BELLEVUE, WA – The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco has scheduled oral arguments Aug. 14 in the Second Amendment Foundation’s challenge of California’s one-gun-per-month (OGM) purchase restriction, in a case known as Nguyen v. Bonta.
SAF is joined by the Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc., San Diego County Gun Owners PAC, North County Shooting Center, Inc., PWGG, L.P., a limited partnership, and six private citizens including Michelle Nguyen, for whom the case is named. They are represented by attorney Raymond M. DiGuiseppe of Southport, NC.
The lawsuit was originally filed in December 2020, and SAF initially won a summary judgment at the district court, but California appealed the decision to the 9th Circuit. Interest in the case is underscored by four amicus briefs filed in support of SAF and its partners, including one from the National Shooting Sports Foundation, another from the National Rifle Association, a third by the California Rifle & Pistol Association, Second Amendment Law Center and Operation Blazing Sword-Pink Pistols, and a fourth by a coalition including Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners of California, the Tennessee Firearms Association, Tennessee Firearms Foundation, Virginia Citizens Defense League, Virginia Citizens Defense Foundation, Heller Foundation, America’s Future, Inc., the U.S. Constitutional Rights Legal Defense Fund and the Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund.
“We are gratified by the number of amicus briefs filed in support of our case, and the number of participants,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “It is both humbling and encouraging to see so many of our colleague organizations stepping forward in this case, which strikes at the very heart of a restrictive, and unconstitutional, gun control scheme.”
“Clearly,” observed SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut, “California’s OGM statute is an unlawful restriction on the rights of honest citizens to exercise their Second Amendment rights regardless of dates on the calendar. Such a limitation on a constitutional right must not be allowed to stand.”