Appeals Court Constrains Parts of California, Hawaii Gun Carry Limits; Lets Other Parts Continue

Last updated on September 7th, 2024 at 12:16 pm

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down portions of California and Hawaii’s firearm carry laws, while allowing other portions to continue, in a panel decision on Friday, Sept. 6.

The three-judge appeals court panel considered three separate cases, including one challenging Hawaii’s limits on firearm carry and two cases concerning California’s carry limits. The trio of cases focused on challenges to so-called “sensitive places” provisions in the two state’s laws, which list a variety of public settings where firearm carry would be prohibited.

Gun control proponents in various states have, over the years, sought to limit the carry of firearms in public. Until recently, many states had employed subjective criteria for issuing carry permits; at times requiring carry permit applicants to demonstrate “proper cause” to carry a firearm to satisfy license issuing authorities.

Gun rights proponents challenged the “proper cause” provisions in New York State Rifle Pistol Association v. Bruen, and in June 2022 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that such subjective criteria for licensing public firearm carry violated the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Further, the Supreme Court articulated a test for gun control laws more broadly, requiring proponents of such laws to demonstrate that analogous laws existed at the time of the founding of the United States and when the Second Amendment was established.

Some states had employed “sensitive places” laws prior to the Bruen decision, and gun control advocates have sought to expand these lists of “sensitive places” in the post-Bruen era.

Gun rights advocates have challenged these “sensitive places” provisions in several states, including California and Hawaii. The gun rights plaintiffs filed their challenge to the Hawaii laws in June of 2023, and began challenging the California laws in two separate September 2023 challenges.

In their trio of legal challenges, the gun rights proponents have won preliminary injunctions to constrain enforcement of many of these “sensitive places” provisions at the District Court level.

Circuit Judges Mary Schroeder, Susan Graber, and Jennifer Sung were assigned to hear the appeal of the California and Hawaii governments. Each of the three appeals court judges was an appointee of a Democrat president. Schroder was appointed to the court by President Jimmy Carter; Graber by President Bill Clinton; and Sung by President Joe Biden.

The appeals court judges concluded some of the “sensitive places” provisions could survive the Bruen test, and others couldn’t.

“For places that have existed since the Founding, it suffices for Defendants to identify historical regulations similar in number and timeframe to the regulations that the Supreme Court cited as justification for designating other places as sensitive,” Graber wrote for the panel. “For places that are newer, Defendants must point to regulations that are analogous to the regulations cited by the Supreme Court, taking into account that it is illogical to expect a government to regulate a place before it existed in its modern form.”

Concerning the Hawaii laws, the appeals court panel concluded the preliminary injunction could continue to bar enforcement of carry limits at:

• financial institutions,
• parking lots adjacent to financial institutions,
• parking lots shared by government buildings and nongovernmental buildings.

On the other hand, the panel reversed the injunction barring enforcement of carry limits at:

• bars and restaurants that serve alcohol,
• beaches, parks, and similar areas, and parking lots adjoining those areas.

The panel also struck down the preliminary injunction barring enforcement of a post-Bruen provision in Hawaii, which presumes firearm carry to be prohibited on private property unless the property owner posts signage clearly inviting licensed firearm carry on their property.

Concerning California’s laws, the judges upheld preliminary injunctions barring enforcement of firearm carry limits at:

• hospitals and medical facilities,
• public transit,
• gatherings that require a permit,
• places of worship,
• financial institutions,
• parking areas, and areas adjoining those places.

The panel also affirmed a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of California law that bars firearm carry on private property that is open to the public, in which the owner hasn’t posted signage allowing licensed firearm carry on their property.

The panel reversed the preliminary injunctions barring enforcement of California laws barring carry at:

• bars and restaurants that serve alcohol,
• playgrounds,
• youth centers,
• parks,
• athletic areas, athletic facilities,
• most real property under the control of the Department of Parks and Recreation or the Department of Fish and Wildlife,
• casinos and similar gambling establishments,
• stadiums and arenas,
• public libraries,
• amusement parks,
• zoos,
• museums
• parking areas areas connected to those places

The Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), which supported the challenges to California law, marked the appeals court’s ruling as a partial win.

“This partially favorable decision from the Ninth Circuit shows how far we’ve come over the past decade,” FPC President Brandon Combs said in a Friday press statement. “But this case, and our work to restore the right to bear arms, is far from over. FPC will continue to fight forward until all peaceable people can fully exercise their right to carry in California and throughout the United States.”

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), offered a similar assessment of the ruling.

“We are pleased that the 9th Circuit has affirmed part of the lower court’s injunction,” SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut said Friday. “However, we maintain that the areas as to which the Court reversed the injunction, and reinstated the carry ban, violate the Second Amendment. The State’s expansion of so called ‘sensitive places’ goes beyond what the Supreme Court contemplated when it mentioned them in Bruen and are designed to discourage individuals from bearing arms in public. SAF and its partners will continue to aggressively litigate this case to ensure Californians may exercise their Second Amendment rights in full.”

The challenges to the California and Hawaii laws were supported by a variety of gun rights groups including, the Hawaii Firearms Coalition, the Orange County Gun Owners PAC, the San Diego County Gun Owners PAC, the California Gun Rights Foundation, Gun Owners of America, Inc, the Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of California, Inc., the Liberal Gun Owners Association, and the California Rifle & Pistol Association.