(The Center Square) – Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel is leading a coalition of states urging a federal appeals court to uphold the entirety of Hawaii’s firearm permitting law.
Nessel is joined by 16 other attorneys general on the amicus brief which argues that states should have the authority to enact firearms regulations as they see fit.
“Every state has a responsibility to keep their residents safe, and that includes taking common-sense steps to reduce gun violence,” Nessel said of the brief. “Our laws should reflect the values and needs of our communities, and Hawaii’s firearm permitting regime does just that.”
This legal battle first started in 2021 when two citizens of Hawaii challenged two provisions of Hawaii’s firearms laws, arguing they violated the Second Amendment.
Those two provisions:
• Required a 30-day time limit on purchase permits, meaning the handgun must be acquired within 30 days of receiving the permit. That time limit was originally 10 days, but was later extended to 30.
• Instituted an inspection requirement for certain new firearms. That meant that gun owners had to physically bring their firearms to a police station for inspection within five days of its purchase.
The plaintiffs in Yukutake v. Lopez sought legal recourse for the provisions. The U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii sided with the gun owners, stating that those provisions were indeed unconstitutional and ordered them permanently ended.
Hawaii appealed that decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. That court then also ruled in favor of the plaintiffs.
“The purchase and acquisition of firearms is conduct protected by the plain text of the Second Amendment,” the court’s ruling stated. “The burden therefore fell on the State to justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation.”
Yet, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has since decided to review that decision via an en banc panel. That means that all the judges of the court will now hear and decide the case, instead of the panel of three judges who previously heard the case and issued a 2-1 decision.
Nessel argued in Michigan’s amicus brief, filed last week, that Hawaii’s provisions are “reasonable” and “public-safety focused.”
“By ensuring guns are in the hands of only responsible, law-abiding individuals, we can protect lives while upholding constitutional rights,” she said of the brief. “I am proud to lead this coalition supporting Hawai‘i’s commitment to protecting their residents.”
Michigan is joined on the amicus brief by 15 other states, all Democrat-run. Those include California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and the District of Columbia.
This was not the only amicus brief filed in this case. In August, a coalition of Second Amendment advocacy groups, including the Second Amendment Foundation, joined together to file their own amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs.
“No high burden is expected of plaintiffs besides that their proposed course of conduct merely implicate the Second Amendment,” that brief said. “This does indeed make the government’s life a bit more difficult, but that is no accident; a Constitutional right at issue, and one that commands that it ‘shall not be infringed.’”
