A closely divided federal appeals court on Tuesday sided with Hawaii and upheld the state’s restrictive laws governing firearm purchases, overturning lower court decisions that had found the rules unconstitutional.
An 11-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed lower court rulings that struck down Hawaii’s permit-to-purchase scheme for handguns, along with a requirement that gun buyers present a newly purchased firearm to local police for inspection.
The panel included one Clinton appointee, three Obama appointees, five Trump appointees and two Biden appointees. The majority argued that because Hawaii’s system is “shall issue,” it meets the standard laid out by the Supreme Court in its landmark decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen.
“Bruen addressed only discretionary, may-issue licensing systems and did not call into question the constitutionality of objective, shall-issue regimes that employ background checks, fingerprinting, mental-health record checks and firearm training requirements,” U.S. Circuit Judge John B. Owens, an Obama appointee, claimed in the majority opinion.
Gun rights advocates quickly pushed back, and the fight may not be over.
“The Ninth Circuit’s opinion in Yukutake contradicts the U.S. Supreme Court’s rulings in Bruen and Wolford,” attorney Alan Beck told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “I will be filing a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court in short order.”
When the lawsuit was filed, Hawaii’s permit-to-purchase scheme required a buyer to complete the acquisition of a firearm within 10 days. As the case moved forward, the state Legislature extended that window to 30 days. Hawaii also changed its rules on presenting firearms at a local police station while the litigation was underway.
Konstadinos Moros, director of legal research and education at the Second Amendment Foundation, suggested those changes may have helped the state’s case.
“As is often the case when it is sued by Alan Beck, Hawaii changed the law to make it a little less abusive, and that seems to have paid off,” Moros posted on X while analyzing the ruling.
“The Hawaii laws at issue are unique in the country,” Moros added in another post. “They should not get the carveout, SCOTUS wasn’t talking about them.”
The ruling comes after the Aloha State’s highest court drew national attention in 2024. In that case, involving a person charged with illegally carrying a firearm, the Hawaii Supreme Court invoked the “spirit of Aloha” while ignoring U.S. Supreme Court precedents, including Bruen.
In the Ninth Circuit case, the dissenting opinions, all written by Trump appointees, ran a combined 60 pages, far outpacing the majority’s 12 pages. The dissents highlighted Hawaiian laws that the judges said violated the Second Amendment.
“This case is all the worse since the challenged laws appear to be part of Hawaii’s consistent and not-so-subtle attempts to end run around the Second Amendment, which suggests that these laws are abusive,” U.S. Circuit Judge Ryan Nelson, a Trump appointee, wrote.
U.S. Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke, also a Trump appointee, took aim at the majority in his own dissent.
“Hawaii’s byzantine firearm-registration requirements are outliers. Ergo, Hawaii shouldn’t be allowed to enforce them. The majority’s conclusion otherwise distorts the Second Amendment,” VanDyke wrote.
