California Defies Supreme Court Carry Decision & Claims It Has No Impact!!!

Published on September 18, 2022
Duration: 9:38

California is arguing that its 'one-in-30' firearm purchase restriction does not implicate the Second Amendment, and therefore is not impacted by the Supreme Court's Bruin decision. The state contends that limiting purchases to one handgun or semi-automatic centerfire rifle every 30 days does not prevent individuals from acquiring firearms for self-defense or bearing them. This strategy aims to avoid the historical tradition analysis required by Bruin for regulations that do implicate the Second Amendment.

Quick Summary

California argues its 'one-in-30' firearm purchase law is unaffected by the Supreme Court's Bruin decision because it doesn't implicate the Second Amendment. The state claims this restriction, limiting purchases to one handgun or semi-automatic centerfire rifle per 30 days, doesn't prevent acquiring firearms for self-defense or bearing them.

Chapters

  1. 00:00California's Argument Against Bruin Impact
  2. 00:16The 'One-in-30' Law Explained
  3. 00:54History of California's Purchase Restrictions
  4. 01:32Expansion to Rifles and Enforcement
  5. 02:24The Nguyen v. Bonza Lawsuit
  6. 03:09Summary Judgment Motions
  7. 03:36Bruin Decision's Standard: Text, History, Tradition
  8. 04:43Court Requests Supplemental Briefings
  9. 04:58California's Supplemental Brief
  10. 05:13Argument: Purchase Restrictions Don't Implicate 2A
  11. 06:01Right to Bear Arms vs. Purchase Rights
  12. 07:09New State Strategy: Denying 2A Implication
  13. 07:23Request for More Time if 2A is Implicated
  14. 08:31California's Evolving Legal Tactics

Frequently Asked Questions

How is California arguing its 'one-in-30' firearm purchase law is unaffected by the Bruin decision?

California contends that its 'one-in-30' law, limiting purchases to one handgun or semi-automatic centerfire rifle per 30 days, does not implicate the Second Amendment. They argue this restriction doesn't prevent acquiring firearms for self-defense or bearing them, thus avoiding the need for historical tradition analysis required by Bruin.

What is the 'one-in-30' law in California?

California's 'one-in-30' law prohibits individuals from purchasing more than one handgun or semi-automatic centerfire rifle within any 30-day period. This law is enforced through licensed firearm dealers (FFLs) and carries misdemeanor penalties for individuals who violate it.

What standard did the Supreme Court establish in the Bruin decision for Second Amendment cases?

In NYSRPA v. Bruin, the Supreme Court rejected the 'two-step approach' and 'interest balancing' tests. It reaffirmed that Second Amendment analysis must be based on the plain text of the amendment, informed by the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.

What is California's new strategy in defending firearm restrictions after Bruin?

California's new strategy involves arguing that many of their firearm restrictions, such as purchase limits, do not implicate the text of the Second Amendment. By claiming these laws don't fall under Second Amendment protection, they aim to avoid the burden of proving consistency with historical tradition as mandated by the Bruin decision.

Related News

All News →

More 2nd Amendment & Law Videos You Might Like

More from Armed Scholar

View all →