Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel led a coalition of 17 attorneys general in filing an amicus brief supporting Hawai‘i’s and other states’ authority to enact reasonable firearms regulations to protect their communities from gun violence, and ensure that only law-abiding, responsible citizens are permitted to purchase firearms. The brief was filed in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Yukutake v. Lopez, supporting Hawai‘i’s en banc proceedings after a divided Ninth Circuit panel ruled unconstitutional two provisions of Hawai‘i’s firearm permitting scheme: its 30-day time limit on purchase permits and its inspection requirement for certain new firearms.
In the brief, the attorneys general urge the Ninth Circuit’s en banc panel to reverse the decision striking down these provisions. The brief highlights states’ interests in implementing appropriate, reasonable regulations tailored to their specific circumstances and argues that the provisions at issue are not being put to abusive ends and do not meaningfully constrain Second Amendment rights.
“Every state has a responsibility to keep their residents safe, and that includes taking common-sense steps to reduce gun violence,” Nessel said. “Our laws should reflect the values and needs of our communities, and Hawai‘i’s firearm permitting regime does just that. By ensuring guns are in the hands of only responsible, law-abiding individuals, we can protect lives while upholding constitutional rights. I am proud to lead this coalition supporting Hawai‘i’s commitment to protecting their residents.”
At issue in the case are two provisions of Hawai‘i’s “shall-issue” permitting regime: its 30-day limitation on the outcome of its background checks for the purchase of handguns and its limited inspection requirement for certain firearms. The brief argues that these regulations fall squarely within Hawai‘i’s authority to enact reasonable restrictions to ensure that only “law-abiding, responsible citizens” are allowed to purchase, possess, and carry a firearm within its borders, and respond to unique circumstances in their state. For example, the inspection regulation ensures the State can obtain and verify the serial numbers of firearms that are imported from out-of-state, sold by a non-licensed individual, or are unserialized “ghost guns”— information that it would routinely obtain for firearm purchases from in-state, licensed dealers.
The attorneys general argue that states have primary responsibility to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens – including protecting those citizens from the harmful effects of gun violence and promoting the safe and responsible use of firearms. The Second Amendment permits the States to enact a variety of regulations to combat the misuse of firearms and enables solutions that suit local needs and values, as Hawai‘i has done here.
The brief further argues that Hawai‘i’s “shall-issue” licensing and regulatory regime is constitutional under the Second Amendment and the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, as the challenged provisions serve only to limit firearm purchase and possession to responsible law-abiding people, and are not being put towards abusive ends. For example, the expiration of 30-day purchase permits does not bar or impede the qualified prospective purchaser from obtaining a new permit. In fact, Hawai‘i’s law encourages prompt firearm acquisition and ensures that regulators are not relying on outdated background check information when determining if a purchaser is prohibited by law from possessing firearms. As a result, the coalition asks the en banc panel to hold that the challenged provisions are valid exercises of state authority to protect the health, safety, and welfare of its inhabitants.
The coalition urges the en banc Ninth Circuit to reverse the district court’s erroneous decision enjoining Hawai‘i’s reasonable, public-safety-focused licensing and registration
regulatory framework.
In filing the brief, Nessel is joined by the attorneys general of California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and the District of Columbia.
In the brief, the attorneys general urge the Ninth Circuit’s en banc panel to reverse the decision striking down these provisions. The brief highlights states’ interests in implementing appropriate, reasonable regulations tailored to their specific circumstances and argues that the provisions at issue are not being put to abusive ends and do not meaningfully constrain Second Amendment rights.
“Every state has a responsibility to keep their residents safe, and that includes taking common-sense steps to reduce gun violence,” Nessel said. “Our laws should reflect the values and needs of our communities, and Hawai‘i’s firearm permitting regime does just that. By ensuring guns are in the hands of only responsible, law-abiding individuals, we can protect lives while upholding constitutional rights. I am proud to lead this coalition supporting Hawai‘i’s commitment to protecting their residents.”
At issue in the case are two provisions of Hawai‘i’s “shall-issue” permitting regime: its 30-day limitation on the outcome of its background checks for the purchase of handguns and its limited inspection requirement for certain firearms. The brief argues that these regulations fall squarely within Hawai‘i’s authority to enact reasonable restrictions to ensure that only “law-abiding, responsible citizens” are allowed to purchase, possess, and carry a firearm within its borders, and respond to unique circumstances in their state. For example, the inspection regulation ensures the State can obtain and verify the serial numbers of firearms that are imported from out-of-state, sold by a non-licensed individual, or are unserialized “ghost guns”— information that it would routinely obtain for firearm purchases from in-state, licensed dealers.
The attorneys general argue that states have primary responsibility to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens – including protecting those citizens from the harmful effects of gun violence and promoting the safe and responsible use of firearms. The Second Amendment permits the States to enact a variety of regulations to combat the misuse of firearms and enables solutions that suit local needs and values, as Hawai‘i has done here.
The brief further argues that Hawai‘i’s “shall-issue” licensing and regulatory regime is constitutional under the Second Amendment and the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, as the challenged provisions serve only to limit firearm purchase and possession to responsible law-abiding people, and are not being put towards abusive ends. For example, the expiration of 30-day purchase permits does not bar or impede the qualified prospective purchaser from obtaining a new permit. In fact, Hawai‘i’s law encourages prompt firearm acquisition and ensures that regulators are not relying on outdated background check information when determining if a purchaser is prohibited by law from possessing firearms. As a result, the coalition asks the en banc panel to hold that the challenged provisions are valid exercises of state authority to protect the health, safety, and welfare of its inhabitants.
The coalition urges the en banc Ninth Circuit to reverse the district court’s erroneous decision enjoining Hawai‘i’s reasonable, public-safety-focused licensing and registration
regulatory framework.
In filing the brief, Nessel is joined by the attorneys general of California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and the District of Columbia.
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
