Andrew Teter v. Anne E. Lopez, 76 F.4th 938

Background

Hawaii law (Haw. Rev. Stat. § 134-53(a)) criminalizes manufacturing, selling, transferring, transporting, or possessing butterfly (balisong) knives; ban enacted in 1993.
Plaintiffs (Teter and Grell), lawful Hawaii residents who previously owned butterfly knives and disposed of them because of the ban, seek to repurchase for self-defense and sued state officials for declaratory and injunctive relief.
District court granted summary judgment to Hawaii under pre-Bruen precedent; appeal stayed pending Bruen and then reinstated for decision on the merits.
On appeal, the Ninth Circuit first addressed standing and Hawaii’s request to remand for further historical development; the court found Article III standing under Jackson and Driehaus and denied remand.
Applying Bruen, the court analyzed whether butterfly-knife possession is covered by the Second Amendment’s plain text and whether Hawaii proved its ban fits within the Nation’s historical tradition of arms regulation.
Court concluded butterfly knives are bearable arms within the Second Amendment and Hawaii failed to identify a proper historical analogue; therefore § 134-53(a) is unconstitutional as applied to Plaintiffs.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing to bring Second Amendment challenge	Forced dispossession and inability to acquire replacements constitute an ongoing injury; Jackson supports standing	Plaintiffs only allege chilled desire to acquire arms and must meet pre-enforcement ripeness threat-of-prosecution standards	Plaintiffs have Article III standing under Jackson and Driehaus; credible threat of enforcement (past arrests) suffices
Remand for additional historical factfinding	No remand needed; Bruen requires historical (legislative) facts that can be resolved on the record	Hawaii asked for remand to develop further historical evidence after Bruen	Denied — further adjudicative fact development unnecessary and Hawaii had opportunity to present history
Whether butterfly-knife possession is covered by the Second Amendment’s plain text	Butterfly knives are bearable arms (bladed weapons) commonly used for lawful purposes, including self-defense	Hawaii argued the ban targets weapons associated with criminals or dangerous and unusual weapons, thus outside protection	Possession of butterfly knives is conduct covered by the Second Amendment’s plain text; plaintiffs are law-abiding citizens
Whether Hawaii showed its ban is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of regulating arms	N/A (burden on government)	Hawaii relied on 19th-century statutes regulating Bowie knives, toothpicks, slung-shots, concealed carry, and other dangerous instruments as analogues	Hawaii failed to identify a proper historical analogue to a categorical ban on pocketknife-style weapons; historical regulations addressed similar problems by materially different means, so ban is inconsistent with tradition

Key Cases Cited

N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022) (announcing the historical‑tradition test and requiring government to show regulation is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition)
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (recognizing individual right to keep and bear arms and that arms include weapons not specifically designed for military use)
McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) (incorporation of Second Amendment against the states)
Jackson v. City & County of San Francisco, 746 F.3d 953 (9th Cir. 2014) (plaintiff has standing when she alleges Second Amendment right to acquire arms and would do so but for a local ban)
Teixeira v. County of Alameda, 873 F.3d 670 (9th Cir. 2017) (Second Amendment protects the ability to acquire arms; derivative standing for would-be gun‑store owner)
Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U.S. 149 (2014) (pre-enforcement ripeness: plaintiff must show intention to engage in conduct, that conduct is arguably protected, and a credible threat of prosecution)
San Diego County Gun Rights Committee v. Reno, 98 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir. 1996) (pre‑Heller standing precedent discussing chill theory; its narrow holdings were superseded by later cases)
State v. Delgado, 692 P.2d 610 (Or. 1984) (historical description of pocketknife use in America relevant to understanding arms)
United States v. Chovan, 735 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2013) (pre‑Bruen Second Amendment framework later abrogated)