Gun Rights Groups Challenge California’s One-Gun-Per-Month Restriction

Below the Radar: The Multiple Firearm Sales Reporting Modernization Act of 2019
Gun Rights Groups Challenge California’s One-Gun-Per-Month Restriction

U.S.A.-(AmmoLand.com)- A coalition of gun rights organizations including the Second Amendment Foundation and Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc. are asking a federal court in California for an injunction against enforcement of the state’s one-gun-per-month restriction on the grounds that it violates the Second Amendment.

Joining SAF and FPC are the San Diego County Gun Owners PAC, North County Shooting Center, Inc., PWGG, L.P., a California Limited Partnership, and six private citizens, Michelle Nguyen, Dominic Boguski, Jay Medina, Frank Colletti, John Phillips and Darin Prince, according to the court document obtained by AmmoLand News.

The 43-page complaint names California Attorney General Xavier Becerra and Luis Lopez, director of the state Department of Justice, Bureau of Firearms in their official capacities as defendants. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California in San Diego. The case is known as Nguyen v. Becerra.

Plaintiffs are represented by attorney Raymond M. DiGuiseppe of Southport, N.C.

According to SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb, “California’s one-handgun-per-month purchasing restriction is an unconstitutional prohibition that will also apply to all semiautomatic centerfire rifles starting in July. The policy discriminates against private citizens because it does not apply to motion picture, television or video production companies, which we call the ‘Hollywood exemption.’ The way Becerra and Lopez enforce the law amounts to an infringement on the individual right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment, and a violation of the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause.”

Under the law, there are exceptions to the limitation:

  1. Any law enforcement agency;
  2. Any agency duly authorized to perform law enforcement duties;
  3. Any state or local correctional facility;
  4. Any private security company licensed to do business in California;
  5. Any person who is properly identified as a full-time paid peace officer, as defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2, and who is authorized to, and does carry a firearm during the course and scope of employment as a peace officer;
  6. Any motion picture, television, or video production company or entertainment or theatrical company whose production by its nature involves the use of a firearm;
  7. Any person who may, pursuant to Article 2 (commencing with Section 27600), Article 3 (commencing with Section 27650), or Article 4 (commencing with Section 27700), claim an exemption from the waiting period set forth in Section 27540;
  8. Any transaction conducted through a licensed firearms dealer pursuant to Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 28050);
  9. Any person who is licensed as a collector pursuant to Chapter 44 (commencing with Section 921) of Title 18 of the United States Code and the regulations issued pursuant thereto, and has a current certificate of eligibility issued by the Department of Justice pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 26700) of Chapter 2;
  10. The exchange of a handgun where the dealer purchased that firearm from the person seeking the exchange within the 30-day period immediately preceding the date of exchange or replacement;
  11. The replacement of a handgun when the person’s handgun was lost or stolen, and the person reported that firearm lost or stolen pursuant to Section 25250 prior to the completion of the application to purchase the replacement handgun;
  12. The return of any handgun to its owner; and,
  13. A community college that is certified by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training to present the law enforcement academy basic course or other commission-certified law enforcement training.

As noted in the lawsuit, “No legitimate—much less compelling—state interest exists in establishing this arbitrarily disparate treatment.”

Gottlieb said the law shouldn’t exist in the first place.

By no small coincidence, the one-gun-per-month limit in California is a restriction incoming President-elect Joe Biden wants to impose nationwide as part of his gun control scheme. How successful he will be may largely depend upon the outcome of the runoff elections in Georgia to fill two U.S. Senate seats. Incumbent Republicans David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler are being challenged by far-left Democrats Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock. Biden is appearing in an advertisement explaining how he “needs” both men to win.

A few days ago, firearms attorney and author Ryan Cleckner wrote an Op-Ed in The Federalist, identifying six possible moves Biden will make regarding firearms.

  • Ban pistol braces, which seems likely considering Friday’s posting by the BATFE “Objective Factors for Classifying Weapons with Stabilizer Braces,” which Fredy Reihl, editor at AmmoLand News, calls “a thinly veiled blueprint for the largest firearm registration–and ultimately potentially confiscation–scheme in U.S. history.”
  •  Banning homemade firearms/80 percent receivers
  •  Banning online firearm and ammunition sales
  •  Shortly after the first bans, and if he has the help of the Senate, the next gun control measures will likely be:
  •  Banning “assault weapons”
  •  Banning “high capacity” magazines
  •  Requiring universal background checks

This new California lawsuit is one of several challenging the very kinds of gun control laws advocated by Biden, Vice President-elect (and former California Attorney General) Kamala Harris and the far-left wing of the Democrat party. In recent weeks, SAF and FPC have filed two other legal actions challenging Golden State gun laws. Read about them here and here.

If the lawsuit against the one-gun-per-month restriction is successful, it could lead to the end of such laws in other parts of the country, most notably Virginia, where Democrats quickly reinstated it earlier this year when they took control of the General Assembly in Richmond.

RELATED:

SB Tactical: Proposed ATF Brace Regulations Nothing More Than Registration Scheme



About Dave Workman

Dave Workman is a senior editor at TheGunMag.com and Liberty Park Press, author of multiple books on the Right to Keep & Bear Arms, and formerly an NRA-certified firearms instructor.

Dave Workman

12 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Laddyboy
Laddyboy
9 months ago

FYI: Look at Maryland’s gun control. We Marylander Citizens have have had “one gun a month” for years now. ‘e also have a REDICULOUS “lawful restriction” on carry. Maryland alos has an anti-carry ANTI-Second Amendment ‘b.frosh’ as a “A.G.”.

Cruiser
Cruiser
10 months ago

“A gun a month” Wow, I’ve got some catching up to do. LOL

Core
Core
10 months ago

Just finish signing Gov. Newsome out of office and Article VI all unconstitutional officials, judges, and elected officials. Defund, Disbar, and Discharge via Article VI them for knowingly violating citizens constitutional rights.

Buster
Buster
10 months ago

No offense to Dave, but the time has come where we need fewer people writing and reading, and more people doing.

We Patriots will not accept the 2020 elections. If Trump does not take decisive action very soon, armed and determined Patriots will.

It will be neater, cleaner, quicker, and with far less bloodshed if Trump does it…but regardless, it will get done.

Freedom is not to be trifled with, and Patriots will not leave their freedoms to chance.

Cruiser
Cruiser
10 months ago
Reply to  Buster

I heard a comment on Utube the other day, It was said President Trump should declare limited marshal law and have the military count the votes.
Sounds like a good plan to me.

nobodyuknow
nobodyuknow
10 months ago

ARM UP!!! GET READY!!! IT’S COMIN’ DOWN!!!

Camotim
Camotim
10 months ago

I do not regret leaving 6-Land over 15 years ago.

uncle dudley
uncle dudley
10 months ago

If the elected officials in California don’t want to follow the United States Constitution why don’t they just remove themselves as a state and become their own country, many folks wouldn’t mind if that should happen.
Name one other product that is legally sold in the country that you are limited to buying one per month, there isn’t any, so this screams of discrimination.

musicman44mag
musicman44mag
10 months ago

I read the head line and new what needed to be written. And that is why we need 80 percenters and why we need to make all guns legal regardless of there design so long as they are not automatic unless you have the stamp and we shouldn’t be required to have a stamp for fully auto or a sound suppressor either. Defund and disband the ATF Now I will go back and read all about the kommiefornia B.S. So glad I escaped there and now I have a permit that I shouldn’t be required to have but I can… Read more »

Last edited 10 months ago by musicman44mag