Summary
This Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals order denies the appellees' petitions for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc in a Second Amendment challenge to Hawaii and California firearm carry restrictions. The underlying panel opinion affirmed in part and reversed in large part district court orders preliminarily enjoining provisions of state laws that prohibit carrying firearms at various "sensitive places" and alter the default presumption for carrying on private property. Dissenting judges argued that the panel failed to properly apply the Supreme Court's Bruen text-and-history test and effectively restricted the right to publicly carry arms.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the appellees were entitled to panel rehearing of the Ninth Circuit panel's decision concerning Hawaii's and California's sensitive-place and private-property firearm-carry restrictions.
- Whether the full court should rehear the consolidated cases en banc.
- Whether the panel's application of the Second Amendment text-history-and-tradition framework and its treatment of sensitive places and private-property default rules conflicted with Supreme Court precedent.
Holdings
- The court denied appellees' petition for panel rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc. The en banc request failed to receive a majority of the votes of the nonrecused active judges.
Key quotations
“The matter failed to receive a majority of the votes of the nonrecused active judges in favor of en banc consideration.” (125 F.4th at 1230-31)
“Appellees’ petition for panel rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc, Docket No. 105, is DENIED.” (125 F.4th at 1231)
“The few locations Bruen identified include schools, government buildings, “legislative assemblies, polling places, and courthouses.”” (125 F.4th at 1236)
“To overcome the presumption of unconstitutionality, Hawaii must show that its law “is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”” (125 F.4th at 1240)
Factual background
Hawaii amended its firearm-carry laws after New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen to make ordinary law-abiding citizens eligible for carry permits while imposing broad restrictions on carrying firearms in specified public places and on private property absent advance permission. The plaintiffs challenged selected restrictions, including limits involving parks, beaches, bars and restaurants serving alcohol, financial institutions, parking areas, and private property open to the public. The district court entered a partial preliminary injunction, and the Ninth Circuit panel later allowed many challenged restrictions to take effect while leaving other injunctions in place.
Procedural history
The district court for the District of Hawaii granted in part and denied in part a temporary restraining order, later converted to a preliminary injunction, against enforcement of portions of Hawaii's firearm-carry restrictions. The Ninth Circuit panel consolidated the Hawaii case with two California cases and affirmed in part and reversed in large part the preliminary injunctions. The appellees sought panel rehearing and rehearing en banc. The panel denied panel rehearing, and the full court denied rehearing en banc because the matter failed to receive a majority vote of the nonrecused active judges.