The Ninth Circuit’s en banc hearing in Yukutake v. Lopez made one thing clear: several judges are deeply uneasy with Hawaii’s attempt to defend burdensome gun-purchase rules as mere “administrative details.”
At issue are two parts of Hawaii’s firearm acquisition system. One is the state’s permit validity period for handgun purchases. The other is a post-purchase inspection requirement for certain firearms not obtained through Hawaii-licensed dealers. Hawaii told the court these are minor, objective conditions tied to a “shall-issue” regime and therefore presumptively constitutional under Bruen and Heller.
But throughout the hearing, multiple judges questioned whether the state’s theory is a backdoor way of reviving interest balancing under a new label.
Arguing for the state, Joanne Sager said the challenged laws are only “two administrative details” of Hawaii’s licensing system: the handgun permit validity period and the inspection requirement for guns not purchased from licensed dealers. She insisted those rules do not meaningfully burden the right to keep and bear arms and said the plaintiffs had not shown they were actually prevented from acquiring firearms.
Click the link to read the whole article: Hawaii Desperate Plea to Scrutiny in Gun Rights Case
No comments:
Post a Comment