The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling on Sept. 6 addressing the constitutionality of firearm restrictions in Hawaii and California.
In both states, the court partially reversed the lower court’s temporary block on enforcing new laws and will now allow bans on carrying firearms in bars and restaurants that serve alcohol, parks, and parking areas adjacent to these locations to go into effect.
The court upheld injunctions blocking gun bans from going into effect at locations such as financial institutions in both states and hospitals, public transit, and other locations in California—meaning the laws banning guns at those locations are still temporarily blocked.
The legal challenges focused on Hawaii’s Act 52 and a similar California law, which restricted carrying firearms in “sensitive places” such as parks, restaurants that serve alcohol, and private property open to the public.
The plaintiffs, which included gun owners and organizations like the Hawaii Firearms Coalition and the California Gun Rights Foundation, argued that these laws violated their Second Amendment rights.
Both new sets of state laws also reversed the traditional rule that allowed firearms on private property unless expressly prohibited by the owner, instead making a new rule banning firearms unless owners explicitly allowed them.
The laws which “flipped” the default rule required explicit permission either through written, verbal, or posted signs in Hawaii, and only through posted signage in California.
The lower court struck down the provisions that required property owners to post signs or give explicit consent, stating that such requirements exceeded historical limits on gun rights.
The new appellate court ruling reversed the injunction against Hawaii’s provision allowing verbal or written consent, but upheld it for California’s stricter signage requirement.
‘Sensitive Places’
Hawaii’s Act 52 prohibited the carrying of firearms in 15 types of locations, while California’s law restricted firearms in over two dozen.
For California, the new ruling upheld the temporary block on laws banning firearms at hospitals and similar medical facilities, public transit facilities, gatherings that require a permit, places of worship, financial institutions, parking areas and similar areas connected to those places.
Meanwhile, the appellate court reversed course from the lower court—allowing laws to take effect in California that ban the carry of firearms 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 Department of Fish and Wildlife, casinos and similar gambling establishments, stadiums, arenas, public libraries, amusement parks, zoos, and museums, parking areas and similar areas connected to those places, and all parking areas connected to other sensitive places listed in the statute.
The court based its decision on the framework established by the 2022 Supreme Court ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which requires courts to assess whether modern firearm regulations align with historical practices.
The Ninth Circuit noted that while some locations, such as parks and bars, had historical precedents for banning firearms, other places did not.
For example, the court’s ruling highlighted that the historical record does not demonstrate a national tradition of banning firearms in banks, although private banks may still restrict firearms at their discretion.
“States permissibly may prohibit firearms in most parks,” the court noted, referencing 19th-century laws that first banned firearms in public parks as they began to emerge in major cities.
The court acknowledged that the list of places where states may ban firearms, such as museums but not churches, or restaurants but not hospitals, may appear inconsistent—but added that the inconsistency arises from the deep historical analysis required by the Bruen decision.
The court added that such rulings using the Bruen test are likely to lead to further legal challenges as jurisdictions try to comply with constitutional boundaries.
From The Epoch Times