Until last year’s Supreme Court Bruen decision, Hawaii virtually banned carrying firearms. The 2022 ruling, however, resulted in a loosening of that practice to align with the high court’s clear direction on the right to carry for self-defense outside of the home.
In essence, the high court ruled that law-abiding U.S. residents have the right to carry firearms outside of the home for self-defense. This should have already been clear to every honest observer, but there are many who wish to deny this right to Americans.
Hawaii law before last year’s case restricted gun owners to mostly keeping firearms in their residences. If they were transported to other locations such as gun ranges, hunting sites or repair businesses, they were required to be unloaded and locked.
But the high court decision prompted change.
Bruen prompted Hawaii officials to take a hard look at its gun laws to align with the direction ordered by the Supreme Court. Gov. Josh Green (D) signed legislation in early June to permit more residents to carry concealed weapons.
While this created a situation virtually unseen on the islands, the new law also laid out roadblocks on where carry rights could be exercised.
In the U.S. District Court for Hawaii, Kobayashi cited concerns between balancing safety worries of local officials and the Second Amendment.
The new state law in question created 15 so-called “sensitive places” where carrying was not permitted.
The case before the court was filed on June 23, 2023. Three Maui residents and the Hawaii Firearms Coalition (HFC) challenged the statute, arguing that the state went too far by issuing the sweeping ban.
Plaintiffs requested the TRO be issued for five of the 15 sensitive locations. They were parking lots used by both government and non-government facilities, restaurants and bars that serve alcohol and their parking lots, Hawaii’s public beaches and parks along with their parking lots, banking and financial facilities and their parking lots and private property that has not expressly forbidden firearms.
The plaintiffs argued that the state law left residents defenseless at places such as ATMs, parks and isolated beaches. HFC Director Todd Yukutake explained “there is a lot of crime at some of the parks and beaches, and it can be very scary at some of these beach parks.”
The crux of the state’s position was concern for public safety. But Judge Kobayashi poured cold water on that angle as the TRO was granted.
“According to the GOA Amicus Brief, the vast majority of individuals in the United States with concealed carry permits are law-abiding…Although the State raises important safety concerns, it fails to demonstrate that the public safety concerns overcome the public’s interest in preventing constitutional violations.”
Interestingly, the state attempted to justify its actions concerning these “sensitive places” by promoting its role as a proprietor rather than a legislative organ. In other words, it was simply managing its internal operation and not acting as a lawmaker.
Kobayashi determined, however, that “this distinction in a post-Bruen world makes no difference. What matters at the first step of the inquiry is whether the regulated conduct is covered by the Second Amendment’s plain text.”
The TRO was granted on the basis that the state of Hawaii could not unilaterally take away the constitutional right to keep and bear arms on private property that is open to the public.
This case marks the second recent decision in Hawaii courts that favored Second Amendment rights. The Ninth Circuit in recent days ruled that the prohibition on possession and carry of “butterfly knives” violates constitutional protections.
