The Ninth Circuit recently heard an en banc review in Yukutake v. Lopez which involves firearm purchase requirements in Hawaii. Did Hawaii get caught lying while playing “he said,” “she said”?
Previously reported, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals heard en banc arguments in a case challenging Hawaii’s firearm purchase permitting and inspection law. Yukutake v. Lopez received a favorable opinion from a three-judge panel and the Aloha State asked the full court for a review. The case is being litigated by attorney Alan Beck and the en banc arguments occurred on Mar. 24. While the State was being questioned, did they get caught in a lie by being “at odds with” former testimony? A letter sent to the court from Beck points out the contradictions.
Attorney Jo-Ann Tamila Sagar represented the State of Hawaii during the review. When questioning the State’s position, Judge Ryan Douglas Nelson pointed out what seems to occur in several Bruen-affected jurisdictions. Judge Nelson asked about the State’s assertion that plaintiffs fail to bring appropriate arguments against the law.
How is that fair to put that burden on the plaintiff when they come in and bring a challenge? — I used to think you were correct. I’m now second guessing — In light of Hawaii’s repeated, the approach here, where they just keep amending it. So every time a plaintiff comes in, then they just amend it, and then you say, “Well, you don’t have any evidence.” Well, that’s because they didn’t challenge that. They challenged the other law, and then you amended it.
It’s fairly significant to have a circuit judge address Hawaii’s tactics. Nelson has it in the record that “Hawaii’s repeated … approach” is to keep amending the law each time there’s a challenge. Sagar, on behalf of the attorney general, took the statement to be targeted specifically to them and may have argued something that’s “at odds with” the facts.
Sagar’s response, as quoted in Beck’s letter — with a link to the argument video — was:
The Attorney General did not change the law here, the legislature changed the law, and these are different branches of government, we don’t control one another, and we are separate from one another. I cannot say what it was that prompted the legislature to make a change or whether there will ever be a change again.
Judge Bridget Anne Shelton Bade also made an observation during the examination and drew a parallel to California’s equally burdensome laws. “When we concluded that that the purpose of the statute — the one gun a month law — was delay, that the reason California had passed that was was for the purpose of delay, and that that was abusive, that was not a legitimate means,” Bade explained, “So here, given Hawaii’s repeated amendments of its statutes, can we conclude that the purpose of these statutes is to create impediments and to prevent people or to make it difficult for people to acquire firearms, and that is abusive?”
Beck asserted in his letter to the court that the attorney general did advocate for changes in the law. “Deputy Attorney General Amy Markami testified ‘on behalf of the department of the Attorney General’ ‘who supports this bill’, to ‘address a recent federal court ruling in Yukutake v. Connors that invalidated two Hawaii statutes…’” Beck wrote. “This demonstrates that the Hawaii Attorney General expressly endorsed and lobbied for the amendment to Hawaii law.
“In other words, there is no question that the legislature was ‘prompted … to make a change’ by the Hawaii Attorney General’s endorsement of H.B. No. 2075 which is at odds with the position taken by the Hawaii Attorney General at oral argument.”
The testimony Beck referenced was delivered during a Mar. 29, 2022 public hearing. At that hearing, the following was said on behalf of the attorney general in support of the legislation:
This bill is necessary to ensure that permits to acquire handguns do have an expiration date and that they are not allowed to be used for an unlimited period of time. And this bill does that by increasing the time from 10 days to 30 days … The second part of this bill is to require that fire certain firearms are still required to be physically inspected at the time of registration. The reason for this is that firearm serial registrations and serial numbers are very important to law enforcement in order for law enforcement to trace firearms, and this also has an important component of making sure that illegal firearms are not registered.
Written testimony from the attorney general’s office is also available that corroborates the appropriateness of calling to question the State’s position.
“These amendments are necessary to protect the public,” the testimony states. “If this bill is not enacted to amend the firearm statutes, permits to acquire will not expire and no firearms will be examined by law enforcement to ensure that the firearm matches the registration information and complies with Hawaii law.” The testimony also states that the “amendment will help Hawaii’s firearm permitting laws survive legal challenges while at the same time preserve the fundamental structure of our statutes.”
Hawaii Firearms Coalition, a Second Amendment advocacy group in the Aloha State, posted a reel on Facebook that sums up the contradiction.
Andrew Namiki Roberts, the president of HIFICO, is skeptical of the State’s position and sincerity in their statements.
“I find it hard to believe that the attorney general had forgotten why the bill was introduced,” Roberts told Bearing Arms. “It’s an entire paragraph of preamble to its introduction. Luckily in 2026 all of the testimony from recent years is quickly and easily available on YouTube.”
Attorney Alan Beck noted that history and tradition were forward facing during the examination from the judges on Mar. 24. He suspects there’s a struggle on how to deal with these conflicts.
“I think the court is having a difficult time grappling with how footnote nine of the Bruen opinion interacts with the historical tradition test which is the focus of the main body of the opinion,” Beck told Bearing Arms in a statement. “That is why much of the questioning centered around that issue.”
Historically challenges to firearm-related laws that go en banc at the Ninth Circuit don’t usually do very well for the plaintiffs. Yukutake v. Lopez might be different as each step of the way the court found the restrictions to be unconstitutional. Even an en banc panel will have a difficult time not upholding the three-judge opinion — especially when judges openly express that Hawaii keeps trying to invalidate every challenge to their laws via moot attempts.
Should Yukutake v. Lopez remain affirmed, this could have nationwide implications. Would Hawaii sprint for the High Court? Or will they be better off folding their hand considering Beck’s impressive record. Hopefully there’ll be an opinion from the U.S. Supreme Court on Wolford prior to Hawaii getting an opportunity to choose their next move. It’s speculated that Beck will be successful in Wolford and that should give the Aloha State a cause to pause before making any decisions should their arguments fail.
Editor’s Note: The radical left will stop at nothing to enact their radical gun control agenda and strip us of our Second Amendment rights.
Help us continue to report on and expose the Democrats’ gun control policies and schemes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership.
Read the full article here
