The en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on September 22 reversed an injunction that had blocked two parts of Hawaii’s firearm acquisition system. In Yukutake v. Lopez, the majority held that a 30-day deadline for using a handgun acquisition permit and a physical-inspection requirement for certain firearms fit within a presumptively constitutional, non-abusive shall-issue regime. The court sent the case back to the federal district court for further proceedings rather than entering a final judgment for either side on every issue.
The two requirements at issue
Hawaii Revised Statutes Section 134-2(e) makes a permit to acquire a pistol or revolver void if it is not used within 30 days after issuance. A permit holder who misses that window must restart the application process. The second provision, Section 134-3, requires an acquirer to complete a form identifying the firearm by details such as caliber, serial number, and manufacturer. Physical inspection at a police station now applies in specified circumstances, including private-party transfers, certain self-manufactured or three-dimensionally printed firearms, and firearms brought into Hawaii from another jurisdiction.
Invalid Date
More Articles
Todd Yukutake and David Kikukawa challenged those requirements after Yukutake obtained a handgun permit but did not complete his acquisition before the then-applicable deadline. They also argued that bringing firearms to a police station consumed owners’ and police time. In August 2021, the district court granted them summary judgment and permanently enjoined enforcement. The law later changed: the handgun permit-use period increased from 10 to 30 days, and the inspection rule was narrowed from virtually all acquired firearms to the listed categories. The Ninth Circuit held that those amendments did not end the dispute because the alleged constitutional defects remained substantially similar.
The Supreme Court decided New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen after the district court entered its injunction. A divided three-judge Ninth Circuit panel later affirmed, but that opinion was vacated when the court granted rehearing en banc. The 11-judge court heard argument on March 24, 2026, and issued its opinion on September 22. Its judgment removes the district court injunction, subject to proceedings on remand.
How the majority applied Bruen
The majority treated Bruen footnote 9 as recognizing a presumption that objective, non-discretionary and non-abusive shall-issue systems are constitutional. It noted that Hawaii must issue permits to applicants who satisfy specified criteria, unlike a may-issue system that gives officials discretion to deny an otherwise qualified applicant. The plaintiffs did not challenge Hawaii’s fingerprint, Social Security number, mental-health-history or other basic application requirements in this case. The dispute was confined to the post-issuance purchase deadline and the acquisition-linked inspection rule.
Rather than decide whether the case belonged at step one or step two of Bruen’s text-and-history framework, the court asked whether the two provisions had been put toward “abusive ends” that effectively denied ordinary citizens their Second Amendment rights. The majority said the plaintiffs had not made that showing. It characterized the 30-day deadline as a reasonable period and the inspection as a brief administrative visit for only the covered firearm categories. In the court’s view, those requirements impose modest procedural burdens and do not materially impede firearm acquisition.
That reasoning produces an immediate practical result for Hawaii buyers. The prior statewide injunction no longer blocks the challenged requirements, so permit holders cannot rely on the 2021 order as authority to ignore the 30-day use deadline or an applicable inspection obligation. The opinion does not turn Hawaii into a discretionary licensing jurisdiction, erase the permit process, or require physical inspection of every dealer-bought firearm. Whether an inspection is required still depends on the acquisition category described in the current statute.
Three dissents dispute the safe harbor
Judge Ryan Nelson, joined in substantial part by four other judges, argued that acquiring arms is covered by the Second Amendment’s plain text and that Hawaii therefore had to identify a representative historical analogue. His dissent said Bruen footnote 9 addressed public-carry licensing, not post-approval restrictions on buying a handgun for possession. It also emphasized that the inspection for covered firearms must occur within five days of acquisition and operates after the purchaser has completed the background check, training and other qualification requirements. In his view, Hawaii had not carried its historical burden.
Judge Danielle Forrest agreed with most of Nelson’s analysis but wrote separately on remedy. She would have affirmed the district court while sending the case back to narrow the injunction to the two plaintiffs. Judge Lawrence VanDyke proposed broader bright-line approaches based on national prevalence of the regulated conduct and whether a state rule is an outlier.
The remand leaves the district court to implement the en banc judgment and address any remaining proceedings. The majority expressly declined to define how much delay, expense or administrative burden would make a shall-issue provision abusive, while acknowledging that lengthy waits, exorbitant fees or other requirements could cross that line. The plaintiffs may also seek further appellate review, but the opinion announces no petition deadline or later hearing. For now, the controlling Ninth Circuit holding is that these two current Hawaii provisions have not been shown abusive on the record before the court.
About the Author
Nick Sawinyh - Nick Sawinyh is a father, husband, hobby farmer, and gun enthusiast from Kentucky. He founded GunsNation and writes most of what appears on this blog.
