Tweet
Judge Grants Summary Judgement Against CA's One-Gun-a-Month Law (breitbart.com)
U.S. District Judge William Q. Hayes granted a summary judgment against California’s one-gun-a-month (OGM) law on Monday.
Plaintiffs in the case included the Second Amendment Foundation, the Firearms Policy Coalition, and the San Diego County Gun Owners PAC.
Judge Hayes, a George W. Bush appointee, noted, “The fact that the OGM law burdens Plaintiffs’ Second Amendment right rather than outright prevents Plaintiffs’ from keeping and bearing arms is not determinative of whether the proposed conduct is covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment.”
Hayes went on to test the constitutionality of the OGM law by weighing it in light of Bruen (2022), testing it specifically by the requirement some precedent of such gun control exists in our nation’s history.
He pointed out, “Because Plaintiffs’ proposed conduct is covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment, Defendants must prove that the OGM law is ‘consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.’”
Defendants pointed to taxing and licensing laws, but Hayes countered them:
The taxing and licensing regulations are not “relevantly similar” to the OGM law…Unlike the OGM law, taxing and licensing regulations placed no limit on the quantity or frequency with which one could acquire firearms. In fact, the licensing regulations proffered by Defendants imposed no burden on the acquisition of firearms; they regulated only the seller. Accordingly, these laws do not establish a “tradition of firearm regulation” similar to the OGM law.
Defendants have not met their burden of producing a “well-established and representative historical analogue” to the OGM law…The Court therefore concludes that Plaintiffs are entitled to summary judgment as to the constitutionality of the OGM law under the Second Amendment.
U.S. District Judge William Q. Hayes granted a summary judgment against California’s one-gun-a-month (OGM) law on Monday.
Plaintiffs in the case included the Second Amendment Foundation, the Firearms Policy Coalition, and the San Diego County Gun Owners PAC.
Judge Hayes, a George W. Bush appointee, noted, “The fact that the OGM law burdens Plaintiffs’ Second Amendment right rather than outright prevents Plaintiffs’ from keeping and bearing arms is not determinative of whether the proposed conduct is covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment.”
Hayes went on to test the constitutionality of the OGM law by weighing it in light of Bruen (2022), testing it specifically by the requirement some precedent of such gun control exists in our nation’s history.
He pointed out, “Because Plaintiffs’ proposed conduct is covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment, Defendants must prove that the OGM law is ‘consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.’”
Defendants pointed to taxing and licensing laws, but Hayes countered them:
The taxing and licensing regulations are not “relevantly similar” to the OGM law…Unlike the OGM law, taxing and licensing regulations placed no limit on the quantity or frequency with which one could acquire firearms. In fact, the licensing regulations proffered by Defendants imposed no burden on the acquisition of firearms; they regulated only the seller. Accordingly, these laws do not establish a “tradition of firearm regulation” similar to the OGM law.
Defendants have not met their burden of producing a “well-established and representative historical analogue” to the OGM law…The Court therefore concludes that Plaintiffs are entitled to summary judgment as to the constitutionality of the OGM law under the Second Amendment.
Comment