A federal district court has declared California’s law that restricts gun purchases to one every 30 days as unconstitutional. The district court judge has granted a 30-day stay on the ruling in order to allow the state to appeal.
In his decision, U.S. District Court Judge William Hayes relied on the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case, NYSRPA v. Bruen, which established a revised framework for interpreting the Second Amendment. According to Bruen, if an individual’s actions fall within the scope of the Second Amendment, they are entitled to constitutional protection. In such cases, the government must provide sufficient justification for any regulations imposed, ensuring they align with the long-standing historical tradition of firearm regulation in the nation.
According to Hayes, the Court has determined that the conduct proposed by the Plaintiffs is considered presumptively protected as it falls within the scope of the Second Amendment. Hayes then proceeded to address California’s historical precedent of implementing similar gun laws.
California implemented laws to regulate the ownership and storage of gunpowder in order to prevent accidental fires. The state also restricted gun sales to Native Americans in an effort to address public safety concerns. Additionally, certain weapons that were easily concealed and associated with violence and crime were prohibited from being sold. Furthermore, California imposed taxes and licensing requirements for trading firearms with Native Americans, selling firearms, and the sale of deadly weapons, which served to limit the availability and ownership of firearms.
According to Hayes, the laws regarding gunpowder storage were primarily aimed at preventing fires rather than controlling gun purchases. He also questions the validity of using the precedent of limiting sales to Native Americans and other marginalized groups as a historical analogy. Hayes argues that the restrictions on specific types of weapons commonly used by criminals, which have been legally upheld, do not apply to California’s comprehensive law governing all firearm purchases. Furthermore, he points out that the taxing and licensing regulations do not impose any limitations on the quantity or frequency of firearms one can acquire.
The plaintiffs’ motion for a summary judgment was granted by Hayes after he determined that their proposed action of purchasing more than one gun per month is protected by a straightforward interpretation of the Second Amendment and that the state’s defense of the regulation lacks historical precedent. Although California plans to appeal the ruling, it is expected that the ruling will remain stayed during the appeals process, and possibly even until a decision is reached by the Supreme Court.
Read More:
- Lauren Boebert is put in a terrible position
- Where in Russian territory Ukraine’s allies have gained ground is indicated on the map