9th Circuit Rulings: Shot Across Bow for West Coast Anti-Gunners

The traditionally liberal Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued two rulings this summer that could be considered a shot across the bow of West Coast anti-gunners. Taking things off the table that they might have wanted in Washington and Oregon. We will see when legislatures in both states convene in early next year.

Both Pacific Northwest states have been suffering in recent years from coordinated pushes to adopt among the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. Supported by wealthy elitists, gun prohibition lobbying groups in Seattle and Portland have helped elected anti-gun Democrats to control legislatures in both states. Daily newspapers have also helped perpetuate Democrat majorities, and potential readers have reacted by cancelling subscriptions, which helps to drive down advertising revenue, a consequential process that seems to escape newspaper management.

Democrats control governors’ offices in Olympia and Salem. Attorneys general in both states are anti-gun Democrats.

Now, along came two rulings which may be raining on their parade:

Nguyen v. Bonta, which was formalized Aug. 14, was a unanimous ruling by a three-judge panel striking down California’s 26-year-old one-gun-per-month law. In its 24-page decision, the court stated, “California has a ‘one-gun-a-month’ law that prohibits most people from buying more than one firearm in a 30-day period. The district court held that this law violates the Second Amendment. We affirm. California’s law is facially unconstitutional because possession of multiple firearms and the ability to acquire firearms through purchase without meaningful constraints are protected by the Second Amendment and California’s law is not supported by our nation’s tradition of firearms regulation.”

Rhode v. Bonta slammed the door on California’s requirement that people purchasing ammunition must submit to a background check. In its 2-1 ruling, which spans 79 pages including the 24-page dissent by Circuit Judge Jay Scott Bybee, the court explained, “California’s ammunition background check regime, which requires firearm owners to complete background checks before each ammunition purchase, facially violates the Second Amendment.”

In its 2025 legislative policy agenda, the Seattle-based Alliance for Gun Responsibility, a billionaire-backed lobbying group, included the following tenets:

“Require a Permit to Purchase Firearms H.B. 1163 / S.B 5140: Permit-to-purchase systems ensure that background checks occur before a firearm purchase rather than at the point of sale. This life-saving tool has been proven to reduce firearm-related deaths, curb illegal gun trafficking, and help ensure firearms don’t fall into dangerous hands. Additionally, permitting provides an extra layer of safety by involving additional checks in the initial stages of firearm acquisition.”

House Bill 1163 passed and was signed by Democrat Gov. Bob Ferguson. Because it requires a permit-to-purchase, issued by the Washington State Patrol, it is almost certain to be challenged in both state and federal court. Critics contend the exercise of a constitutionally-enumerated fundamental right cannot be subject to getting permission from a government agency. This reduces a right to the level of a government-regulated privilege.

“Restrict Bulk Firearm and Ammunition Purchases H.B. 1132: Limiting the number of firearms and ammunition an individual can purchase at a given time is a straightforward approach to prevent gun trafficking. Data shows that multiple firearms sales are a significant indicator of firearms trafficking, and firearms sold in such sales are frequently recovered at crime scenes.”

This one stalled in the House. Following the Rhode decision, it may not be resurrected in January for another go-round.

Historically, the Ninth Circuit majority has not been friendly to the Second Amendment. However, that may be changing, if the Rhode and Nguyen decisions are any indication. One should probably not presume the liberal Ninth Circuit has experienced an epiphany on gun rights, but issuing two pro-2A rulings one-after-the-other is significant.

The U.S. Supreme Court handed the gun prohibition lobby a significant loss when it ruled in Estados Unidos v. Smith & Wesson that U.S. gun manufacturers cannot be held liable for the criminal misuse of guns they sold legally, but which found their way into the hands of Mexican criminals. It was another signal that courts are not going to rubber-stamp the gun control agenda.

Earlier this month, the Second Amendment Foundation and other gun rights groups—American Suppressor Association (ASA), National Rifle Association (NRA), Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), Prime Protection STL Tactical Boutique—filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the 1934 National Firearms Act. The case is known as Brown v. ATF, filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division.

With West Coast legislatures in the unrelenting grip of Democrat anti-gunners, it is the courts that must provide relief from their extremism. Supporting the groups that bring these lawsuits is now more critical than ever.

10th Circuit Court Panel Says New Mexico’s Waiting Period ‘Likely Unconstitutional’

Anti-Gunners are Running Out of Arguments

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.