Ninth Circuit Strikes Down California’s “1-In-30” Gun-Rationing Law
A unanimous panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has struck down California’s “1-in-30” gun rationing law as unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. The law restricted citizens to one gun purchase every 30 days and was based on a ridiculous rationale that was shredded by the three-judge panel.
California Penal Code § 27535(a) states that individuals may not apply “to purchase more than one firearm within any 30-day period,” and § 27540(f) prohibits a firearms dealer from delivering any firearm if the dealer is notified that “the purchaser has made another application to purchase a handgun, semiautomatic centerfire rifle, completed frame or receiver, or firearm precursor part” within the preceding 30-day period.
Writing for the court, Judge Danielle Jo Forrest found the California law facially unconstitutional.
Not soon enough?
Not till either SCOTUS or 3rd circuit rules in our favor. Or a completely new political makeup in nj which is highly unlikely. Many more higher priorioty cases should be bought first. Duty to inform should have been bought before hollow point bullets, 18-20 YO has minimum impact not a priority. The non violent felon case is important, red flag laws , trpo all priority ,
Sensitive places needs to go to this scotus so it is countrywide, scotus needs to say that only court houses that employ armed guards/sheriffs protect , airports past the screening. This cant be left up to the states.
It was surprising that this was the 9th Circuit with this ruling. You can’t get any more Liberal then that court.
It was an En Banc ruling. I’m sure the full panel will reverse the decision.
Yeah, every once in a while 2A wind the lottery in the 9th circuit. And then the dems come along and move the goal posts after they declare the last play invalid.
En banc is the full circuit (except the 9th because there are too many Judges there). This was a panel decision which can be overturned by an en banc rehearing.