Appeals Court Upholds Onerous Hawaiian Gun-Purchase Laws

A closely-divided federal appeals court upheld restrictive laws imposed by Hawaii governing firearms sales Tuesday, overturning lower courts’ decisions.

An 11-judge panel from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit overturned lower court rulings that declared Hawaii’s permit-to-purchase scheme for handguns and a requirement to present a purchased firearm for inspection by local police unconstitutional. The panel, which had a Clinton appointee, three Obama appointees, five Trump appointees and two Biden appointees, argued that since Hawaii’s scheme was “shall issue,” it satisfied the standard set by the Supreme Court’s 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,” United States Circuit Judge John B. Owens, an Obama appointee, claimed in the majority opinion.

Hawaii’s permit-to-purchase scheme required a person to complete the acquisition of a firearm within ten days at the time the lawsuit was filed, with the Legislature later extending it to 30 days as the case progressed. Hawaii also altered its requirements regarding the presentation of firearms at a local police station during the course of the litigation.

“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,” Second Amendment Foundation Director of Legal Research and Education Konstadinos Moros posted on X while analyzing the ruling. Beck did not immediately respond to a request for comment from the Daily Caller News Foundation.

“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.”

In a 2024 ruling involving a person charged with illegally carrying a firearm, the Hawaii Supreme Court invoked the “spirit of Aloha” while ignoring Supreme Court precedents, including Bruen. The dissents, all authored by Trump appointees, totaled 60 pages compared to the 12 pages used by the majority, and highlighted Hawaiian laws they 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,” United States Circuit Judge Ryan Nelson, a Trump appointee, wrote.

“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,” United States Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke, a Trump appointee, wrote in his dissent.