The law, as its name suggests, only allows Californians to purchase one firearm per month, ostensibly to crack down on gun violence.

Back in March, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California ruled that the law is unconstitutional because it did not meet the standards laid out in the Bruen decision that requires the government to show a historical precedent.

The state, which is appealing the ruling, managed to get the court to stay the opinion pending its appeal to the Ninth Circuit, which has now lifted the stay. This means Californians will not be limited to purchasing only one gun per month while the case is being litigated.

The judge’s reversal of the previous ruling “ensures that the plaintiffs’ rights, as determined by the district court, are upheld during the pendency of the appeal,” according to the ruling.

This was the right move. It will be even better if and when the court finally overturns the law completely.

California’s government defended the law, claiming it does not violate the Second Amendment and instead acts as a commercial regulation to stop gun runners and straw purchasers from purchasing firearms to sell to criminals.

The state’s law is a commercial regulation on when you can own a gun, not if you can own a gun, argued Jerry Yen, an attorney with the state’s Attorney General’s office.

The law, Yen continued, is about whether the government can regulate measures to stop straw purchasers — those who buy guns for someone who can’t or won’t buy themself —and gun runners from selling guns to criminals and to protect the public within the scope of the Second Amendment.

U.S. Circuit Judge Danielle J. Forrest slapped down this absurd argument, pointing out the fact that gun runners typically don’t obtain their firearms by buying in bulk at authorized gun stores, noting: 

“It would be absurd to think that a government could say you can only buy one book a month because we want to make sure that you really understand the books you read, or you could only attend one protest a month because, you know, there’s some societal drawbacks from having protests so we want to kind of space those out. People would say that’s absurd."

Yen countered by arguing that the law does not constitute a significant constraint because 30 days is a short period of time.

Folks like Yen are so blatantly dishonest that it is amazing they can make these arguments with a straight face. Even Mr. Magoo can see that this has nothing to do with stopping illegal gun runners and everything to do with making it difficult for law-abiding Americans to keep and bear arms.

Not only is this law a clear violation of the Second Amendment, it also won’t protect anyone, just like most other gun control laws. There is no evidence showing that people who own a high number of firearms are somehow more likely to commit crimes using their weapons.

It is also important to remember that most guns used in crimes are not obtained by purchasing them at a gun store. Rather, they are typically stolen from vehicles, homes, and other locations. Others are procured using other means, such as the black market. Very few actually buy their guns from gun stores.

This development is one of a quintillion reasons why those who value gun rights should be grateful for the Bruen ruling. Without it, anti-gunners in states like California would have a field day with restricting gun ownership.