Hawaii has long been open about its hostility to Second Amendment rights, joining New York, Illinois, and other states that have proven to be fonts of litigation before the courts. Ironically, these states have proven a bonanza for gun rights advocates in triggering a series of massive losses before the Supreme Court and the expansion of protections under the Second Amendment. On the heels of a major loss before the Court in Wolford v. Lopez over its “Vampire Law,” the state (and the Ninth Circuit) are back again with a new controversy over the permissible limitations or regulations that can be placed on gun ownership. To paraphrase Jerry Maguire, it also seems that gun control advocates always have the Ninth Circuit at “Mahalo.”
The laws include a requirement that handgun owners “register and submit to physical inspection the firearm” as well as a requirement that buyers have 30 days to purchase a specified handgun after obtaining a state-issued permit.
In Yukutake v. Lopez, it is the inspection requirement that most stands out for me. Unable to ban guns, Hawaii and other blue states have histories of harassing or impeding these rights. The requirement of an inspection appears gratuitous and ahistorical under controlling precedent.
The Ninth Circuit ruled in this en banc decision that “the provisions impose only modest, procedural burdens, and do not materially impede Plaintiffs from acquiring firearms.” The inspection requirement does not seem to be either “modest” or a traditional requirement for gun ownership.
The majority is notably relying on a footnote from the Bruen decision that seems less than sufficient as the foundation for such a measure. More importantly, it would invite a series of harassing, impeding measures for gun owners.
Footnote 9 states that “nothing in our analysis should be interpreted to suggest the unconstitutionality of the 43 States’ ‘shall-issue’ licensing regimes, under which a general desire for self-defense is sufficient to obtain a [permit].'”
Judge Ryan D. Nelson flags the reliance on this footnote in his dissent:
“Footnote 9 did not create a gaping Second Amendment exemption for states to exploit with new creative restrictions that would otherwise fail Bruen’s test. The majority—like most lower courts—fails to grasp (or even acknowledge) these differences. Never has a single footnote in a Supreme Court opinion been so misread by so many lower courts to deny so many Americans their constitutional rights. The statements in footnote 9 are not the genesis of a different constitutional framework; they show merely how the framework the Court has established might be applied in particular circumstances.”
As a threshold matter, this footnote dealt with issuing carry licenses, not simply ownership, for handguns. The Ninth Circuit uses the footnote to suggest that any limitation short of the actual prevention of ownership is permissible:
“Because these licensing regimes do not require applicants to show an atypical need for armed self-defense, they do not necessarily prevent “law-abiding, responsible citizens” from exercising their Second Amendment right to public carry. Rather, it appears that these shall-issue regimes, which often require applicants to undergo a background check or pass a firearms safety course, are designed to ensure only that those bearing arms in the jurisdiction are, in fact, “law-abiding, responsible citizens.” And they likewise appear to contain only “narrow, objective, and definite standards” guiding licensing officials, rather than requiring the “appraisal of facts, the exercise of judgment, and the formation of an opinion,” —features that typify proper-cause standards like New York’s.”
The majority is clearly cognizant that this could be a hole that blue states will use to pile up impediments and costs for gun owners. Accordingly, it added: “That said, because any permitting scheme can be put toward abusive ends, we do not rule out constitutional challenges to shall-issue regimes where, for example, lengthy wait times in processing license applications or exorbitant fees deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry.”
That may not be sufficient for the Supreme Court.
What is most interesting is how the history of Hawaii’s hostile gun regulations will play in the case. The Court is aware of the open effort in the state to increase costs and administrative measures for gun owners. To use the “shall issue” exception for such purposes threatens a torrent of such new limits in blue states.
In the Wolford decision, the Court treated limitations like the requirement for a prior approval to enter private business with a lawful weapon to be presumptively unconstitutional. It was a clear effort to create bright-line rules for states hostile to Second Amendment rights. The Court could take particular interest in the suggestion that such regulations as inspections are “common” in history.
The Ninth Circuit itself drew criticism from one of the dissenting judges for its enabling of such harassing laws. Judge Lawrence VanDyke wrote a scathing account of the circuit’s history on gun rights cases:
“… It’s hard to imagine how the same court of appeals that gave the government an “undefeated, 50–0 record” in Second Amendment challenges before Bruen could—with the Supreme Court’s subsequent direction in Bruen, Hemani, and Wolford—develop a body of law less sympathetic to firearm-regulation challengers. But we’ve managed to do so. Where there’s a will, there’s a way, I guess. And—when it comes to blessing firearms regulations enacted by the governments of this circuit—our court has never been wanting in will.
… Frankly, our court’s scorched-earth approach to the Second Amendment is getting exhausting. I haven’t even been on the bench for that long, and I’ve lost count of the number of dissents that I’ve written in cases like this one, which is just another verse of the same boring song. I highly suspect that, before too long, the name of this case will have a red flag next to it on Westlaw, just like so many of our court’s other Second Amendment cases do. But hopefully next time, when the Supreme Court plants that flag, it will do so with a little more bite than it has before. Until then, I will assiduously but wearily dissent.”
We already have a major Second Amendment term in the making before the Court with the review of bans on semiautomatic weapons out of the Seventh Circuit in Chicago (Viramontes v. Cook County) and the Second Circuit in New York (Grant v. Higgins). I also wrote previously about the review of an important case from the Second Circuit on stun guns in Calce v. New York.
The addition of Yukutake would make this term the most consequential Second Amendment term since the Heller decision finding that the Second Amendment created an individual right to gun ownership.
We will be watching this one closely.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the New York Times best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
The Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave!
Unless the judicial branch—which couldn’t comprehend a fundamental corpus juris if its life depended on it—gets hold of it.
The right to keep and bear arms, the right to own private property, and the right to obtain retirement and health-care coverage through the free-market private sector—while assuming personal responsibility for one’s own life—are prerequisites for freedom. These rights are absolute everywhere but in the judicial branch and Supreme Court.
Thankfully lots of Trump voters will stay home from the polls on November 3rd simply because they can’t afford the gas needed to get there
If only there was a way to Vote by Mail……
[If only there were a way to cheat].
The Greeks created democracy in 508 B.C. with a severely restricted vote to preclude a “dictatorship of the majority,” “the poor,” “the incompetent,” “the incapable.”
To preclude Karl Marx’s “dictatorship of the proletariat.”
To keep the lunatics from taking charge of the asylum.
Hawaii has the fourth highest state tax take in the Country, and in spite of that, Hawaii’s public pension is significantly underfunded, with per‑capita pension debt among the highest in the U.S. There might have been hope, but the state’s “projected” $10 billion surplus vanished into a growing deficit. Funny how that happens.
You’d think Hawaii’s Democrat government would have more important things to do than harassing lawful gun owners, but no.
ESTOVIR is Diogenes above and scottwc427 below.
AND ANON IS A PSYCHO!! Seek help!
BAN FOR LIFE!
72 hour Psych evaluation ordered for MORON ANON!! Multiple disorders PSYCHO MORON ANON
😉
This gun grab will do nothing more than make law abiding citizens into “criminals.” Good people will start to skirt the law and we know that the real criminals will abide by none of the lefts gun control measures.
True that.
Looks like the fools running DOJ, and Aileen Cannon, Trump’s incompetent judge in Florida, have created quite the little conundrum for themselves.
As we all know, DOJ has launched an investigation into Jack Smith and his investigation of Trump.
As we all know Cannon sealed the records of Smith’s investigation, so we are not aware of his findings and what he knows about Trump.
The FBI agents who worked for Smith in his investigation, were all fired by Keystone Kop Kash after Trump took office. But now DOJ has subpoenaed them to testify to the grand jury investigating Smith. The problem is that, if Smith’s records are sealed, the FBI agents could be held in contempt if they testify to the grand jury.
So the agents have filed a motion in Cannon’s court asking her to clarify whether they can testify in the grand jury without fear of contempt charges.
Cannon has two options:
1. She can rule to unseal the records of Smith’s investigation.
2. She can rule that the records remain sealed, but the agents will not be held in contempt if they testify as to the contents of the sealed investigation.
If she unseals the records, then Smith is free to talk about them.
If she keeps the records sealed but orders that the FBI agents can testify without fear of contempt charges, then the agents are perfectly free to speak in public about their testimony. Witnesses in grand juries are free to talk about anything they said to the grand jury. The secrecy rules do not apply to witnesses. Not only will the agents be free to talk about their testimony, they will be highly motivated to do so after being fired.
My, my, my.
What a mess.
This investigation of Smith is going absolutely nowhere.
What are his legal bills to date?
IN AN ATTEMPT TO CONCEAL:
The total value consumed for Jack Smith’s defense is $140,000.
To lay out the exact facts without any further back-and-forth:
• The Value: A total of $140,000 worth of legal labor, time, and defense resources was fully expended and exhausted on his behalf.
• The Source: The elite Washington law firm Covington & Burling absorbed this cost, deploying their senior partners to provide this defense work.
• The Action: The firm chose to provide this as a pro bono gift rather than billing him for it.
Therefore, $140,000 worth of legal representation was fully delivered and utilized for his defense.
– Gemini
Smith has no legal expenses whatsoever.
Jack Smith is not paying any legal bills. He is represented by Lanny Breuer, at Covington & Burling. Breuer is a principle partner, and Vice-Chairman at Covington. Breuer and Smith are longtime friends. Breuer is a former DOJ Assistant Attorney General. He was the one who recruited Smith as Special Prosecutor.
Covington is representing Smith pro bono. In his last financial disclosure at DOJ, Smith reported $140,000 in free legal services from Covington, while he was still Special Prosecutor.
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/02/14/jack-smith-justice-department-019350
After Smith left DOJ, Covington issued a statement that they continue to represent Smith on a pro bono basis.
https://chicagocouncil.org/statement-opposing-trump-administrations-targeting-of-pro-bono-counsel-representing-jack-smith/
No. The Deep Deep State has legal expenses in the name of Jack Smith.
ANON’S DAILY TDS POST!! Bluesky would love you!
And the Smith issue has what to do with the topic of today’s post by JT?
To “register and submit to physical inspection [of] the firearm” constitutes infringement.
Only abject corruption and treason allow courts to support this infringement.
The corrective action of impeachment and conviction must be imposed with extreme prejudice.
Blue states are inherently despotic and envy the UK, Australia and Western Europe where, once they took away people’s right to possess firearms, they could arrest and imprison folks for their social media posts opposing or disagreeing with the official and unassailable government narratives.
brian1813 is Estovir.
ANON IS PSYCHO
BAN FOR LIFE!
You don’t have a life ANON!! 22 hours per day you post crap!!
There is no civil right the left abuses so readily and repeatedly more than the right to keep and bear arms. Imagine if a tenth or hundredth of the restrictions imposed on the First Amendment what the left’s reaction would be. Look how they squealed when President Trump kicked out three propagandists from the White House recently. Yet, they happily shred the Second Amendment with glee and without a bit of shame.
“There is no civil right the left abuses so readily and repeatedly more than the right to keep and bear arms.”
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Except the absolute and essential RIGHT TO PRIVATE PROPERTY that the Communist Manifesto abolishes.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2nd Amendment
No person shall be…deprived of…property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The singular American failure is the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court.
On a more important message to young men:
Unless you want kids, never get married!
Why don’t we just disband the 9th circuit court, since they almost always get it wrong and are frequently overturned by SCOTUS? At what point is enough? They are simply left-wing activists in black robes, nothing more.
As a 2A absolutist, seeing Turley walk into lecture hall with every student holding a long gun beside their desk would be priceless. If the guns were AR15s with 100 round magazines, laser sights, and suppressors would add to the excitement.
And the ads – “Baby’s First Handgun” “Don’t be Bullied on the Playground” “Don’t Say Bye-Bye, Say Drive By”
I wish that a thousand guys with rifles would storm the White House and frogmarch Trump out of it.
I wish you’d get some sense and dream a better dream without harm.
Maybe that will happen when the next leftist idiot sits in the WH. How woild you.like that?
Sounds like hate speech to me.
Created?
“…since the Heller decision finding that the Second Amendment created an individual right to gun ownership.”
aedwinvieira above and UpstateFarmer below are both Estovir.
PSYCHO post as usual from ANON
BAN FOR LIFE!
“Ironically, these states have proven a bonanza for gun rights advocates in triggering a series of massive losses before the Supreme Court and the expansion of protections under the Second Amendment.”
Yep.
Keep it up anti-gun groups. You just keep strengthing the 2ndA! Thank you!
^^ that was me. Fatfingered or call it a “typo” my addy.
Still as stupid as ever eh pig farmer. This guys think Pres. Jimmy Carter wrote the “Magna Carter”.
I want it so strong that drug dealers can open carry machine guns and that not be able to be used an excuse by police to stop and search them. A five year old should be allowed to carry a short barrel shotgun into a school because he felt bullied the day before by his entire class and he felt the need to defend himself. I want to see felons with robbery convictions free to carry fully automatic shotguns into banks. I want to see a guy get onto a plane with an arsenal of weapons in his carry on luggage. Guns, hand grenades, pipe bombs.
I want “shall not be infringed” to be pushed to the absolute wall.
So did the American Founders and Framers.
The Founders and Framers definitely didn’t want guns in the hands of slaves, much less those convicted of crimes.
Many were terrified of slaves learning to read. They certainly didn’t believe in universal rights.
“Crazy Abe” Lincoln was a great problem solver.
_____________________________________________________
“[Racial separation] [is necessary], and [though difficult] must be effected by colonization… The enterprise is a difficult one, but ‘where there is a will there is a way’; and what colonization needs most is a hearty will… Let us be brought to believe it is morally right, and at the same time [not against] our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime, and we shall find a way to do it.”
– Abraham Lincoln, Springfield, Illinois, June 26, 1857 (Adapted)
Enough with the ridiculous legal gamesmanship! Enough! We The People are getting really tired of it. We’re also tired of those who posit the legal system as an academic exercise and post opinions on the issue as though they are calling a play by play for a sports event. On the Second Amendment we are absolutists! The same is true for First Amendment, the Fourth and others! All of you are pushing our buttons. You are getting on our last nerve. Beware! Stop while you can still live with us. Keep pushing and we will take you to the proverbial woodshed and explain your limits, where your fist and the tip of my nose coincide. It’s your call.
“We The People are getting really tired of it”. YOU DO NOT SPEAK FOR THE PEOPLE.
All you 2nd er’s are a bunch of whiny arse fools. You have no brains and definitely no courage. So shut-up you stupid old man.
“No courage?” So says anonymous.
“No courage?” So says anonymous….. gawd you are glaringly stupid.
Anonymous is jealous of us older folks because we a) got a real education, b) dated, c) got drivers licenses, d) moved out of our parents homes, e) got jobs and worked hard enough to get ahead and prosper.
Young idiots like Anonymous have none of the above and that is why he is an angry little impotent loser.
Hull, you mean envious and not jealous. Envy is not Jealousy and both are vices. Covet is envy and destructive as is true of jealousy.
I had to correct you as vices are unnamed today.
Hullbobby is ESTOVIR.
ANON is a PSYCHO
BAN FOR LIFE!
Soon the govt ( like Britain ) will tell you to shut up. Then you will be whining about that.
The court knows that they are deliberately misreading the footnote, but they do it anyway … not as a product of the law, but as a product of them forcing their politics on others, even when they know it is wrong. In other words, these are bad human beings and they don’t belong in any positions of authority. Our culture has become post-war fat, dumb, and sloppy. Democrats seemingly call for a “revolution”, nowadays … and I’m beginning to agree, but not the revolution they’re thinking about.
It has become pretty easy to predict which judges rule in which direction based on who nominated them. Ironically the R nominated SCOTUS justices demonstrate more diversity of opinion than the Ds throughout the federal judiciary. If the Ds succeed in packing the court they will achieve the uniformity of opinion they desire as the Constitution, its amendments, and the Bill of Rights will become moot. Not a very good outcome for public at large.
After 50 plus years NOW you get?
Turley wrote an article that said, regardless of background, the Court is unanimous almost all the time. It hasn’t got a diversity of opinion.
unadultered0263 is ESTOVIR.
Get a life and a job PSYCHO ANON
BAN FOR LIFE!
Yes, of course Americans should be armed. Can laws be written to confine those arms to domicile and transport to ranges only? Arms cannot be left unattended in vehicles, additionally.
It would seem that the Ninths logic could apply to voter id. If having to get a license and have an inspection only impose minor procedural impediments, couldn’t the same be said about getting an id?
Good eye.
Come On Man – the Lefties just know there has to be a way ‘around’ that pesky 2A annoyance called YOUR RIGHT! They just need to be CLEVER BY HALF each time they show up at SCOTUS and hopefully one day the 6-3 flips in their favor and unwinds everything that came before! Either that or hope the DSA becomes the dominant party in Congress and the Old Racist Colonialist Documents get taken out and burned at the National Mall! Go Commies Go! Bah haha.
What does “shall not be infringed” mean? Golly gee, I’m not sure. Let me go look that up for you. I’ll get back to you in a century or two.
still waiting …
No hold breath
It’s the Ninth Circuit …
yeah – must be something in the water
Or the beer
Or that you’re all non-lawyers without and iota of smarts in legal issues.
Which absence of a single iota applies to the 9th circuit, routinely overturned by our highest court.
So stupid Steve awakes!
BTW, that esg. thing, you are a clown.
…that esg. thing, you are a clown
Projection is always your give away.
It is esq, as in Esquire, you clown. You didn’t get laid last night? yet again
And you think you’re the only one who knows that? Gawd you are so stupid. Laid huh? And you all day long on the street eh? So you’re the famous slu_tty Sally, gawd only knows what you spread…