California’s restrictive gun laws took a hit. On August 14, 2025, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the state’s “one-gun-a-month” rule, a move that restores some Second Amendment firepower to law-abiding citizens.
Breitbart reported that this ruling is a jab at progressive efforts to chip away at constitutional protections. The decision, handed down in Nguyen v. Bonta, followed a June 20, 2025, ruling by a three-judge panel that declared the restriction unconstitutional.
The case was brought by a coalition including the Second Amendment Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, San Diego County Gun Owners PAC, two licensed gun dealers, and six private citizens, including Michelle Nguyen.
The “one-gun-a-month” law limited Californians to buying just one handgun or semi-automatic centerfire rifle within 30 days from licensed dealers. This cap, cloaked as public safety, effectively hobbled the rights of responsible gun owners. Progressives love preaching “common-sense” restrictions, but this one screamed arbitrary control.
The Ninth Circuit’s June 20, 2025, decision affirmed a lower court’s ruling that the restriction violated the Second Amendment.
Judge Danielle Forrest, writing the majority opinion, didn’t mince words. Her clarity cut through the fog of California’s anti-gun agenda like a well-aimed shot.
“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,” Forrest wrote.
She added that the law lacked grounding in America’s historical tradition of firearms regulation. That’s a polite way of saying California’s rule was a constitutional overstep.
The August 14, 2025, mandate made Forrest’s ruling enforceable, officially torching the “one-gun-a-month” restriction. Law-abiding Californians can now purchase multiple firearms in a month without Sacramento’s nanny-state oversight. It’s a win for freedom, plain and simple.
The plaintiffs, a diverse group of gun-rights advocates and citizens, stood firm against California’s regulatory machine. The Second Amendment Foundation, a heavyweight in gun rights advocacy, led the charge alongside grassroots players like San Diego County Gun Owners PAC. This wasn’t just a legal battle; it was a stand for principle.
Alan Gottlieb, founder and executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation, celebrated the mandate as a milestone.
“Today’s mandate from the Ninth Circuit is a testament to SAF’s efforts to restore the Second Amendment rights of all Americans,” he said. His words carry the weight of years spent fighting for constitutional clarity against a tide of progressive restrictions.
Gottlieb didn’t stop there. “This win is a huge step forward in one of the most gun-restrictive states in America, and we will not rest until Californians can exercise their full constitutional rights,” he added. It’s a bold promise, but one that resonates with those weary of California’s relentless anti-gun crusade.
California’s “one-gun-a-month” rule was sold as a safeguard against gun violence, but it targeted the wrong crowd. Law-abiding citizens, not criminals, bore the brunt of this restriction. It’s the kind of policy that sounds good in a Sacramento echo chamber but crumbles under constitutional scrutiny.
The Ninth Circuit’s ruling exposes a deeper truth: many gun control measures are less about safety and more about control.
By limiting purchases, California wasn’t stopping crime; it was stifling the rights of responsible gun owners. The court’s decision is a wake-up call for lawmakers who think they can rewrite the Constitution.
Judge Forrest’s opinion leaned heavily on the Second Amendment’s protections, which include the right to possess multiple firearms. Her ruling pointed out that California’s law had no historical precedent in American firearms regulation. In other words, it was a modern invention, not a time-tested tradition.
The mandate’s enforcement means Californians can now exercise their Second Amendment rights with fewer shackles.
Licensed dealers are no longer forced to play purchase police, and citizens like Michelle Nguyen can buy what they need without arbitrary delays. It’s a small but significant blow to the progressive agenda that often prioritizes optics over liberty.
Still, the fight isn’t over. California’s history of aggressive gun control suggests more battles loom on the horizon. The Ninth Circuit’s ruling is a victory, but it’s one chapter in a longer struggle to keep the Second Amendment intact.
