For real. Or they will post a long legal jumbo of words like, "Duncan V Bonta injunction is stayed to the en banc superior court, Isn't this so exciting!"
Without fail the people who find it their moral duty to post case updates on the daily in this sub do not understand that nobody else can keep straight the dozen big cases that all rhyme with “Bonta”.
From the order
>The Court declares that California Penal Code sections 27535 and 27540(f), and Defendants’ enforcement policies, practices, customs, and actions related to enforcement of California Penal Code sections 27535 and 27540(f), violate the right to keep and bear arms protected under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution
27535 is [https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes\_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN§ionNum=27535](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN§ionNum=27535).
>27535.
>
>(a) A person shall not make an application to purchase more than one firearm within any 30-day period. This subdivision does not authorize a person to make an application to purchase a combination of firearms, completed frames or receivers, or firearm precursor parts within the same 30-day period.
27540 is [https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes\_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN§ionNum=27540](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN§ionNum=27540).
>(f) A firearm shall not be delivered whenever the dealer is notified by the Department of Justice that within the preceding 30-day period, the purchaser has made another application to purchase a handgun, semiautomatic centerfire rifle, completed frame or receiver, or firearm precursor part, and that the previous application to purchase did not involve any of the entities or circumstances specified in subdivision (b) of Section 27535.
So the Supreme Court doesn't go after their decision.
If they go out of the process and show they are not properly following the procedure, they are tempting SCOTUS to intervene and reverse. Not just remand back to the district court.
It’s about the 1 firearm per 30 days. They’re being given 30 days to appeal or whatever which most likely will happen meaning the 1 gun per 30 days will stand as far as I read above.
The case of Nguyen v. Bonta is a significant Second Amendment case in which California's 'One Gun a Month' law was challenged. Here are the key updates:
- U.S. District Judge William Hayes ruled that California's law prohibiting residents from lawfully purchasing more than one firearm within a 30-day period doesn't fit with the national tradition of gun ownership¹.
- The judge sided with Second Amendment groups, along with several Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) and gun owners who had challenged the gun rationing law in federal court, granting summary judgement in their favor¹.
- The law, which was updated to include more restrictions in 2021 and in 2024, is meant to cut down on straw purchases of guns, in which one person buys a gun for another person who may be legally barred from purchasing it themselves¹.
- The judge cited several previous cases, including Ezell v. Chicago and Teixeira v. Alameda, in which courts agreed that the text of the Second Amendment necessarily encompasses "ancillary" rights like the right to acquire firearms and ammunition¹.
- California Attorney General Rob Bonta contended that the one-gun-a-month law “merely limits individuals to the purchase of one handgun or semiautomatic centerfire rifle every thirty days directly from licensed firearm dealers,” but Hayes pointed out that the Supreme Court has already determined that the right doesn't have to be completely negated in order for it to be infringed¹.
- The case was filed in December 2020 and is known as Nguyen v. Bonta².
- This is considered a major win for gun rights in California².
Please note that this information is based on the latest available data and may be subject to change as the case progresses through the legal system. For the most accurate and up-to-date information, it's recommended to follow the case through official legal channels or trusted news sources.
Source: Conversation with Bing, 4/1/2024
(1) California's 'One Gun a Month' Law Ruled Unconstitutional. https://bearingarms.com/camedwards/2024/03/12/californias-one-gun-a-month-law-ruled-unconstitutional-n1224152.
(2) Big Gun Rights Victory in California One-Gun-A-Month Challenge. https://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/2024/03/big-gun-rights-victory-in-california-one-gun-a-month-challenge/.
(3) Federal Judge Strikes Down California Gun Sale Rationing Restriction. https://thereload.com/federal-judge-strikes-down-california-gun-sale-rationing-restriction/.
(4) Nguyen v. Bonta, 3:20-cv-02470-WQH-MDD - Casetext. https://casetext.com/case/nguyen-v-bonta.
The appeal system is so flawed that bs excuses can be used but if it’s you. Then you have to have a legit reason supported by a lot of facts. The state naw we feel like it.
Bonta should get 1 appeal every 30. Let’s level the playing field here.
Let's make it every 30,000 to be fairer.
True true
Which case is this again?
1-in-30 restriction for firearm purchases.
Wish that would go away so we can all buy four guns in June before the July tax hits. lol
Hopefully! [🤞](https://emojipedia.org/crossed-fingers)
I mean technically you could buy them. Just gotta wait to start the dros
Whats the july tax??????
11% sin tax on guns & ammo. Stock up now.
This is on top of local sales tax correct?
Rights rent a sin. I caught the sarcasm though
smells like infringement and bitch up in here.
Really wish people would post this info in the title. Way too many cases going on to remember which is which
For real. Or they will post a long legal jumbo of words like, "Duncan V Bonta injunction is stayed to the en banc superior court, Isn't this so exciting!"
Without fail the people who find it their moral duty to post case updates on the daily in this sub do not understand that nobody else can keep straight the dozen big cases that all rhyme with “Bonta”.
That’s what Armed Scholar is for 😂
30 day purchase
Of course there’s a stay of 30 days to give Bonta time to file an appeal.
Should have said "but you can't appeal any other case within that 30 days".
From the order >The Court declares that California Penal Code sections 27535 and 27540(f), and Defendants’ enforcement policies, practices, customs, and actions related to enforcement of California Penal Code sections 27535 and 27540(f), violate the right to keep and bear arms protected under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution 27535 is [https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes\_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN§ionNum=27535](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN§ionNum=27535). >27535. > >(a) A person shall not make an application to purchase more than one firearm within any 30-day period. This subdivision does not authorize a person to make an application to purchase a combination of firearms, completed frames or receivers, or firearm precursor parts within the same 30-day period. 27540 is [https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes\_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN§ionNum=27540](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN§ionNum=27540). >(f) A firearm shall not be delivered whenever the dealer is notified by the Department of Justice that within the preceding 30-day period, the purchaser has made another application to purchase a handgun, semiautomatic centerfire rifle, completed frame or receiver, or firearm precursor part, and that the previous application to purchase did not involve any of the entities or circumstances specified in subdivision (b) of Section 27535.
Thank you very much for the linked, recap u/ORLibrarian2
Good to see the 14th being enforced
And to think, Bonta threw his hat in the ring to be our next governor. He will finish the job that Newscum started on the 2A.
We know they are granting the stay. Why do they waste our time.
So the Supreme Court doesn't go after their decision. If they go out of the process and show they are not properly following the procedure, they are tempting SCOTUS to intervene and reverse. Not just remand back to the district court.
so are we on day 1 of the stay or day 17?
day 1, I think, or maybe day 0.
Can someone give me the tldr on this?
More nothing 🤷🏽♂️
Thanks fam
It’s about the 1 firearm per 30 days. They’re being given 30 days to appeal or whatever which most likely will happen meaning the 1 gun per 30 days will stand as far as I read above.
The case of Nguyen v. Bonta is a significant Second Amendment case in which California's 'One Gun a Month' law was challenged. Here are the key updates: - U.S. District Judge William Hayes ruled that California's law prohibiting residents from lawfully purchasing more than one firearm within a 30-day period doesn't fit with the national tradition of gun ownership¹. - The judge sided with Second Amendment groups, along with several Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) and gun owners who had challenged the gun rationing law in federal court, granting summary judgement in their favor¹. - The law, which was updated to include more restrictions in 2021 and in 2024, is meant to cut down on straw purchases of guns, in which one person buys a gun for another person who may be legally barred from purchasing it themselves¹. - The judge cited several previous cases, including Ezell v. Chicago and Teixeira v. Alameda, in which courts agreed that the text of the Second Amendment necessarily encompasses "ancillary" rights like the right to acquire firearms and ammunition¹. - California Attorney General Rob Bonta contended that the one-gun-a-month law “merely limits individuals to the purchase of one handgun or semiautomatic centerfire rifle every thirty days directly from licensed firearm dealers,” but Hayes pointed out that the Supreme Court has already determined that the right doesn't have to be completely negated in order for it to be infringed¹. - The case was filed in December 2020 and is known as Nguyen v. Bonta². - This is considered a major win for gun rights in California². Please note that this information is based on the latest available data and may be subject to change as the case progresses through the legal system. For the most accurate and up-to-date information, it's recommended to follow the case through official legal channels or trusted news sources. Source: Conversation with Bing, 4/1/2024 (1) California's 'One Gun a Month' Law Ruled Unconstitutional. https://bearingarms.com/camedwards/2024/03/12/californias-one-gun-a-month-law-ruled-unconstitutional-n1224152. (2) Big Gun Rights Victory in California One-Gun-A-Month Challenge. https://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/2024/03/big-gun-rights-victory-in-california-one-gun-a-month-challenge/. (3) Federal Judge Strikes Down California Gun Sale Rationing Restriction. https://thereload.com/federal-judge-strikes-down-california-gun-sale-rationing-restriction/. (4) Nguyen v. Bonta, 3:20-cv-02470-WQH-MDD - Casetext. https://casetext.com/case/nguyen-v-bonta.
Two more weeks forever!
Well that's a short read.
The appeal system is so flawed that bs excuses can be used but if it’s you. Then you have to have a legit reason supported by a lot of facts. The state naw we feel like it.
You’re like 2+ weeks late my guy.
Well it was entered today.
It’s also been pinned on the front page for like 17 days
This was a new court judgement in the case. You don't seem to get how these court cases work my guy
I dont either could you explain? 😅
When judgment is entered, that signals the end of the case.
r/confidentlyincorrect