Hawaii Defends Its Bizarre Gun Purchasing Laws Before Ninth Circuit Judges

Hawaii has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation, but thanks to attorneys like Alan Beck, gun owners and Second Amendment advocates have been able to chip away at these restrictions through litigation. 

Beck recently took on Hawaii’s “vampire rule” barring concealed carry by default on all private property at the Supreme Court in Wolford v. Lopez, and this week he argued against some of the state’s absurd laws surrounding the purchase of firearms before an en banc panel of Ninth Circuit judges. 

A three-judge panel previously ruled in Yukutake v. Lopez that the state’s requirement that would-be gun owners purchase a firearm within ten days of acquiring a permit to purchase is unconstitutional, as is the law mandating new gun owners present their firearm to their local police department for inspection within five days of purchase. Hawaii appealed that decision, and the Ninth Circuit granted en banc review. 

The city’s defense of the laws centered around the idea that these laws don’t impose “meaningful constraints” on the acquisition of firearms and represent no real burden to those seeking to exercise their Second Amendment rights. Honolulu’s argument would be laughed out of many appellate courts, but the Ninth Circuit previously ruled in a case called B&L Productions v. Newsom that California’s ban on gun sales at gun shows on state-owned property doesn’t violate the Second Amendment or impose a meaningful constraint on residents’ Second Amendment rights since there are alternative methods of purchasing firearms. 

Under that ruling, then, it seems almost any requirement, no matter how pointless, can be imposed on gun purchasers. There were some judges on Tuesday’s panel, though, who wanted to drill down on what actually constitutes a “meaningful constraint”. 

Judge Forrest says there is no consensus on what “meaningful constraint” means among the circuits that have adopted it.

— SAF (@2AFDN) March 24, 2026

Honolulu’s contention that the inspection requirement was also no real imposition on new gun owners also met with pushback from several of the judges on the panel. 

Judge Forrest asks why its only an incidental burden to require a post-purchase inspection within five days.

She points out that in other inspection contexts, the 4th Amendment gets triggered.

Hawaii says it’s fine because it doesn’t prevent you from having guns, and there is…

— SAF (@2AFDN) March 24, 2026

It’s crazy that, at least in the Ninth Circuit, there’s no right to privacy when it comes to gun ownership. The Fourth Amendment protects “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” There’s nothing in the text that mentions “except for their guns” or anything like that. We have a general right to privacy, and there is simply no need for police to inspect every newly purchased firearm. That makes the inspection requirement facially unreasonable (and unconstitutional) in my opinion. 

Since Yukutake was filed, Hawaii modified its 10-day limit on the permit-to-purchase and expanded it to 30 days in an attempt to appear more reasonable. That modification was also a topic of discussion during oral arguments. 

The Judge is really pushing on this point. How do we know that Hawaii won’t keep changing the law?

Hawaii say’s its OK because they keep slightly loosening the rules.

— SAF (@2AFDN) March 24, 2026

So far that’s been the case, but there’s nothing stopping Hawaii from changing it back to 10 days, or maybe two weeks, if the en banc panel upholds the 30 day window. In any case, it’s an arbitrary time limit imposed as part of a permitting scheme that’s constitutionally unsound. 

Kostas Moros, who was providing SAF’s live coverage of the oral arguments, thinks that the panel will narrowly vote to reverse the previous decision and uphold Hawaii’s ridiculous requirements based on a broad reading of SCOTUS’s Footnote 9 in Bruen, which has been read to bless any and all permitting schemes so long as they can be deemed “shall issue” and don’t involve exorbitant fees or excessive wait times; not just for licenses to carry, but for permits to purchase or keep a firearm as well. I hope that’s not the case, but it’s undoubtably true that the footnote has been used and abused by lower courts to uphold a variety of gun control laws over the past few years, and it’s definitely a concern here as well. 

Editor’s Note: The radical left will stop at nothing to enact their radical gun control agenda and strip us of our Second Amendment rights.

Help us continue to report on and expose the Democrats’ gun control policies and schemes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership.