Second Amendment Bulletin 
By Robert Phillips, Deputy District Attorney (Ret).

California’s “one-gun-a-month” law 
Nguyen v. Bonta (9th Cir. Jun. 20, 2025) F.4th [2025 U.S.App. LEXIS 15220]. 

In 1999, the California Legislature enacted the so-called “one-gun-a-month law.” Amended several times over the years, as of 2024, subdivision (f) of Pen. Code § 27540 reads as follows: “A firearm shall not be delivered (to a purchaser) whenever the (firearms) dealer is notified by the Department of Justice that within the preceding 30-day period (Italics added), the purchaser has made another application to purchase a handgun, semiautomatic centerfire rifle, completed frame or receiver, or firearm precursor part, and that the previous application to purchase did not involve any of the entities or circumstances specified in subdivision (b) of Section 27535.”  

In a nutshell, this says that you can only buy one gun a month unless you come within one of the 14 exceptions listed in Subdivision (b) of Pen. Code § 27535, for example, for law enforcement. Eleven plaintiffs – people who wanted to purchase more than one firearm a month, organizations whose members want to do the same, and firearm retailers and their respective owners who want to engage in these transactions – filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of this restriction, arguing that Pen. Code § 27540(f) violates the Second Amendment.  

A federal district court agreed. A decision that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal upheld in the recently published decision at Nguyen v. Bonta (9th Cir. Jun. 20, 2025) F.4th [2025 U.S.App. LEXIS 15220].  

The Second Amendment, of course, specifically states “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Such a right, however, is not absolute. There are exceptions. The landmark case decision discussing when the Second Amendment protects one’s right to “keep and bear Arms” is New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn v. Bruen (2022) 597 U.S. 1 (See also Bruen’s precursors at District of Columbia v. HellerMcDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) 561 U.S. 742.)  Pursuant to these decisions, when a court is called upon to determine the constitutionality of a state or federal firearms-related statute, that court must ask itself whether “the Second Amendment’s plain text” covers the regulated conduct at issue. If it does, “the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct,” making it immune from legislative regulation. That presumption is rebuttable, however, and may be overcome if “‘historical precedent’ from before, during, and even after the founding of this country ‘evinces a comparable tradition of regulation.’” (Bruen, at p. 27.)  Bottom line is that when a court is called upon to evaluate the constitutionality of a statute that seeks to regulate firearms in any way, that court is to consider the relevant historical precedent. Via this mental exercise, the Court here in Nguyen v. Bonta ruled that California’s attempt to limit the purchases of firearms to one a month violated the Second Amendment in that there is no comparable regulatory precedent upon which to base such a law in the history of the United States.  (The Court analyzes the issue in a lot more detail, which if you have a need for self-immolation, you’re free to read the entire 27 pages.) The bottom line is that subdivision (f) of Pen. Code § 27540 is unconstitutional, and unenforceable. (2010) 561 U.S. 742.)  

Pursuant to these decisions, when a court is called upon to determine the constitutionality of a state or federal firearms-related statute, that court must ask itself whether “the Second Amendment’s plain text” covers the regulated conduct at issue. If it does, “the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct,” making it immune from legislative regulation.  

That presumption is rebuttable, however, and may be overcome if “‘historical precedent’ from before, during, and even after the founding of this country ‘evinces a comparable tradition of regulation.’” (Bruen, at p. 27.)  

The bottom line is, when a court is called upon to evaluate the constitutionality of a statute that seeks to regulate firearms in any way, that court is to consider the relevant historical precedent. 

Via this mental exercise, the court here in Nguyen v. Bonta ruled that California’s attempt to limit the purchases of firearms to one a month violated the Second Amendment in that there is no comparable regulatory precedent upon which to base such a law in the history of the United States. (The court analyzes the issue in more detail, which if you have a need for self-immolation, you’re free to read the entire 27 pages.)  

The kicker is that subdivision (f) of Pen. Code § 27540 is unconstitutional, and unenforceable.