George Young, Jr. v. State of Hawaii
896 F.3d 1044
9th Cir.2018Background
- Plaintiff George Young applied twice (2011) for a Hawaii license to carry a loaded handgun (openly or concealed); both applications were denied under H.R.S. §134-9.
- Hawaii’s statutory scheme generally limits possession to keeping firearms at home or place of business/sojourn; §134-9 is a limited licensing exception allowing open carry only for those “engaged in the protection of life and property” and concealed carry only in an “exceptional case.”
- Young sued under 42 U.S.C. §1983 seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging §134-9 violates the Second Amendment by effectively banning public open carry for ordinary citizens.
- The district court dismissed Young’s claims as to the State (sovereign immunity/ex parte Young posture) and granted dismissal on the merits as to the County, holding the Second Amendment protects only keeping handguns at home.
- On appeal the Ninth Circuit panel (majority) reversed as to the County, held the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a firearm openly in public for self-defense, and concluded §134-9’s open-carry limitation (restricted to those protecting life/property) violates the core Second Amendment right; the appeal against the State was dismissed.
- Judge Clifton dissented: he viewed §134-9 as a longstanding, presumptively lawful “good cause” regulatory regime and would uphold it under intermediate scrutiny.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to carry a firearm openly in public for self-defense | Young: "bear" includes public carry; historical and textual evidence show the right extends beyond the home | County/State: Heller/McDonald protect the right most acutely at home; public carry historically regulated and thus outside the Amendment’s core | Majority: Yes — the Second Amendment encompasses an individual right to openly carry in public for self-defense |
| Whether H.R.S. §134-9’s limitation of open carry to persons “engaged in the protection of life and property” burdens conduct protected by the Second Amendment | Young: §134-9 effectively forecloses typical, law-abiding citizens from open carry and thus destroys the core right | County/State: §134-9 is a longstanding, permissible licensing scheme (good-cause / public-safety regulation) subject to intermediate scrutiny | Majority: §134-9 destroys the core right (practically limits open carry to a small occupational class) and is void under any level of scrutiny; County’s enforcement reversed |
| Whether Hawaii’s concealed-carry “exceptional case” provision preserves the right (i.e., whether the statute is effectively a total ban) | Young: Concealed- carry avenue is illusory in practice (no licenses issued), so it does not save the statute | County/State: The statutory text permits concealed licenses in exceptional cases; that suffices to avoid a total ban | Majority: Courts may consider conceded and judicially-noticeable evidence that concealed licenses are effectively not issued; the open-carry restriction independently invalid |
| Whether the State (and state officials) remain proper defendants given sovereign immunity and Ex Parte Young | Young: sued State and officials; seeks prospective relief | State: sovereign immunity bars suit against the State; Ex Parte Young claims failed as to state officials | Panel: Appeal as to State dismissed (Young did not challenge district court’s sovereign immunity-based dismissal on appeal) |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (establishes individual right to keep firearms for self-defense in the home and identifies text-and-history method)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) (incorporates Second Amendment against the States; emphasizes self-defense as a core right)
- Peruta v. County of San Diego (en banc), 824 F.3d 919 (9th Cir. 2016) (Second Amendment does not protect a public right to carry concealed firearms; left open question whether it protects open carry)
- Wrenn v. District of Columbia, 864 F.3d 650 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (concludes Second Amendment protects public carry for self-defense)
- Moore v. Madigan, 702 F.3d 933 (7th Cir. 2012) (holds that a complete public-carry ban violates the Second Amendment)
- Kachalsky v. County of Westchester, 701 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 2012) (upholds a "good cause" licensing regime under intermediate scrutiny)
- Drake v. Filko, 724 F.3d 426 (3d Cir. 2013) (upholds New Jersey’s justifiable-need standard as longstanding and subject to intermediate scrutiny)
- Woollard v. Gallagher, 712 F.3d 865 (4th Cir. 2013) (upholds Maryland’s good-cause requirement under intermediate scrutiny)