The Ninth Circuit in Nguyen v Bonta has reversed its stay on a preliminary injunction against California’s “1-in-30” ban on purchasing more than one firearm in a thirty day period.
After only one day of oral arguments, it was clear the State could offer no historical analogue for limiting the number of guns purchased. State tried to sell the idea that “purchase” was not covered by the text of 2A, but the Ninth Circuit wouldn’t buy.
[We saw something similar with May v Bonta. Preliminary injunctions should be protective of constitutional rights, and the State’s attempts to block their use in this way are failing.]
