California Gun Control Law Tossed by Court for Violating 2nd Amendment: 9th Circuit Rules ‘One-Gun-Per-Month’ Law Unconstitutional

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners secured a major victory today after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a mandate overturning California’s “one-gun-per-month” restriction, setting a historic precedent.

In June, a unanimous decision from the Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of SAF and its partners in Nguyen v. Bonta, SAF’s challenge to California’s one-gun-per-month gun rationing law. SAF is joined in the case by the Firearms Policy Coalition and San Diego County Gun Owners PAC, two FFL gun dealers, and six private citizens, including Michelle Nguyen, for whom the case is named.

Background on Nguyen v. Bonta.

California’s “one-gun-per-month” law, first enacted in 1999, limited most people to buying only one handgun in any 30-day period, later expanding the restriction to include all firearms. Supporters claimed the rule would curb straw purchases and illegal gun trafficking.

In 2020, Michelle Nguyen, other individuals, two gun stores, and several pro-Second Amendment groups—including the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), Firearms Policy Coalition, and San Diego County Gun Owners PAC—filed suit, arguing the law violated the Second Amendment.

The case reached the Ninth Circuit after SAF won a summary judgment in federal district court. In June 2025, a unanimous three-judge panel ruled that the law was facially unconstitutional, finding that the Second Amendment protects the right to own multiple firearms and to acquire them without “meaningful constraints.” The court also concluded there was no historical tradition in America supporting a law like California’s.

On August 14, 2025, the Ninth Circuit issued its formal mandate, making the decision final—marking the first time the court has struck down a gun control law outright for violating the Second Amendment. [MORE]