prevents Plaintiffs’ from keeping and bearing arms is not determinative of whether the proposed conduct is covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment,” George W. Bush appointee Judge William Hayes said.
“Because Plaintiffs’ proposed conduct is covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment, Defendants must prove that the OGM law is ‘consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.’”
A Second Amendment Foundation official commented this affirmed gun rights and struck down an unjustified limitation on law-abiding citizens purchasing firearms.
“This is 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,” Second Amendment Foundation Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb said.
Read Also:
Bombshell Decision from Michelle Obama on 2024 Run
Former Border Chief Shreds Biden With 4 Simple Words
