California's one-gun-a-month law ruled unconstitutional by court

In June 2025, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the United States unanimously ruled against California's one-gun-a-month law, deeming it a violation of the Second Amendment. This law had originally been challenged on the basis that it unnecessarily restricted the individual right to keep and bear arms. Since its enactment, California defended this legislation by arguing it was essential for public safety, emphasizing that such a restriction was in line with historical precedents of limiting dangerous individuals' access to firearms. However, the court found that California's justification was insufficient, noting that most individuals are not considered dangerous. Federal courts, including a U.S. district judge's prior ruling, had previously recognized the Second Amendment as safeguarding personal rights against state-level restrictions, and the appellate court found no historical law that justified California's broad approach. The judges highlighted that past laws cited by California were more limited in scope than the imposed one-gun restriction. Specifically, these historical precedents lacked a similar breadth in preventing lawful citizens from acquiring multiple firearms, and the court concluded that California's law primarily impacts law-abiding citizens rather than actual threats to public safety. Throughout the legal process, there was an indication that this ruling might reflect a wider trend toward a more stringent interpretation of the Second Amendment within the judicial system, suggesting a possible shift toward protecting individual rights against perceived encroachment of state authority over personal liberties. The court expressed skepticism regarding the government's ability to ration constitutional rights, drawing parallels to freedom of speech and other intrinsic rights that should not be limited by arbitrary restrictions. After the decision, on August 14, 2025, enforcement of the law ceased, and the one-gun-a-month law was officially rendered ineffective, denoted as “wasted ink” in the law's text. The ruling was the first instance where the Ninth Circuit unanimously struck down such a restriction, marking a significant victory for advocates of gun rights and personal freedoms within California and potentially reshaping future legislative attempts related to gun ownership restrictions. This outcome signals a promising development for champions of the Second Amendment, who assert that rulings should protect and uphold individual rights as envisioned in the U.S. Constitution.