With caveats, Ninth Circuit upholds gun-free zones in California, Hawaii
In evaluating state laws restricting guns in certain places, a Ninth Circuit panel heeded the Supreme Court's directive to examine historical traditions.
by Michael Gennaro, Court House News, September 6, 2024
(CN) — A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit on Friday ruled that California was within its rights to establish gun-free zones in “sensitive places” like parks, beaches and businesses that serve alcohol.
But the panel did remove some places from that list, finding they were not adequately backed by historical tradition.
"Our nation has a clear historical tradition of banning firearms at sensitive places," Senior U.S. Circuit Judge Susan Graber, a Bill Clinton appointee, wrote in an 84-page opinion for the court. "In its modern decisions concerning the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court has emphasized that its rulings do not call into question longstanding laws prohibiting the carry of firearms at sensitive places such as schools, parks and government buildings.”
Firearm advocates had challenged California’s Senate Bill 2, signed by California Governor Gavin Newsom in 2023. The bill designated 26 different "sensitive places" where concealed firearms are not allowed, including churches, schools, child care facilities, playgrounds, parks, stadiums and banks.
Gun rights groups and concealed-carry permit holders filed two lawsuits against California, challenging most of the no-gun zones set up by SB 2. In December, a federal judge preliminarily blocked the challenged provisions of the new law.
On appeal, the groups were joined by plaintiffs from Hawaii, who had challenged a similar law there prohibiting guns in certain places.
In that case as well, a federal judge had granted the plaintiffs a preliminary injunction. The defendants in the Hawaii and California cases appealed, and the Ninth Circuit consolidated and decided on both cases Friday.
In its decision, the Ninth Circuit panel noted there was a national tradition of banning firearms in certain places.
In that respect, they reasoned, lower federal judges in Hawaii and California had erred when they granted injunctions. That was true even when accounting for New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, a 2022 Supreme Court decision that found a range of gun regulations across the country did not have historical backing and were unconstitutional.
Under that new historical-tradition standard, the panel concluded that some but not all of the places specified by Hawaii and California fell within a tradition of prohibiting firearms at sensitive places.
Businesses that sell alcohol, for example, have a long tradition of not allowing firearms, Graber said.
“Dating back to the colonial era," officials had understood that "firearms and intoxication are a dangerous mix," Graber wrote. She cited laws that had banned that mix, including in Chicago in 1851 and in Missouri in 1883.
As for parks, Graber noted that restrictions on firearms go back to the 1800s.
“The constitutionality of those bans was unquestioned," she wrote. "Those regulations are akin to laws recognized by Bruen as sufficiently representative."
At the same time, the panel did enjoin bans on carrying guns in certain types of places after finding they weren't similarly backed by historical tradition. Among them: schools, hospitals, banks, public transit and places of worship.
C.D. Michel, a senior partner at Michel & Associates who represented the plaintiffs, slammed the ruling in a statement to Courthouse News.
“For over 100 years people who qualified for and were issued a license to carry a firearm in public were able to carry their firearm for self-defense in all of the places that the state attempted to ban permit holders from carrying in," he wrote. "There has never been an incident with a permit holder related to those places. This law was never about safety."
The office of California Attorney General Rob Bonta, a Democrat, declined to comment on the ruling. A spokesperson said the office was reviewing the decision.
In addition to Graber, Friday's panel consisted of Senior U.S. Circuit Judge Mary Schroeder, a Jimmy Carter appointee, and U.S. Circuit Judge Jennifer Sung, a Joe Biden appointee.
* * * * *
NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS UPHOLDS CRUCIAL LAWS REGULATING CONCEALED CARRY OF FIREARMS
News Release from Hawaii Attorney General, September 6, 2024
HONOLULU – In the case of Jason Wolford v. Anne E. Lopez, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion upholding crucial Hawaiʻi laws intended to protect the public from gun violence.
In 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court made a significant change to Second Amendment law in the Bruen case, which affected state laws restricting the public carry of firearms.
Following the decision, Governor Josh Green, M.D., signed Act 52 in 2023, establishing a comprehensive framework for firearm regulation, recognized nationwide for its public protection measures. Act 52 ensures that those carrying firearms in public are law-abiding and do so safely, to protect Hawaiʻi’s residents as much as possible in the post-Bruen era. Among other things, Act 52 instituted a default rule that firearms are prohibited on another’s private property unless they received express authorization from the private-property owner, and instituted specific “sensitive places” where firearms generally cannot be carried.
In 2023, a U.S. District Court judge issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting enforcement of the law requiring that firearms are prohibited on private property open to the public without express authorization, which essentially allowed firearms to be carried on such property unless firearms are expressly prohibited. The decision further enjoined, or halted, the enforcement of laws that prohibited the carrying of firearms in public beaches, public parks and adjacent parking areas; bars and restaurants that serve alcohol and their adjacent parking areas; financial institutions and their adjacent parking areas, and parking lots shared by government and non-governmental buildings.
The Ninth Circuit’s decision today almost entirely reversed the district court’s injunction, reinstating crucial laws intended to protect the public from gun violence. In particular, the Ninth Circuit upheld Act 52’s default rule prohibiting the carrying of firearms on private property owned by another without their consent in full, as well as the prohibitions on the carrying of firearms on beaches and parks, and restaurants and bars that serve alcohol, along with their adjacent parking areas.
“The state of Hawaiʻi takes public safety seriously,” says Solicitor General of Hawaiʻi Kalikoʻonālani D. Fernandes. “This is a significant decision recognizing that the state’s public safety measures are consistent with our nation’s historical tradition.”
“We are very gratified that the court of appeals rejected the trial court’s overly broad restriction on Hawai‘i’s ability to keep our people safe,” said Special Deputy Attorney General Neal Katyal of the law firm Hogan Lovells, who formerly served as the U.S. Solicitor General. “Hawai‘i’s gun safety laws are grounded in common sense, and we will fight vigorously to protect them.”
###
PDF: Wolford v Lopez Opinions
HIFICO: EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY Due to the 9th... - Hawaii Firearms Coalition | Facebook
SA: California, Hawaii can ban guns in bars and parks, appeals court rules “I certainly am happy that they ruled for us on the issue of banks and shared parking lots,” said Alan Beck, a lawyer for the Hawaii plaintiffs, adding that the issue of a ban on private property could go to the Supreme Court.
HNN: Hawaii can enforce gun bans in some public places, appeals court rules
SA: Court ruling supports Hawaii gun restrictions | Honolulu Star-Advertiser
J: US appeals court partially reinstates Hawaii and California firearm carry restrictions - JURIST - News
AL: Court Upholds Part Of An Injunction Against California's And Hawaii's Concealed Carry Laws (ammoland.com)
TAG: 9th Circuit Upholds Carry Ban In Some California, Hawaii Locations - The Truth About Guns
R: Injunctions Against Location-Specific Gun Bans in California and Hawaii Partially Upheld (reason.com)