By Dave Workman
Editor-in-Chief
The City of Inglewood, Calif. is reportedly moving to repeal a restrictive gun control law in effect since 1999, barely a month after a federal lawsuit was filed challenging the ban. The case is known as Lopez v. Los Angeles.
Newsweek is reporting that the one-gun-a-month restriction is on the way out because of a Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling last year in a case known as Nguyen v. Bonta, which overturned the state’s one-in-thirty gun law. That case was brought by the Second Amendment Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition and San Diego County Gun Owners PAC.
A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit, which rarely sides with the Second Amendment, ruled unanimously that the restriction was unconstitutional. Yet Inglewood and neighboring Los Angeles retained their local restriction, despite the court’s finding that the state law was not supported by historical tradition.
According to Newsweek, four states have such bans, as listed by the Giffords gun control group. They are Maryland, Virginia, New Jersey and Connecticut, although the latter allows up to three handguns within a 30-day period.
By contrast, Newsweek pointed to western states such as Idaho and Wyoming as having least restrictive gun laws, along with Arkansas and Kentucky as states in the south with relaxed laws. Add to that Texas, Georgia, Indiana and Ohio.
The Giffords lobbying group publishes an annual scorecard showing the states with what the group considers the best gun laws and those with terrible laws. Giffords gives high marks to California, Oregon, Washington, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, Hawaii and Maryland for their restrictive gun control laws.
But this could also be changing as court decisions such as Wolford v. Lopez—striking down Hawaii’s requirement that armed citizens get permission before entering private property open to the public (i.e. supermarkets, convenience stores, etc.)—come down, and this fall the Supreme Court is scheduled to review challenges to bans on so-called “assault weapons,” which could declare such bans violate the Second Amendment.
