2ALC Files Amicus Brief Challenging State's "Sensitive Places" Law

On November 9, 2ALC filed an amicus brief in Wolford v. Lopez, now in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal. The case challenges Hawaii’s attempt to enforce a new law that bans carrying a firearm, even with a license, in almost every public place in Hawaii.

2ALC previously filed a similar amicus brief in the District Court in the same case, and the District Court judge (an Obama appointee) cited that brief as one of the reasons it ruled for the Plaintiffs and blocked enforcement of most of the law. The State of Hawaii has now appealed that District Court loss.

2ALC joined with the California Rifle & Pistol Association, Gun Owners of America, the Hawaii Rifle Association, Gun Owners of California, and Gun Owners Foundation on the amicus brief. This is a critical case that could establish an important legal precedent. So several other briefs were also filed, including one submitted by 17 states urging the Court of Appeal to strike down the law.

 2ALC’s brief reiterates some of the arguments made in the District Court brief, but also takes Hawaii to task for incorrectly asserting that the District Court miscalculated historical population figures and relying on questionable data presented by an antigun organization. As to the “vampire rule,” which requires private property and business owners to grant express permission (typically by posting a sign) before anyone is allowed to carry on private property, the amicus brief points out that no court has upheld such a restriction in the other four states that have tried to adopt a similar requirement.

California is the fifth state to enact a “sensitive places” ban on carrying in public places, even with a CCW, and also has passed a vampire rule. The California Rifle & Pistol Association (CRPA) is currently challenging that law (SB 2) in May v. Bonta and has sought an injunction from the California District Court. Briefing in the District Court is underway. The Ninth Circuit’s ruling in Wolford will affect the SB 2 litigation, so this amicus brief and the briefs filed by other 2A supporters are critical to 2ALC’s and CRPA’s efforts on behalf of California gun owners.

Keep me up to date in Hawaii!

* indicates required

2ALC Stepping Up to Protect Game-Changing 9th Circuit Win for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in 13 States and Nationally

Stakes Are High as Hawaii Seeks En Banc Review of Game-Changing 9th Circuit Win For the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in 13 States, and Nationally.

The State of Hawaii filed a petition last Wednesday requesting en banc review of a 9th Circuit three-judge panel’s unanimous ruling in Teter v. Lopez, 76 F.4th 938 (9th Cir. 2023). The Teter ruling declared Hawaii’s ban on butterfly knives unconstitutional, and the three-judge panel’s correct application of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bruen has implications that extend well beyond just butterfly knives, and well beyond Hawaii.

The case so far is a critical win for our Second Amendment rights, but Hawaii now seeks to reverse it through review by an 11-judge en banc panel. States facing Second Amendment lawsuits challenging various gun laws have worked very hard to twist and misapply the Bruen standard, and some courts have gone along with the distortions of Bruen that states are advocating. The Teter case so far sets the record straight on the proper methodology for evaluating the constitutioanlity of arm (not just firearm) bans. It a critical win for our Second Amendment rights that Hawaii now seeks to reverse through en banc review.

The Second Amendment Law Center is assisting the plaintiffs in the case and preparing briefs to preserve this ruling.

The Teter decision confirmed that the Second Amendment applies prima facie to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, and that all laws prohibiting law-abiding citizens from acquiring arms are presumptively unconstitutional. More importantly, the Teter decision correctly laid out how Bruen’s analogical reasoning test should be applied in any Second Amendment case challenging any gun law. The three-judge panel unanimously (and correctly) rejected the argument that laws mainly governing the manner of carrying arms can justify modern complete possession bans because “how” a law addresses a societal concern is part of the Bruen test to determine whether a historical law can be used to justify a modern law. A historical law regulating the manner of carry is entirely different from a modern law banning possession entirely.

If upheld, the Teter approach will become the mandatory standard for evaluating Second Amendment challenges in the nine states and three territories covered by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. So this is a colossal ruling favorable for the right to keep and bear arms. Other Circuit Courts nationwide will be hard-pressed to reject the approach, meaning this case has national implications.

Hawaii’s request for en banc review rages against the three-judge panel’s ruling, even though the 3-0 ruling merely adopted a proper application of the approach mandated by the Supreme Court’s precedent in Bruen. Every critical point the panel made in its decision was backed up with a direct pinpoint citation to the Bruen or Heller decisions. Nonetheless, Hawaii insists that only weapons commonly used for self-defense are protected by the text of the Second Amendment, despite the Supreme Court saying all “lawful purposes” are protected. The State went so far as to complain that this makes the 9th Circuit “the first circuit to strike down a ban on a particular category of weapon after Bruen” as if that is somehow objectionable. (Heller, of course, struck down such a ban on handguns.)

In its request, Hawaii warns that if the panel’s ruling is left intact, it will “govern challenges involving many highly dangerous weapons” like “assault weapons, high-capacity magazines, and more.” The State concludes by breathlessly suggesting that granting en banc review is a “matter of life and death.”

Hawaii’s request for en banc review will now be circulated to all active 9th Circuit judges and any senior judge who has chosen to participate. The circuit court has ordered the plaintiffs to respond to the state’s request for the court to rehear the case en banc. Once that brief is filed, the court will decide whether to grant en banc review.

If most active judges vote in favor of rehearing or rehearing en banc, the Chief Judge will order that the case to be heard by an 11-judge en banc panel. If no majority is reached, the three-judge panel ruling becomes final. Currently, there are 28 active judges on the circuit. The current ideological split is closely divided, with 15 Democratic appointees and 13 Republican appointees. So well-prepared amicus briefs could help persuade one or two judges who are on the fence to vote against en banc review.

2ALC is actively involved now getting amicus briefs lined up.

Donate to support 2ALC’s work to protect this crucial win here. Subscribe at 2ALC.org

Keep me up to date in Hawaii!

* indicates required

2ALC Launches New Amicus Campaign in Appeal of Sensitive Places Win

As previously reported, the State of Hawaii has appealed the US District Court ruling that invalidated significant portions of SB 1230, the law passed earlier this summer that would restrict 2A rights in the state by designating most of the state a “sensitive place” where possession of a firearm is prohibited.

2ALC supported the case in the District Court, and will once again support the case with a coordinated amicus brief campaign in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals..

“As we saw in the first ruling on this case, amicus campaigns play a critical role in post-Bruen cases,” noted 2ALC President & Senior Legal Advisor Chuck Michel. “Providing an intricate look at the historical basis, or lack thereof, for new law impacting the Second Amendment gives judges the proper context for their rulings.”

In the original ruling, Obama appointee Judge Lesli Kobayashi actually cited the 2ALC amicus briefs submitted in the case as part of her ruling. Her decision struck down significant portions of the law, which mimics attempts by states such as California and New Jersey to designate huge swaths of their geography as “sensitive places” where carrying a firearm, even with a license, is prohibited.

Even though this approach was specifically called out in and prohibited by the Bruen decision, anti-gun legislators in multiple states continue to try to get around the Supreme Court’s mandate by passing unconstitutional laws to see if they can get a court to buy their arguments. This is why 2ALC is fighting, along with our allies and strategic partners, EVERYWHERE this tactic is tried.

Please sign up below to keep updated on this case and, if you are so inclined, please consider contributing to help support this campaign.

Keep me up to date in Hawaii!

* indicates required

State of Hawaii Appeals Ruling in SB 1230 Case

As expected, the State of Hawaii filed an appeal in the Ninth Circuit seeking to overturn the recent US District Court ruling from Judge Lesli Kobayashi that knocked out significant portions of Hawaii’s new law that creates dozens of new “sensitive places” when guns are not allowed even with a carry permit. If the law stays in pace, it will be hard for a permit holder to drive across town without breaking the law.

Second Amendment Law Center is already working to coordinate an amicus brief campaign in the Ninth Circuit to hold onto this great win for Hawaii gun owners.

The new law, SB 1230, was signed into law back in June. It uses the same vindictive “every place is a ‘sensitive place’” gambit that gun ban advocates in other states have used — unsuccessfully - to try to get around the Bruen decision from the United States Supreme Court. They try this despite a warning in the Bruen opinion about using such unconstitutional tactics.

2ALC is working already working in several of those states to support right-to-carry lawsuits and will do the same in this Hawaii case.

In the recent ruling, Judge Kobayashi quoted directly from the amicus briefs coordinated by Second Amendment Law Center, highlighting the crucial role such briefs have come to play in the post-Bruen era of 2A litigation. As the legal fight continues nationally, more support is needed.

“Bruen points judges to historical context to assess the validity of modern laws, so the importance of the amicus brief in providing rich legal research has increased exponentially,” notes 2ALC President & Senior Legal Counsel Chuck Michel. “Amicus briefs add depth to the arguments made by the attorneys in the case and, as we’ve seen in Hawaii, can be very influential with the courts.”

2ALC will again be coordinating an amicus campaign to support the appeals proceedings for this Hawaii case. Sign up below to stay up to date and, if you are able, please consider supporting our effort with a tax-deductible donation. Thank you for your support!

Keep me up to date in Hawaii!

* indicates required

Court Blocks Hawaii’s Concealed Carry Restrictions, Quotes 2ALC Amicus in Ruling

The Supreme Court’s ruling from last June in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen set off a fierce backlash in the anti-gun-owner states. Several states passed (or plan to pass) Bruen response bills that undermine the right to carry both by making CCW permits harder to get and, more nefariously, making nearly everywhere a “sensitive place” where public carry is forbidden even with a permit. 

Hawaii passed such a law (SB 1230) that restricts access to concealed carry permits, designates many properties as “sensitive places” where carry permits are invalid, and makes carrying in most places prohibited unless a sign is posted that expressly allows carry on the premises. 

This approach of paying lip service and feigning compliance with the Second Amendment while making it a crime to exercise that right practically anywhere has been adopted in several states. 

 A lawsuit challenging the Hawaii law as unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, Wolford v. Lopez, was brought by the Hawaii Firearms Coalition and several individual plaintiffs. The lawsuit seeks to block SB 1320 from taking effect. 

Yesterday (August 8), a United State District Court Judge granted the plaintiffs’ request for a restraining order blocking most of Hawaii’s law. So, Hawaii’s ban on carrying in parks, beaches, places that serve alcohol, banks, certain parking lots, and private property held open to the public (except by invitation) is blocked from taking effect—for now.  But this fight is not over yet. 

Judge Lesli E. Kobayashi (an Obama appointee) issued a thorough 91-page ruling in which she faithfully applied the Bruen test in blocking most of the law from taking effect. 

To support the plaintiffs’ request to block the law the Second Amendment Law Center, Gun Owners of America, the Hawaii Rifle Association, California Rifle & Pistol Association, Gun Owners of California, and Gun Owners Foundation filed an amicus (friend of the court) brief in the District Court in the Wolford case. You can read the brief HERE. Another impressive amicus brief was filed by our friends at the Second Amendment Foundation. Read it by clicking HERE. 

That Amicus Brief helped make this win happen. The Judge quoted the Second Amendment Law Center Amicus Brief in her ruling!  

In trying to convince the court that the law is constitutional, Hawaii argued that the state’s concerns for public safety justified it. Judge Kobayashi cited the GOA Amici’s brief in rejecting the state’s arguments: 
 “According to the GOA [and others] Amicus Brief, the vast majority of individuals in the United States with concealed carry permits are law-abiding. See GOA Amicus Brief at 20–25 (discussing the statistics of people with concealed carry permits to support the proposition that people with concealed carry permits are significantly less likely to commit gun-related crimes)… 
 …Although it is possible post-Bruen that more conceal carry permits are eventually issued in Hawai`i, that alone does not negate Plaintiffs’ position that the vast majority of conceal carry permit holders are law abiding. See, e.g., GOA Amicus Brief at 21–22 (stating that Texas in 2020 had 1,441 convictions for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon but only four of those convictions were people with valid concealed carry permits – roughly 0.278% of the total).” 

Credit of course goes to the plaintiffs and their lawyers Alan Beck and Kevin O'Grady. 2ALC is thrilled that the data we presented in our team’s amicus brief helped convince Judge Kobayashi to reach the right ruling.  

Laws like the one in Hawaii have already been tried in places like California, New York, and New Jersey. Those laws have also been challenged in the federal courts — which have mostly struck down these unconstitutional requirements.  

Right now, the California legislature is getting ready to pass a similar law (SB 2) that would make it harder to get a CCW and make a CCW invalid in so many places that the permit would be practically useless, and accidental violations would be common. The California Rifle & Pistol Association (CRPA) and its strategic partners, including Gun Owners of California, Second Amendment Foundation, and Gun Owners of America, have a lawsuit ready to file to stop SB 2. Now the win in Hawaii will be used as legal precedent in briefs to block SB 2 from taking effect. This is why we fight all over the country for the rights of so many! 

Recently 2ALC successfully coordinated similar amicus brief campaigns in Illinois and Delaware (opposing bans on commonly possessed semi-automatic firearms and standard capacity magazines) and is also working to support lawsuits challenging unconstitutional gun bans in New Jersey, Massachusetts, Oregon, Washington, Washington, D.C., and other jurisdictions. Billionaire Michael Bloomberg and others financially support anti-gun-owner groups, and these groups routinely submit amicus briefs supporting unconstitutional laws. This makes 2ALC’s amicus brief campaigns critical to success – as the ruling in Hawaii demonstrates! 

Please help us by supporting this vital work that will push these cases across the finish line. We need strong voices from multiple groups to convince the court to rule in our favor. Please consider a donation and remember to subscribe below for updates! 

2ALC FILES AMICUS BRIEFS IN WOLFORD V. LOPEZ

This past Friday, the Second Amendment Law Center, joined by several prominent pro 2A groups including Gun Owners of America, the Hawaii Rifle Association, California Rifle & Pistol Association, Gun Owners of California, and Gun Owners Foundation filed an amicus (friend of the court) brief in US District Court in Hawaii in the case of Wolford v. Lopez. That case challenges Hawaii’s newly signed SB 1230. The new law makes a license to carry a firearm invalid almost everywhere. You can read the brief HERE.

Another impressive amicus brief was filed by our friends at the Second Amendment Foundation. Read it by clicking HERE.

Amicus briefs are essential because the attorneys for the parties in a case are not allowed to fund or participate in writing amicus briefs. So there is a critical need for the Second Amendment Law Center, with experience in Second Amendment issues, to step in and offer assistance.

“The Second Amendment Law Center is encouraged by the strong support provided by our amicus campaign in this case. As these briefs show, Hawaii’s onerous new law makes a license to carry of firearm invalid almost everywhere, and is unconstitutional, particularly as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Bruen,” remarked Chuck Michel, President & General Counsel of the Second Amendment Law Center.

Separately, days ago the National Shooting Sports Foundation filed a lawsuit challenging Hawaii’s recently-enacted public nuisance law, which – unless it is enjoined – will allow almost anyone to file frivolous lawsuits against members of the firearm industry for the misuse of firearms by criminals. That law is designed to bankrupt gun retailers and evade the judgment of the U.S. Supreme Court as well as laws enacted by Congress that prohibit such private lawsuits. 2ALC will be organizing an amicus campaign to support that lawsuit as well.

Please consider donating to support the ongoing effort to roll back SB 1230! And remember to sign up below to receive updates as this case progresses!

AMICUS BRIEFS DUE FRIDAY JULY 14 IN SB 1230 CHALLENGE

The Second Amendment Law Center is pleased to announce our amicus brief campaign supporting Wolford v. Lopez, the challenge to Hawaii’s newly signed SB 1230. Amicus briefs are due tomorrow, July 14, 2023.

Our team worked hard to recruit amicus groups to support the plaintiffs’ efforts to overturn significant provisions of SB 1230, which was signed into law last month. We will update this story tomorrow and list the amicus briefs that get filed, along with a summary of the points these briefs make. Subscribe to stay informed.

Amicus briefs are essential because the attorneys for the parties in a case are not allowed to fund or participate in writing amicus briefs and therefore need a group like Second Amendment Law Center, with experience in Second Amendment issues, to step in and offer assistance.

Recently, 2ALC successfully coordinated similar amicus brief campaigns in Illinois (opposing Illinois ban on commonly possessed semi-automatic firearms and standard capacity magazines), and Hawaii, where briefs are due later this week. Currently, 2ALC is also working to support lawsuits challenging unconstitutional gun bans in Oregon, Washington, Washington, D.C., and other jurisdictions hostile to 2A rights. Billionaire Michael Bloomberg and others financially support anti-gun-owner groups, and these groups routinely submit amicus briefs supporting unconstitutional laws. This makes 2ALC’s amicus brief campaigns critical to success.

“SB 1230’s attempt at snuffing out Second Amendment rights follows what is becoming an all-too-familiar playbook. Our amicus brief campaign illustrates the history and precedence before the court as it considers the issues at the core of this challenge,” remarked Chuck Michel, President & General Counsel of the Second Amendment Law Center.

Please help us by supporting this vital work that will push these cases across the finish line. We need strong voices from multiple groups to convince the court to rule in our favor. Please consider a donation and remember to subscribe below for updates!

2ALC LAUNCHES AMICUS CAMPAIGN TO SUPPORT SB 1230 CHALLENGE

Plaintiffs filed their lawsuit last week in the case of Wolford v. Lopez, which challenges significant portions of Hawaii law that restricts access to concealed carry permits, designates many properties as “sensitive places” where carry permits are invalid, and makes carrying in most places prohibited unless a sign is posted that expressly allows carry on the premises. These provisions were added through SB 1230, which was signed by Governor Josh Green earlier this month.

As described in 2ALC’s most recent post (see below), SB 1230 attempted to greatly expand the definition of “sensitive places” in which a firearm could not be carried. This approach of paying lip service and feigning compliance with the Second Amendment while actually making it a crime to exercise that right practically anywhere has already been tried in places like California, New York, and New Jersey and has been challenged in the federal courts — which have mostly struck down these unconstitutional requirements.

The new law also added further subjective criteria to the CCW application process, providing even greater obstacles to obtaining a concealed carry permit. As the complaint points out, Hawaii was already incredibly stingy with CCW permits, having “less than a half-dozen carry concealed permits” in the decades before the Bruen decision.

Understanding the importance of preventing laws like this from becoming normalized and spreading to other states, the Second Amendment Law Center is already working to coordinate an amicus brief campaign to support the plaintiffs challenging the Hawaii law, including our friends at the Hawaii Firearms Coalition.. These briefs are due on July 14th, so time is of the essence.

2ALC’s efforts paid off in Illinois this week, where amicus briefs were filed urging the 7th Circuit Court of Appeal to strike down Illinois’ ban on semi-automatic firearms, standard capacity magazines, and a whole lot more. We are also working on a campaign in Delaware, with briefs due on Monday, July 3rd. Similar campaigns are also in the works in other states. Our efforts in Hawaii are now at the top of our list!

A well-coordinated amicus brief campaign can make the difference between winning and losing a case. The parties to a case are prohibited from writing or funding amicus briefs, and typically cannot cover subjects as comprehensively as they would like due to court-imposed page limitations.

Please consider donating to help this critical cause and help fend off attacks on the fundamental right of Hawaiians, and indeed all Americans, to self-defense!

2ALC SUPPORTING CHALLENGES TO NEW HAWAII GUN LAWS

Hawaii is following a vindictive playbook that has already been used in California, New York, and New Jersey to frustrate rights the Supreme Court's Bruen decision makes clear are constitutionally guaranteed. As revenge for the Supreme Court's decision, the State of Hawaii passed SB 1230 SD1, a sweeping new law designed to severely restrict the rights of lawful gun owners.

The Second Amendment Law Center will coordinate an amicus brief campaign and support legal challenges to the new law.

The new law broadly defines “sensitive places" where firearms are prohibited. This approach has been used in other states, including California, in the wake of the Bruen decision as a cynical and ham-handed way to limit firearm access without directly banning gun ownership. As a practical matter, there are so many places where a gun will be prohibited even with a carry license that you won't be able to drive across town without breaking the law. There are multiple legal challenges to those law already in court.

"A right that can't be exercised is not a right at all, let alone a fundamental right," remarked 2ALC President & Senior Legal Counsel Chuck Michel. "Calling every place ‘sensitive’ and prohibiting guns there doesn't wash with Heller, Bruen, or the Constitution."

In addition, the law makes it very difficult and expensive to get a permit to carry in public. It denies permits to anyone "found to be lacking the essential character or temperament necessary to be entrusted with a firearm." These absurdly subjective criteria will be used to deny lawful gun owners a permit because a biased government bureaucrat doesn't like their behavior or associations.

“The Supreme Court has already warned governments against conditioning exercise of the right to keep and bear arms on subjective factors. The subjective evaluation of a biased government agent violates the essence of the entire Bill of Rights, and especially the Second Amendment,” Michel noted.

Keep me up to date in Hawaii!

* indicates required