Ninth Circuit Knocks Down Hawaii’s Gun Control Law

A panel of three judges from the United States Circuit Court for the Ninth Circuit upheld a district court decision that knocked down two provisions of Hawaii’s firearms laws. The case is currently known as Yukutake v. Lopez.

The first provision the plaintiffs challenged was a narrow time window a gun buyer had after receiving a permit to acquire a firearm to purchase that gun. The original statute gave a gun buyer ten days to obtain their firearm. Hawaii would amend its law to change the 10-day time frame to acquire a gun to 30 days. This change was an effort to moot the case, but the ploy failed, and the case continued.

The Ninth Circuit upheld the district’s court decision. It ruled that the short time period the State gave violated the plaintiff’s Second Amendment rights. The first step in determining if a gun law is constitutional is to see if the plain text of the Second Amendment protects the conduct. The Courts have long held that the right to acquire arms is part of the right to bear arms. Once that is determined, the onus falls on the State to prove that a law is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation. That feat is done through historical analogues.

The decision reads: “The panel affirmed the district court’s judgment that the short timeframe for completing the purchase of a firearm after obtaining a permit was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. The purchase and acquisition of firearms is conduct protected by the plain text of the Second Amendment. Because § 134-2(e) regulates conduct covered by the Second Amendment’s plain text, the Second Amendment presumptively protects that conduct. The burden therefore fell on the State to justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation.”

The second provision knocked down is the requirement for a gun buyer to bring their newly purchased firearms to the police station for an in-person inspection. The panel ruled that this requirement is overly burdensome for gun owners. The inspections only take place during certain times, meaning that gun owners might have to take off work to have their firearms inspected. The court believes the real point of the provision is to burden the gun owner.

The order reads: “Hawaii’s broad in-person inspection requirement could not be justified as merely a proper ancillary logistical measure in support of such a system. The government failed to point to evidence supporting its conclusion that the addition of a broadly applicable and burdensome physical inspection requirement will materially advance the objectives of the registration system. As with plaintiffs’ challenge to § 134-2(e), the panel remanded to the district court to revise its permanent injunction, as appropriate, in light of the recent amendment to § 134-3 and to conform to the panel’s ruling.”

The attorney for the plaintiff, Stephen Stamboulieh, highlights that this is a panel’s decision, and the State could ask for an en banc hearing. The Ninth Circuit is notoriously anti-gun, and it could reverse the panel’s decision.

“I’m pleased that the 9th circuit panel ruled in favor of the 2A, but given previous wins Alan and I have received in the 9th, including Young and Teter, it’s hard to get too excited knowing that an en banc rehearing is no doubt likely to happen,” Stamboulieh said.

The State has yet to ask for an en banc hearing, but it is expected to ask for one. The Ninth Circuit is expected to grant the en banc.

About John Crump

Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people from all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons, follow him on X at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.