En Banc Ninth Circuit Court Rules Gun Owner Have No Right To Carry

Beretta 92 Should Holster NRA-ILA Concealed Carry
En Banc Ninth Circuit Court Rules Gun Owner Have No Right To Carry. IMG NRA-ILA

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF-(Ammoland.com)- The Ninth Circuit ruled in Young v. The State of Hawaii that ruled that an individual does not have a right to bear arms outside the home.

In 2011, George Young applied for a firearm-carry license, but Hawaii denied his application. The state requires gun owners to show “the urgency or the need” to carry a firearm openly. The applicant must also be of good moral character and be “engaged in the protection of life and property.” Hawaii determined that Young did not meet these requirements.

Young applied to open carry a firearm because he wanted to protect himself and his family. Hawaii is a “may issue” state when it comes to concealed carry, and it is almost impossible for the average citizen to obtain a concealed carry permit. This decision means that the courts have made it virtually impossible to carry a gun for self-defense outside the home, stripping Hawaii’s citizens of the right to bear arms.

In an earlier case (Peruta v. County of San Diego) from 2016, the Ninth Circuit Court ruled that an induvial doesn’t have the right to carry a concealed handgun outside the home. If you combine both decisions, the court has stripped citizens living under its jurisdiction of their right to bear arms.

Young challenged Hawai’i’s draconian gun laws by suing the state for violating his Second Amendment rights and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court upheld Hawai’i’s statute. Young then appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit Court. The Ninth Circuit is also the court hearing blockbuster cases such as Miller v. Becerra and Duncan v. Becerra.

A three-judge panel from the Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of Young, stating that the state could not ban the open carrying of firearms in a two to one decision. The Ninth Circuit court immediately stayed the decision and granted an en banc review. In an en banc review, all the Ninth Circuit Court judges weigh in on the case.

The en banc court affirmed the district court’s dismissal reversing the three-judge panel decision.

The court decided that Hawai’i’s restrictions on open carrying of firearms “reflect longstanding prohibitions.” Because of that, the court also ruled “the conduct they regulate is outside the historical scope of the Second Amendment.” The court went further and claimed the Second Amendment doesn’t guarantee Americans the right to open carry a firearm for self-defense.

The court also rejected Young’s claim that Hawaii violated the Due Process Claus as pre-mature. The court pointed out that that Young could have always appealed the decision regarding his open carry application, but to date has not filed an appeal. They said until Hawaii denies Young an appellate hearing, the state has not violated the Due Process Claus.

Judge O’Scannlain, joined by Judges Callahan, Ikuta, and R. Nelson, dissented from the majority decision. He said that the regulation “destroy the core right to carry a gun for self-defense outside the home and are unconstitutional under any level of scrutiny.” He went even further and said, “the majority’s decision undermines not only the Constitution’s text, but also half a millennium of Anglo-American legal history, the Supreme Court’s decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), and McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), and the foundational principles of American popular sovereignty itself.”

Judge Nelson was also upset with the decision. He claims the majority “erred not only in holding the statute facially constitutional, but also in rejecting Young’s as-applied challenge.” Then went on to rebuke the majority again and stated: “that there should be no dispute that any law or regulation that restricts gun ownership only to security guards violates the Second Amendment.”

Gun Owners of America called the decision by the court “hypocritical.” Senior Vice President Erich Pratt highlighted that the judges are protected by guns but are denying that right to average American citizens.

“The judges on the Ninth Circuit court are acting in a truly hypocritical fashion,” Pratt told AmmoLand. “While they themselves are protected by armed bailiffs, they have now effectively barred law-abiding citizens, in the Young case, from being able to carry openly. And in their previously decided Peruta case, they barred the ability of law-abiding citizens to carry concealed without showing ‘need.’ So, it’s the classic ‘guns for me, but not for thee’ double-standard. This despotic court has completely ignored the ‘shall not be infringed’ protection in the Second Amendment by denying decent citizens the right to bear arms.”

AmmoLand reached out to Young’s attorneys for comment but have not received comment by the time of this writing.

About John Crump

John is a NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people of all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons and can be followed on Twitter at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.

John Crump

Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

The 2nd Amendment says nothing of where the right to bear arms begins or ends. Where do these people get off trying to control my life? Only God has power over free men.


I guess it’s good for me that I can read and understand English then. The 2A says the 9th is full of shit.


and it seems it has been for the last 20 years at least.


time for scotus to step up and take case ruling that states citizens have the RIGHT to defend themselves and family as they see fit that leaves the door open to go after gun control act


SCROTUS will do nothing. They are now against The People.

Not A. Potato

Sadly, scotus is scared of their own shadow.

Lower courts ignoring supreme court precidents used to result in 9-0 smackdowns on appeal. Now? Crickets.


As the late, great, Rush Limbaugh said, it’s the 9th Circus Court. They ignored past SCOTUS decisions in Heller & McDonald, they should be slapped down once again as they are the most overturned Circuit Court in America. This will be appealed!

Last edited 1 year ago by Chev

Oh just carry anyway. And if you are ever interdicted in some type of way, defend yourself.


Alright – at this time I would like to create a LLC security corporation, operating in Hawai’i, and employ those other-wise-civilians so that they then qualify to concealed carry. They would be assigned to monitor and guard the address at their domestic domicile, and the property owner would pay $20/month as fee for this service. The guards would be paid on salary of $15/month (assuming at least one hour of work). The remaining $5/month would be used for administration, corporate taxes, and insurance. If this is marketed to the common people as a legal way to allow them concealed carry,… Read more »

Charles Nichols

Hawaii does not issue concealed carry permits. Hawaii issues Open Carry permits for handguns and long guns, but only to security guards.


SOOO, I am not allowed to carry? Even though the Constitution WITH the Second Amendment REAFFIRMS and ACKNOWLEDGES my RIGHT as an American Citizen to do so!
Then; every weapon MUST BE STRIPPED from EVERY “politician”, “guard (no matter the word used)” in, at, around or near EVERY “politician” and also from ANY PLACE their PRETENCE of being a “politician” is being practiced!!!!!!!


The Ninth Circus. No one is surprised. In direct contravention to the Second Amendment.
Democrats demand a communist America. Lazy Americans who did not vote, refused to canvass for votes, etc. or wasted a vote on some fringe party let America, our Founding Fathers and our Constitution down. Only 22% of Americans voted for Trump in 2020. Much less voted for biden. But, vote fraud wins because weak Americans refuse do do their Constitutional Duty. You snivel about needing a gun to fight government tyranny…well, there it was.
No one to blame except yourselves.

Last edited 1 year ago by tetejaun
Ryben Flynn

You’re wrong on that 22%. If you can believe the lying numbers for Joe that he got by cheating, Trump got 46.9%.
You can’t include people not eligible to vote by using the entire population of the U.S.

Last edited 1 year ago by Ryben Flynn

Correction: Not all the judges “weigh in” on an en banc hearing in the 9th circuit, only 11 of them (Chief Judge plus 10) out of 29. In this case it was Sidney R. Thomas, Chief Judge, and Diarmuid F.O’Scannlain, M. Margaret McKeown, Kim McLaneWardlaw, William A. Fletcher, Richard R. Clifton, Jay S.Bybee, Consuelo M. Callahan, Sandra S. Ikuta, Michelle T.Friedland and Ryan D. Nelson. The judges sitting en banc are supposedly drawn by lot by the Clerk of the Court. In addition to Sidney Thomas being vehemently anti-gun, any 2A cases somehow draw a preponderance of judges against 2A… Read more »


I’d give anything to see our founding fathers rise from the dead and tear into the shitshow that has become of their land of freedom. A bunch of guys in white wigs tongue lashing the democrats while simultaneously beating them with walking sticks. “THOUST ARE A DUNDERWHELP OF THE HIGHEST ORDER!!!”…..

I just love imaginationland….


Easy to imagine:

“What? Show me the idiot who wants the government to control the prices for which a business offers its products, and bring me my musket.”

Charles Nichols

The en banc opinion in Young v. Hawaii limited the scope of its opinion to “small arms capable of being concealed.” The opinion does not define “small arms” or “capable of being concealed.” Did the opinion limit its scope to arms that are easily and ordinarily carried concealed? Whether or not there is a right to openly carry any loaded firearm, or any unloaded firearm for the purpose of lawful self-defense is the question my three-judge panel will have to decide. Judge Bybee is one of those three judges. “The contours of the government’s power to regulate arms in the public square is… Read more »