BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Modification Basis and its companions in a long-running authorized problem of California’s one-gun-per-month (OMG) regulation have filed an appellee’s transient with the ninth U.S. Circuit Courtroom of Appeals in response to the state’s effort to maintain the regulation in place.
SAF received a abstract judgement on the district court docket degree, however California appealed. The case was initially filed in December 2020.
SAF is joined by the Firearms Coverage Coalition, Inc., San Diego County Gun Homeowners PAC, North County Taking pictures Heart, Inc., PWGG, L.P., a restricted partnership, and 6 non-public residents together with Michelle Nguyen, for whom the case Nguyen v. Bonta is known as. They’re represented by lawyer Raymond M. DiGuiseppe of Southport, NC.
“It must be clear to the court docket that the textual content of the Second Modification covers the conduct prohibited by California’s OMG statute,” mentioned SAF Govt Director Adam Kraut. “The state argues that it’s restriction must be thought-about ‘presumptively lawful’ when it’s plainly an illegal ban on the in any other case lawful buying exercise of trustworthy residents who merely want to train their constitutionally protected rights for lawful functions.”
“When examined within the correct historic context,” SAF founder and Govt Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb noticed, “it’s apparent California’s OMG regulation is blatantly unconstitutional. There is no such thing as a historic proof of any such restriction wherever within the nation on the time the nation was created, and the Structure was ratified. The Founders would by no means have thought-about such a prohibition. Certainly, they’d have rejected it instantly as utter nonsense.
