Call it a coincidence, or whatever you choose: a series of victories for Second Amendment advocates and law-abiding gun owners across America have been handed down by the various courts since President Donald Trump's second term began.
In the latest win, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit unanimously struck down California’s ridiculous “1-in-30” gun-rationing law as unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. The law, which absurdly restricted citizens to one gun purchase every 30 days, was based on a ridiculous rationale that was shredded by the three-judge panel.
California Penal Code § 27535(a) states that individuals may not apply “to purchase more than one firearm within any 30-day period,” and § 27540(f) prohibits a firearms dealer from delivering any firearm if the dealer is notified that “the purchaser has made another application to purchase a handgun, semiautomatic centerfire rifle, completed frame or receiver, or firearm precursor part” within the preceding 30-day period.
The logic? You tell me. (Spoiler: You can't.)
Writing for the court, Judge Danielle Jo Forrest found the California law absurdly unconstitutional:
California suggests that the Second Amendment only guarantees a right to possess a single firearm, and that Plaintiffs’ rights have not been infringed because they already possess at least one firearm. California is wrong. The Second Amendment protects the right of the people to “keep and bear Arms,” plural. U.S. Const. amend. II (emphasis added).
This “guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and carry weapons.” Heller, 554 U.S. at 592 (emphasis added). And not only is “Arms” stated in the plural, but this term refers to more than just guns. It includes other weapons and instruments used for defense. See id. at 581. California’s interpretation would mean that the Second Amendment only protects possession of a single weapon of any kind. There is no basis for interpreting the constitutional text in that way.
Next, the panel held that California’s law is not supported by this nation’s tradition of firearms regulation. Bruen requires a “historical analogue,” not a“historical twin,” for a modern firearm regulation to pass muster. Here, the historical record does not even establish a historical cousin for California’s one-gun-a-month law.
Boom. (No pun intended.)
Anyway, being the objective sort of fellow I am, I'm open to rational arguments in support of limiting law-abiding gun owners to one firearm purchase per month. Wait — there are no rational arguments here, never mind.
Also since Trump returned to the White House:
Supreme Court Issues Landmark Pro-Second Amendment Ruling
In a June 5, 2025 opinion, early June 2025, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Estados Unidos v. Smith & Wesson:
On behalf of Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc., Jones Day secured a unanimous victory at the U.S. Supreme Court in a far-reaching suit brought by the government of Mexico, which sought to hold U.S. firearm manufacturers and distributors liable for gun violence perpetrated in Mexico by Mexican drug cartels. The Supreme Court held that Mexico’s basic theory—that U.S. firearm manufacturers do not do enough to prevent criminal misuse of their products by cartels in Mexico—ran afoul of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). The Court also held that Mexico’s attempts to plead around PLCAA fell short, because Mexico failed to plausibly allege that the defendant manufacturers aided and abetted unlawful sales of firearms to Mexican traffickers.
If you find it (choose one, or more) amazing, incredible, inexcusable, or outrageous that it's even possible for Mexico to sue a U.S. firearms manufacturer for weapons unlawfully obtained by Mexican drug cartel members, raise your hand.
Massachusetts High Court Sides with Nonresident Gun Owners
In March 2025, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court struck down the state’s discretionary nonresident firearm licensing scheme, ruling that officials cannot arbitrarily deny licenses to qualified applicants. This decision also further restricted the state's ability to limit gun rights without clear historical justification.
Reese v. ATF
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in January struck down a federal ban on handgun purchases by 18-to-20-year-olds, citing the Militia Act of 1792, which required young men to provide their own weapons. The court ruled that the Second Amendment protects the rights of 18-to-20-year-olds as part of “the people.”
Gun Owners of America v. ATF
(May 2025): After years of litigation, Gun Owners of America (GOA) secured a victory against the ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives), expanding the list of states where concealed-carry permit holders can skip background checks when purchasing firearms. Michigan and Alabama were added to the list, enhancing access for permit holders.
While these Second Amendment wins (and others in 2025) demonstrate continued judicial momentum for law-abiding gun owners, idiocy still abounds in Democrat-run states.
As my colleague Ward Clark reported on Saturday, Rhode Island Democrat lawmakers passed a ridiculous ban on guns that, by legal definition, don't exist: laughably notorious "assault weapons."
READ MORE: Fail: Rhode Island Dems Pass a Useless 'Assault Weapons' Ban
While the future of the Second Amendment right in America is unknowable, two things are certain:
Republicans will continue to emphasize that protecting gun rights also protects all Americans, and the more restrictions placed on firearms and law-abiding gun owners, the more dangerous society becomes.
And Democrats, who continue to blame guns for gun-related crimes — AKA "gun violence" — will also continue their efforts to whittle away at the Second Amendment as part of their fools' game to stop bad guys with a gun from doing bad things. Please.
