California Court Rules There is No Quota on Your Second Amendment Rights

Washington Gun Law
12 Mar 202408:37
EducationalLearning
32 Likes 10 Comments

TLDRIn this episode of Washington Gun Law TV, President William Kirk discusses the recent legal victory in California, where a judge ruled against the state's one-gun-a-month purchase limit. The case, NN v. Bonta, was brought by the Firearms Policy Coalition and the Second Amendment Foundation and challenged California Penal Code 27535. The court found that the regulation was not historically justified and violated the Second Amendment rights of Californians, marking a significant win for gun rights advocates.

Takeaways
  • 📚 The video is a discussion about a recent court ruling in California, focusing on the Second Amendment rights and firearm purchase laws.
  • 🎤 The host, William Kirk, is the president of Washington Gun Law and addresses the viewers with updates on a specific California law.
  • 🚫 The California law in question, Penal Code 27535, limits the purchase of firearms to one per person every 30 days, which has been challenged in court.
  • 🤝 The case, NN v. Bonta, is brought by the Firearms Policy Coalition and the Second Amendment Foundation against the state of California.
  • 🏛 The court found that the one gun per month law is not justified through historical analogues and is therefore unconstitutional.
  • 📉 California's attorney general, Rob Bonta, has been unsuccessful in defending this law, which is seen as a significant loss for the state.
  • 🔍 The court's decision is based on the evaluation of whether the regulation historically would have been tolerated, rather than the extent of the interference with the Second Amendment right.
  • 📖 The state of California attempted to use a sentence from the Heller opinion to argue their case but was unsuccessful.
  • 🛑 The court ruled that the plaintiffs are entitled to summary judgment, meaning the law is struck down as unconstitutional without needing a full trial.
  • 👏 The host commends the Second Amendment Foundation and the Firearms Policy Coalition for their role in this legal victory.
  • 🔒 The video concludes with a reminder of the importance for gun owners to be aware of the law and how it applies to them.
Q & A

  • What was the recent ruling by a California judge regarding firearm purchase laws?

    -A California judge ruled against the law that prohibits purchasing more than one firearm in a 30-day period, declaring it unconstitutional.

  • Who is the attorney general mentioned in the video, and what is noted about his recent performance?

    -The attorney general mentioned is Rob Bonta. He has been noted for losing several cases recently, including this one.

  • What organizations were involved in bringing the case against California's firearm purchase law?

    -The case was brought by the Firearms Policy Coalition and the Second Amendment Foundation.

  • What is summary judgment as described in the video?

    -Summary judgment is a legal decision made by a judge without a full trial, based on the argument that there is no dispute about the key facts of the case.

  • What was California's primary argument in defending the firearm purchase restriction?

    -California argued that the law did not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, but only regulated the commercial sale of firearms.

  • How did the court view California's argument based on the Heller decision?

    -The court found California's argument unconvincing and pointed out that the Ninth Circuit had often avoided clearly defining the scope of commercial firearm regulations.

  • What was the old test for evaluating firearm regulations, and how did it differ from the new approach?

    -The old test involved balancing the severity of the restriction against the burden on rights, while the new approach requires historical justification for the regulation.

  • Why did the court ultimately rule against California's one-gun-a-month law?

    -The court ruled against the law because California failed to provide historical analogues that justified the regulation under the Second Amendment.

  • What historical regulations did California attempt to use as analogues for their firearm purchase law?

    -California used regulations on gunpowder, restrictions on sales to Native Americans, deadly weapon restrictions, and taxing and licensing regulations.

  • What is the likely next step for the state of California following this ruling?

    -California is expected to appeal the ruling and request an immediate stay from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

  • What is the importance of understanding firearm laws according to the video?

    -It is crucial for lawful and responsible gun owners to know and understand the laws in every situation and how they apply to avoid legal issues.

Outlines
00:00
📚 Legal Battle Over California's One-Gun-Per-Month Law

The video script discusses a recent legal development in California concerning the state's law that limits the purchase of firearms to one per 30-day period. The case, NN v. Bonta, was brought by the Firearms Policy Coalition and the Second Amendment Foundation, challenging the law under the Second Amendment rights. The state sought to justify the law based on a historical analysis, but the court ruled against California, stating that the law is not supported by historical precedents and thus violates the Second Amendment. The summary judgment was granted to the plaintiffs, marking a significant victory for gun rights advocates.

05:00
🏛️ Court Ruling on Second Amendment and Historical Analogues

In the second paragraph, the script delves deeper into the court's reasoning in NN v. Bonta. The court evaluated the state's argument, which was based on a sentence from the Heller opinion, and found it wanting. The court clarified that the right to acquire and possess firearms is protected under the Second Amendment and that any regulation must be justified by historical analogues. California attempted to use a nuanced approach to argue for the law's constitutionality, citing societal concerns and technological changes. However, the court required specific historical regulations that were 'relevantly similar' to the one-gun-a-month law, which the state failed to provide. As a result, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, recognizing the importance of the right to bear arms and setting a precedent for future cases.

Mindmap
Keywords
💡Second Amendment
The Second Amendment is a part of the United States Constitution that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. In the video, it is the fundamental right being discussed and challenged by a specific California law that limits firearm purchases. The script mentions that the court must evaluate whether the law infringes upon this constitutional right.
💡Summary Judgment
Summary judgment is a legal term referring to a decision made by a court in a civil lawsuit without a full trial, based on the conclusion that there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In the script, both the plaintiff and the state of California are seeking summary judgment, indicating they believe there is no dispute over the facts or the law.
💡California Penal Code 27535
This is the specific law in California that the video discusses, which restricts the purchase of more than one firearm within a 30-day period. The court's decision on this law is central to the video's theme of evaluating the limits of gun control regulations under the Second Amendment.
💡Firearms Policy Coalition
The Firearms Policy Coalition is one of the organizations that brought the case to court, challenging the California law. They are part of the broader context of the video, illustrating the role of advocacy groups in shaping gun rights discussions and legal challenges.
💡Second Amendment Foundation
The Second Amendment Foundation is another organization involved in the case, which supports the right to keep and bear arms. Their involvement highlights the collective effort of various groups to protect and expand upon Second Amendment rights.
💡Historical Analogues
Historical analogues refer to past laws or regulations that can be compared to the current law in question to determine if it is constitutional. The court requires the state to provide historical analogues to justify the one gun a month law, which they fail to do in the video's narrative.
💡Commercial Regulation
Commercial regulation in this context refers to government rules affecting the buying and selling of goods, specifically firearms. The video discusses how the court evaluates whether such regulations are permissible under the Second Amendment, and whether they historically have been tolerated.
💡Pre Bruen Analysis
The term 'Pre Bruen Analysis' refers to the legal examination of gun regulations before the Bruen case, which set a new standard for evaluating Second Amendment rights. The video contrasts the old and new tests for evaluating commercial regulations related to firearms.
💡Functional Prohibition
A functional prohibition is a regulation that effectively bans or severely restricts a constitutional right. The video discusses how courts used to presume commercial regulations were lawful unless they functionally prohibited buyers, which is now being challenged.
💡Ninth Circuit
The Ninth Circuit is a United States Court of Appeals that has jurisdiction over several western states, including California. The video mentions the Ninth Circuit's previous reluctance to define the scope of commercial sales regulations related to firearms.
💡Appeal
An appeal is a legal procedure to seek a higher court's review of a decision made by a lower court. The script suggests that the state of California is likely to appeal the decision against the one gun a month law, indicating the ongoing nature of legal battles over gun rights.
Highlights

Introduction to the Washington gun law TV show by President William Kirk.

Discussion on the attorney general's recent losses in court, including a case on California's firearm purchase limit.

The case NN v Bon is presented, involving a challenge to California Penal Code 27535, which limits firearm purchases to one every 30 days.

Mention of Philip P, the first California subscriber, who has been instrumental in spreading the Washington gun law message.

Summary judgment is explained, where both parties in the NN v Bon case sought to avoid a full trial by arguing there was no dispute on facts or law.

California's argument based on the Heller opinion, claiming the law does not affect the right to keep and bear arms.

Critique of California's argument as a 'perverse' one and the Ninth Circuit's previous avoidance of defining commercial sales regulations.

Introduction of the old and new tests for evaluating commercial regulations under the Second Amendment.

The court's requirement for California to justify the regulation through historical analogues, which they failed to provide.

Discussion on the Bruen decision and its implications for evaluating regulations historically.

California's attempt to use a nuanced approach from the Bruen decision to justify their regulation.

The court's rejection of California's argument due to the lack of historical analogues for the one gun a month law.

The court's ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, declaring the one gun a month law unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.

Anticipation of an appeal and immediate stay request from the State of California.

Praise for the Second Amendment Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, and plaintiffs involved in the case.

Emphasis on the importance for gun owners to be aware of the law and how it applies to them.

Closing remarks and a reminder to stay safe, along with contact information for Washington gun law.

Transcripts

Browse More Related Video

The Court That Refuses to Revive ATF's Trigger Rule

Colion Noir: Gun Nuts | Real Time with Bill Maher (HBO)

The TRUTH About VOX's Video: "The gun solution we're not talking about"

Heated Gun Debate Between Colion Noir & Co-Founder of Gun Control Organization

Debunking & Exposing The Orchestrated Viral Vice Gun Debate

The Truth About GUN VIOLENCE by the Numbers

Rate This

5.0 / 5 (0 votes)

Thanks for rating:

Related Tags
Gun LawSecond AmendmentCaliforniaLegal ChallengeFirearms RegulationSummary JudgmentHistorical AnaloguesCourt RulingAttorney GeneralGun Rights