C. HRS § 134-25(a) and § 134-27(a) do not violate Wilson’s
right to bear arms under the Second Amendment
We also hold that HRS § 134-25(a) and § 134-27(a) do not
violate the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.
“[T]he right secured by the Second Amendment is not
unlimited. . . . [T]he right [is] not a right to keep and carry
any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever
purpose.” Bruen, 597 U.S. at 21. States retain the authority
to require that individuals have a license before carrying
firearms in public. Id. at 79-80 (Kavanaugh, J., concurring)
(“[T]he Court’s decision does not prohibit States from imposing
licensing requirements for carrying a handgun for self-
defense.”); Antonyuk v. Chiumento, 89 F.4th 271, 312 (2d Cir.
2023) (“Licensing that includes discretion that is bounded by
defined standards, we conclude, is part of this nation’s history
and tradition of firearm regulation and therefore in compliance
with the Second Amendment.”).
HRS § 134-25(a) and § 134-27(a) allow a person to carry a
handgun for self-defense outside the home if they have a license
issued per HRS § 134-9. See HRS § 134-25(a) (“Except as
provided in sections 134-5 and 134-9, all firearms shall be
confined to the possessor’s place of business, residence, or
sojourn” (emphasis added)); HRS § 134-27(a) (restricting the
possession of ammunition based on HRS § 134-5 and § 134-9).
HRS § 134-25(a) and § 134-27(a) do not graze Wilson’s
Second Amendment right. Because he has no standing, Wilson’s
constitutional challenge to HRS § 134-9, Hawaiʻi’s licensing law,
fails. See supra section III.A.2.
The circuit court erred by dismissing the place to keep
offenses, HRS § 134-25 and § 134-27. Those laws do not violate
Wilson’s constitutional rights under article I, section 17 or
the Second Amendment.