In layman’s terms: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that Hawaii’s requirement that handgun acquisition permits be used within 30 days of issuance and the requirement that a purchaser bring their firearm to the police station for inspection within five days of acquisition are unconstitutional. The court remanded the case to the lower court for reconsideration.
In a shock to many, and a significant victory for Second Amendment advocates, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has struck down two Hawaii firearms regulations, affirming a lower court’s decision that they infringe on the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Many may remember that Hawaii previously employed the “spirit of Aloha” defense for their anti-gun postures, and the Ninth Circuit previously upheld sensitive place carry restrictions.
The ruling in Yukutake v. Lopez, issued on March 14, 2025, declared various provisions of the State of Hawaii’s law to be unconstitutional and remanded the case to the lower court.
The case originated when two Honolulu County residents challenged Hawaii Revised Statutes § 134-2(e) and § 134-3(c). The first provision originally gave permit holders just 10 days (later amended to 30 days) to acquire a handgun after obtaining a permit, while the second required in-person inspection of certain firearms at a police station within five days of acquisition.
Plaintiffs correctly argued these rules imposed unconstitutional burdens on their Second Amendment rights. The district court agreed, issuing a permanent injunction, which Hawaii appealed.
Argued before Judges Carlos T. Bea, Daniel P. Collins, and Kenneth K. Lee, on February 14, 2023, in Honolulu, the Ninth Circuit’s decision hinged on the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in Bruen, which mandates that gun laws align with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
The Ninth Circuit, in a majority opinion by Judge Collins joined in part by Judge Lee, affirmed the district court’s ruling. The court held that “the purchase and acquisition of firearms is conduct that is protected by the plain text of the Second Amendment,” reasoning that “the right to ‘possess’ a firearm… includes within it the right to take possession of a firearm, i.e., to acquire one”.
The court deemed the 30-day permit expiration “abusive,” noting, “The government failed to point to evidence supporting its conclusion that… a burdensome physical inspection requirement will materially advance the objectives of the registration system.”
Were it not for the serious implications, Judge Bea’s dissenting opinion would be almost comical, and illustrates how far left many judges have moved on civil rights issues like the Second Amendment. She argued, “The majority’s critical error was its conclusion that the acquisition of a firearm by an individual, through purchase or otherwise, is conduct covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment.”
Amici briefs supporting this case were presented by the National Rifle Association and Gun Owners of America.
