SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA — In a landmark decision, a California appeals court has affirmed that the state’s “One Gun a Month” law is unconstitutional, a ruling that has sparked significant reactions from both gun control advocates and gun rights groups.
The Ruling: A Blow to Gun Control Efforts
On June 22, 2025, the California Court of Appeal ruled that the state’s One Gun a Month law, which limits the purchase of handguns to one per person per month, violates the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The law, enacted in 1999, was designed to reduce gun violence by restricting the number of firearms a person can buy within a given period.
In the ruling, the court stated that the law’s restrictions on purchasing more than one firearm in a 30-day period were an unconstitutional infringement on the right to bear arms. The court argued that the law lacked sufficient justification for placing such limits on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.
“The law places an unnecessary burden on lawful gun owners and does not prove effective in reducing gun violence,” stated Judge Diane Miller, writing for the majority. “The Second Amendment guarantees the right to possess firearms for self-defense and other lawful purposes, and any infringement must be narrowly tailored to achieve a significant public interest.”
The Law’s History: A Measure to Curb Gun Violence
The One Gun a Month law was introduced during the late 1990s amid concerns over rising gun violence in California. Legislators aimed to reduce the number of firearms in circulation by limiting the frequency with which individuals could purchase new guns. The law was supported by gun control advocates, who believed that restricting the availability of firearms would reduce the chances of gun crimes.
Over the years, it has faced multiple legal challenges, with opponents arguing that the law unfairly restricts the rights of law-abiding citizens. Despite its aim to curb gun violence, the law has been criticized for not effectively addressing the root causes of gun crime, with critics noting that criminals can easily obtain firearms from illegal sources.
Legal and Political Reactions: Gun Rights vs. Gun Control
The court’s ruling has been met with mixed reactions. Gun rights advocates have hailed the decision as a victory for Second Amendment rights, arguing that the law unfairly limited access to firearms for responsible gun owners.
“This is a major win for law-abiding gun owners across California,” said John Lott, president of the Crime Prevention Research Center. “The One Gun a Month law was nothing more than a bureaucratic barrier designed to restrict access to firearms, and the court’s ruling has rightly struck it down.”
On the other hand, gun control advocates expressed disappointment, arguing that the law was an important tool in reducing gun violence. Some believe that restricting the flow of firearms could lead to lower rates of gun-related deaths and that this ruling undermines efforts to promote public safety.
“While we are disappointed by the court’s ruling, we remain committed to finding solutions that can protect California communities from gun violence,” said Laura Campbell, spokeswoman for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.
What’s Next: Impact of the Ruling
While the One Gun a Month law has been struck down, legal experts suggest that this case could set a precedent for similar legal challenges in other states. Some have raised concerns that the ruling could lead to broader challenges against existing gun control laws nationwide, with opponents of such regulations arguing that they violate the Second Amendment.
For now, California lawmakers are evaluating the court’s decision. The ruling could prompt an appeal to the California Supreme Court, or it could lead to changes in how the state regulates firearm purchases. Governor Gavin Newsom has stated that his office is “reviewing the ruling and considering next steps.”
“This decision will have far-reaching implications for how California and other states approach gun regulations,” said Newsom. “We remain committed to ensuring public safety while respecting the rights of responsible gun owners.”
What Do You Think?
What is your opinion on the court’s ruling? Do you believe that limiting gun purchases to one per month is an effective measure to reduce gun violence, or does it infringe on constitutional rights? Share your thoughts in the comments below on RidgecrestPact.org.
