Washington Gun Law

Huge Win from Hawaii Spells Big Trouble for Gun Control

Video Highlights

  • Case: Teeter v. Lopez, a challenge to Hawaii's ban on butterfly knives
  • Ninth Circuit panel ruled that the ban violated the Second Amendment rights of the plaintiffs
  • Court applied the analysis set forth in the Bruin case from last year, focusing on the text of the Second Amendment and historical tradition of regulating arms
  • Hawaii's arguments that only criminals would be affected by the ban and that butterfly knives are dangerous and unusual were rejected by the court
  • The ruling has potential implications for other gun control cases, such as California's magazine ban and assault weapon ban, which are still pending in the Ninth Circuit.

Video Summary

In a surprising turn of events, a case out of Hawaii involving butterfly knives has resulted in a significant victory for Second Amendment rights. The case, Teeter v. Lopez, was a challenge to Hawaii's ban on butterfly knives. While the actual holding of the case is important, it is the reasoning of the court that has caught the attention of gun rights advocates.

The case was decided by a three-judge panel in the Ninth Circuit, which is not known for being Second Amendment friendly. However, this ruling provides some hope for those who support the right to bear arms. The court, in its ruling, stated that the ban on butterfly knives violated the plaintiffs' Second Amendment rights. This is a significant victory, as it establishes that the possession of butterfly knives is protected by the Second Amendment.

The court further explained that the government must justify the regulation by finding a historical analog. Hawaii failed to do so, as there was no historical tradition of regulating butterfly knives. The court rightly concluded that the ban could not stand constitutional scrutiny.

One of the arguments put forth by Hawaii was that only law-abiding citizens are included in the Second Amendment's protection. They argued that banning weapons associated with criminals, such as butterfly knives, would not violate the Second Amendment. However, the court rejected this argument, stating that the ban was not limited to criminals, and therefore, it would not resolve the plaintiffs' claims.

Hawaii also argued that butterfly knives are dangerous and unusual, and therefore, not covered by the Second Amendment. Again, the court rejected this argument, stating that dangerous and unusual weapons are still considered arms under the Second Amendment. The court correctly applied the legal standard, stating that the relevance of a weapon's dangerous and unusual character lies in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of such weapons. Since Hawaii had not demonstrated a historical analog, their argument failed.

Another argument commonly used by gun control advocates is that the Founding Fathers could not have foreseen the technological advancements in weapons. However, the court dismissed this argument, stating that when a challenged regulation addresses a general societal problem that persisted since the 18th century, the lack of a distinctly similar historical regulation is evidence that the regulation is inconsistent with the Second Amendment.

While this ruling is a significant win for Second Amendment rights, the case may still be appealed, and it is uncertain how it will fare in front of a full en banc panel. However, if all the justices simply apply the law as written, the outcome should be the same.

This case has important implications for two other cases currently pending in the Ninth Circuit: Duncan v. Banta and Miller v. Banta, both challenging California's magazine ban and assault weapon ban, respectively. These cases could have significant ramifications for those living in the Ninth Circuit, as the statutes in Washington state and Oregon are almost identical to those in California.

Overall, this case provides hope for gun rights advocates and demonstrates that the court's interpretation of the Second Amendment is based on a strict analysis of the law. While there is still a long way to go in the fight for Second Amendment rights, this case is a step in the right direction.

It is essential for gun owners to know and understand the law in their jurisdiction to ensure they are acting lawfully and responsibly. As always, stay informed and stay safe.