FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
G
EORGE
K.
Y
OUNG
,
J
R
.,
Plaintiff-Appellant
,v.S
TATE OF
H
AWAII
;
N
EIL
A
BERCROMBIE
, in his capacity asGovernor of the State of Hawaii;D
AVID
M
ARK
L
OUIE
I, Esquire, inhis capacity as State AttorneyGeneral; C
OUNTY OF
H
AWAII
, as asub-agency of the State of Hawaii;W
ILLIAM
P.
K
ENOI
, in his capacity asMayor of the County of Hawaii;H
ILO
C
OUNTY
P
OLICE
D
EPARTMENT
,as a sub-agency of the County of Hawaii; H
ARRY
S.
K
UBOJIRI
, in hiscapacity as Chief of Police; J
OHN
D
OES
, 1–25; J
ANE
D
OES
, 1–25; D
OE
C
ORPORATIONS
, 1–5; D
OE
E
NTITIES
,1–5,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 12-17808D.C. No.1:12-cv-00336-HG-BMK OPINION
Case: 12-17808, 03/24/2021, ID: 12051540, DktEntry: 315-1, Page 1 of 215
Y
OUNG V
.
S
TATE OF
H
AWAII
2Appeal from the United States District Courtfor the District of HawaiiHelen W. Gillmor, District Judge, PresidingArgued and Submitted En Banc September 24, 2020San Francisco, CaliforniaFiled March 24, 2021Before: Sidney R. Thomas, Chief Judge, and Diarmuid F.O’Scannlain, M. Margaret McKeown, Kim McLaneWardlaw, William A. Fletcher, Richard R. Clifton, Jay S.Bybee, Consuelo M. Callahan, Sandra S. Ikuta, Michelle T.Friedland and Ryan D. Nelson, Circuit Judges.Opinion by Judge Bybee;Dissent by Judge O’Scannlain;Dissent by Judge R. Nelson
Case: 12-17808, 03/24/2021, ID: 12051540, DktEntry: 315-1, Page 2 of 215
Y
OUNG V
.
S
TATE OF
H
AWAII
3
SUMMARY
*
Civil Rights
The en banc court affirmed the district court’s dismissalof an action challenging Hawai‘i’s firearm licensing law,Hawai‘i Revised Statutes § 134-9(a), which requires thatresidents seeking a license to openly carry a firearm in publicmust demonstrate “the urgency or the need” to carry afirearm, must be of good moral character, and must be“engaged in the protection of life and property.”Appellant George Young applied for a firearm-carrylicense twice in 2011, but failed to identify “the urgency or the need” to openly carry a firearm in public. Instead, Youngrelied upon his general desire to carry a firearm for self-defense. Both of Young’s applications were denied. Young brought a challenge to Hawai‘i’s firearm-licensing law under the Second Amendment and the Due Process Clause of theFourteenth Amendment. The district court upheld Hawai‘i’sstatute.The en banc court first held that the scope of its reviewwould be limited to Young’s facial challenge to HRS § 134-9. There was no need to determine whether Hawai‘i County properly applied § 134-9, because Young did not bring an as-applied challenge.The en banc court noted that this Court has previouslyheld that individuals do not have a Second Amendment right
*
This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.
Case: 12-17808, 03/24/2021, ID: 12051540, DktEntry: 315-1, Page 3 of 215