9th Circuit upholds Hawaii gun rules as dissenters accuse court of misreading Bruen

A divided 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Hawaii's firearm licensing rules Tuesday, reigniting an increasingly contentious debate among the court's judges over how they are applying the Supreme Court's recent Second Amendment decisions.

The en banc court reversed a district court injunction blocking two provisions: one requiring handgun purchasers to use an acquisition permit within 30 days and another requiring certain firearms to be brought to a police station for inspection after acquisition.

The majority opinion, written by Judge John B. Owens, said the requirements impose only "modest, procedural burdens" as part of Hawaii's nondiscretionary "shall-issue" licensing system.

Judge Ryan D. Nelson, joined by Judges Daniel A. Bress and Lawrence VanDyke and in substantial part by Judges Bridget S. Bade and Danielle J. Forrest, argued that the majority fundamentally misread the Supreme Court's 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.

The dispute centers on footnote 9 of Bruen, which said the decision should not be interpreted to invalidate objective "shall-issue" licensing regimes but left open challenges when permitting systems are used for abusive ends.

The majority treated the footnote as making non-abusive shall-issue requirements presumptively constitutional.

The ruling, as almost all Second Amendment cases before the 9th Circuit do, fell along sharp partisan lines, with all six judges appointed by Democratic presidents upholding the Hawaii law while all five judges appointed by Republican presidents dissented in part or in full.

Owens wrote that the three-judge panel ruling enjoining Hawaii's law was at odds "with every other circuit court to analyze shall-issue laws after Bruen" and urged the U.S. Supreme Court to resolve the dispute.

Nelson countered that it addressed public-carry licensing, not restrictions on acquiring firearms for possession in the home, and did not displace Bruen's text-and-history analysis.

"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," Nelson wrote.

VanDyke, who has repeatedly clashed with colleagues over the 9th Circuit's approach to gun rights, was more caustic.

"If our court's takeaway from Bruen is that Bruen changed the law to make it harder to mount a successful Second Amendment challenge, then somebody has seriously lost the plot," he wrote.

He pointed to the circuit's record before Bruen, writing that the government had amassed an "undefeated, 50-0 record" in Second Amendment challenges.

"It's hard to imagine how the same court of appeals" could, after the Supreme Court's decisions in Bruen, Hemani and Wolford, "develop a body of law less sympathetic to firearm-regulation challengers," VanDyke wrote. "But we've managed to do so. Where there's a will, there's a way, I guess."

The criticism continues a conspicuous intramural fight. In March 2025, VanDyke attached an 18-minute YouTube video to his dissent from an en banc decision upholding California's large-capacity magazine ban in Duncan v. Bonta. In the video, he handled several firearms while demonstrating why he disagreed with California's argument that large-capacity magazines were accessories rather than protected arms.

Senior Judge Marsha Berzon, joined by the chief judge and four colleagues, called the video "wildly improper," saying VanDyke relied on material outside the record and effectively appointed himself an expert witness. VanDyke responded that the demonstration illustrated a conceptual rather than factual point.

In Tuesday's case, Nelson said conventional application of Bruen would require Hawaii to identify a historical tradition supporting its restrictions. He concluded the state had failed to identify an adequate historical analogue for either its 30-day deadline or firearm-inspection requirement.

Alan A. Beck, of the Law Offices of Alan Beck in San Diego, represented the plaintiffs.

"The Ninth Circuit's opinion in Yukutake contradicts the U.S. Supreme Court's rulings in Bruen and Wolford. I will be filing a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court in short order," Beck said in a statement.

Jo-Ann T. Sagar, Hogan Lovells Cadwalader US LLP in Washington, D.C., represented the state of Hawaii. She could not be reached immediately for comment.

The case is Yukutake v. Lopez, 21-16756 (9th Cir., filed Sept. 22, 2026).