Gun rights advocates are once again proving that persistence pays off in the courtroom, as the Firearms Policy Coalition takes aim at Los Angeles and Inglewood for clinging to handgun purchase limits that federal judges have already declared unconstitutional. These cities are essentially trying to ration a fundamental right, forcing law-abiding residents to jump through bureaucratic hoops that serve no public-safety purpose beyond political theater. The lawsuits highlight a troubling pattern: even when higher courts strike down restrictions, local officials often double down, betting that the cost and delay of litigation will discourage citizens from exercising their rights.

What makes this fight particularly significant is how it exposes the broader strategy of “resistance through redundancy.” California officials know these one-handgun-per-month rules have been gutted in federal court, yet they continue enforcing them in hopes that most residents will simply comply rather than sue. For the 2A community, the message is clear—victories on paper mean little without aggressive enforcement on the ground. Groups like FPC are doing the unglamorous but essential work of turning court rulings into real-world access, ensuring that a win in one district doesn’t evaporate at the city limits.

The stakes extend far beyond Los Angeles and Inglewood. If these challenges succeed, they’ll further erode the patchwork of local restrictions that make California a cautionary tale for the rest of the country. More importantly, they reinforce the principle that constitutional rights aren’t subject to municipal veto. Every lawsuit that forces cities to abandon discredited policies chips away at the idea that government can simply ration liberty until the courts intervene again. For gun owners watching from other states, this is a reminder that rights defended are rights preserved.