Summary
The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Todd Yukutake and David Kikukawa in their Second Amendment challenge to Hawaii firearms laws. The court held that the short period for acquiring a handgun after issuance of a permit and the broadly applicable in-person firearm inspection requirement violated the Second Amendment. The court also denied Hawaii’s motion to dismiss the appeal as moot despite legislative amendments to the challenged provisions.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether legislative amendments to Hawaii Revised Statutes §§ 134-2(e) and 134-3 rendered plaintiffs' constitutional challenges moot.
- Whether Hawaii's ten-day, later thirty-day, limit for acquiring a handgun after issuance of an acquisition permit violates the Second Amendment.
- Whether Hawaii's requirement that a firearm purchaser physically present the firearm for inspection as part of registration violates the Second Amendment.
Holdings
- The legislative amendments to §§ 134-2(e) and 134-3 did not moot the appeal because the amended provisions remained sufficiently similar to the challenged provisions with respect to the alleged constitutional defects.
- The purchase and acquisition of firearms is conduct covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment and is therefore presumptively protected under New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen.
- Hawaii's very short time limit for acquiring a handgun after issuance of an acquisition permit, originally ten days and later thirty days, violates the Second Amendment because it is an impermissibly abusive feature of the permitting system.
- Hawaii's requirement that a purchaser physically bring a firearm to a police station for inspection as part of registration violates the Second Amendment.
Key quotations
“When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” (130 F.4th at 1081)
“We conclude that Hawaii’s imposition of a very short time limitation on the validity of an acquisition permit is impermissibly “abusive.”” (130 F.4th at 1096)
“Hawaii’s broad in-person inspection requirement cannot be justified as merely a proper ancillary logistical measure in support of such a system.” (130 F.4th at 1100)
Factual background
Todd Yukutake and David Kikukawa are firearm owners residing in Honolulu County who wished to acquire additional firearms. Yukutake alleged that he once failed to acquire a permitted handgun within Hawaii's ten-day permit window and had to restart the application process. Plaintiffs challenged the short validity period for handgun-acquisition permits and the requirement that purchasers physically bring firearms to a police station for inspection as part of registration.
Procedural history
The United States District Court for the District of Hawaii granted summary judgment to plaintiffs on August 16, 2021, holding unconstitutional the ten-day handgun-permit-use period in Hawaii Revised Statutes § 134-2(e) and the in-person firearm-inspection requirement in § 134-3(c). The district court entered a permanent injunction and final judgment on September 23, 2021. After Hawaii amended both provisions during the appeal, the Ninth Circuit denied the motion to dismiss as moot, affirmed the merits judgment, and remanded for revision of the injunction in light of the amendments.
Remand instructions
The district court must revise its permanent injunction and judgment as appropriate in light of the recent amendments to Hawaii Revised Statutes §§ 134-2(e) and 134-3 and to conform the injunction to the Ninth Circuit's ruling.