California’s Gun Purchase Limit Ruled Unconstitutional

A federal appeals court, leaning liberal, previously determined that California’s implementation of a federal law provision advocated by two Democratic senators was unconstitutional.

On April 16, Democratic Senators Tim Kaine and Mark Warner from Virginia announced their introduction of the “Virginia Plan to Reduce Gun Violence Act,” also known as the Gun Violence Reduction Act. This legislation emphasizes Virginia’s long-standing “one gun per month” rule for handgun purchases, originally established in 1993 and reinstated in 2020. However, on June 11, 2025, a panel of three judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit unanimously struck down California’s similar “one gun per month” limitation.

“The possession of multiple firearms and the ability to purchase firearms without significant restrictions fall under the protection of the Second Amendment. Therefore, California’s law is inherently unconstitutional as it lacks support from our nation’s firearms regulatory traditions,” Circuit Judge Daniel J. Forrest stated in the ruling.

Judge John Owens, who concurred with the ruling, pointed out that while the decision removes the restriction on purchasing multiple guns, it “does not address other strategies to restrict bulk or straw purchases of firearms, which may align with our nation’s history of firearm regulation.”

Judges Bade and Forrest were appointed during Donald Trump’s presidency, while Owens was appointed by Barack Obama. There has been a shift, albeit slight, in party representation on the court during Trump’s first term, yet Democrats maintained a majority, as reported by the Daily Journal.

Neither Senators Kaine nor Warner immediately responded when contacted regarding the implications of the Ninth Circuit’s ruling, a court often described as left-leaning.

Since 2007, the Supreme Court has reversed nearly 80% of decisions made by the Ninth Circuit. The National Rifle Association has not yet issued a response regarding potential legal actions against Virginia’s “one gun a month” law.

The Firearms Policy Coalition initially filed a lawsuit against California’s regulation in December 2020 in a federal court in Southern California. A summary judgment favoring the plaintiffs was entered by Senior District Judge William Q. Hayes on March 11, 2024.

Currently, only four states impose limits on firearm purchases. Virginia’s one-gun-per-month rule, enacted in 1993, was repealed in 2012 and later reinstated in 2020. Maryland introduced a similar law in 1996, while New Jersey implemented its own version in 2009. Connecticut has announced a limit of three handguns per month, which will take effect in 2023.

Besides California, a few other states and Washington, D.C., had similar regulations in the past. South Carolina’s restriction was active from 1975 until 2004 before being revoked, and D.C.’s law was invalidated by a decision in 2015 from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.