No. 12 - 17808 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT George K. Young , Jr. , Plaintiff - Appellant , v. State of Hawaii, et al. , Defendant s - Appellees On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawai i, No. 1:12 - cv - 00336 - HG - BMK District Judge Helen Gillmor BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE PROSECUTORS AGAINST GUN VIOLENCE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT S - APPELL EES A NTONIO J. P EREZ - M ARQUES S USHI LA R AO P ENTAPATI V ICTOR O BASAJU K OREY B OEHM T HOMAS D EC D AVIS P OLK & W ARDWELL LLP 450 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 450 - 4000 Counsel for Amicus Curiae Case: 12-17808, 06/04/2020, ID: 11711527, DktEntry: 244, Page 1 of 35 Corporate Disclosure Statement Pursuant to Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 26.1, counsel for amicus curiae Prosecutors Against Gun Violence certifies that amicus is not a publicly held corporation, that amicus does not have a parent corporation, and that no publicly held corporatio n owns 10% or more of its stock. /s/ Antonio J. Perez - Marques A NTONIO J. P EREZ - M ARQUES D AVIS P OLK & W ARDWELL LLP 450 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 (212) 450 - 4000 antonio.perez@davispolk.com Case: 12-17808, 06/04/2020, ID: 11711527, DktEntry: 244, Page 2 of 35 i TABLE OF CONTENTS P AGE Identity and Interest of Amicus Curiae ................................ ........................... 1 Summary of Argument ................................ ................................ ................... 2 Argument ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 4 I. Localized Discretion in Issuing Public Carry Permits Is Essential to Exercising a State’s Police Power to Protect the Public .................. 4 A. State and Local Governments’ Paramount Duty to Protect Citizens Is Accompanied by Broad Discretion to Enact Localized Frameworks Responding to Public Safety Concerns ................................ ................................ ......... 4 B. Appropriate, Common - Sense Gun Regulations Vary with Each Community’s Distinctive Public Safety Needs, Making Localized Permitting Standards a Valuable Tool ................................ ................................ ............. 7 C. Courts Have Recognized the Constitutionality of Discretionary Licensing Regimes Vesting Authority in Local Officials ................................ ................................ .......... 10 II. Non - Discretionary Carry Licensing Improperly Limits the Discretion Required by State and Local Authorities to Fulfill Their Obligation t o Protect Their Citizens ................................ ......... 14 A. Non - Discretionary Carry Licensing Hampers Law Enforcement’s Ability to Protect the Public, Including by Increasing Risks Inherent in Civilian - Police Encounters ................................ ................................ ................ 14 B. Non - Discretionary Carry Licensing Schemes Would Further Increase th e Risks to the Lives of Law Enforcement Personnel ................................ ............................ 19 C. The Empirical Evidence Demonstrates That Non - Discretionary Carry Licensing La ws Would Result in Increased Gun Violence ................................ ........................... 22 Case: 12-17808, 06/04/2020, ID: 11711527, DktEntry: 244, Page 3 of 35 ii Conclusion ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 24 Certificate of Compliance ................................ ................................ ............. 25 Case: 12-17808, 06/04/2020, ID: 11711527, DktEntry: 244, Page 4 of 35 iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES C ASES P AGE ( S ) Baker v. Kealoha , No. CV 11 - 00528 ACK - KSC, 2012 WL 12886818 (D. Haw. Apr. 30, 2012) , vacated and remanded , 564 F. App'x 903 (9th Cir. 2014 ) ......... 12 District of Columbia v. Heller , 554 U.S. 570 (2008) ................................ ................................ ............... 10 Drake v. Filko , 724 F.3d 426 (3d Cir. 2013) ................................ ............................. 11, 12 Gonzales v. Oregon , 546 U.S. 243 (2006) ................................ ................................ ................. 5 Gould v. Morgan , 907 F.3d 659 (1st Cir. 2018 ) ................................ ...................... 11, 15, 22 Kachalsky v. Cty. of Westchester , 701 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 2012) ................................ ............................... passim Kelley v. Johnson , 425 U.S. 238 (1976) ................................ ................................ ................. 5 McDonald v. City of Chicago , 561 U.S. 742 (2010) ................................ ................................ ............... 10 Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr , 518 U.S. 470 (1996) ................................ ................................ ............. 2, 5 Panhandle E. Pipe Line Co. v. State Highway Comm’n of Kan , 294 U.S. 613 (1935) ................................ ................................ ................. 5 P eruta v. C ty of San Diego , 742 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir. 2014 ) ................................ ................................ .. 13 P eruta v. C ty of San Diego , 824 F.3d 919 (9th Cir. 2016) ................................ .............................. 10, 11 Case: 12-17808, 06/04/2020, ID: 11711527, DktEntry: 244, Page 5 of 35 iv Piszczatoski v. Filko , 840 F. Supp. 2d 813 (D.N.J. 2012) ................................ ......................... 22 Richards v. Cty. of Yolo , 821 F. Supp. 2d 1169 (E.D. Cal. 2011) ................................ .................. 22 United Auto., Aircraft & Agric. Implement Workers of Am. v. Wis. Emp’t Relations Bd. , 351 U.S. 266 (1956) ................................ ................................ ................. 5 United States v. Comstock , 560 U.S. 126 (2010) ................................ ................................ ................. 5 United States v. Masciandaro , 638 F.3d 458 (4th Cir. 2011 ) ................................ ................................ .... 2 United States v. Morrison , 529 U.S. 598 (2000) ................................ ................................ ............. 4, 5 Woollard v. Gallagher , 712 F.3d 865 (4th Cir. 2013) ................................ .......................... passim B RIEFS Brief of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, Ceasefire NJ, International Brotherhood of Police Officers, Major Cities Chiefs et al. as Amici Curiae, D rake v. Filko , 724 F.3d 426 (3d Cir. 2013) ........................ 20 D ECLARATIONS Declaration of Andrew Lunetta, Deputy In spector, New York City Police Department, Joint Appendix, Kachalsky v. City of Westchester , 701 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 2012) ................................ ................................ ................................ 16 Declaration of Franklin E. Zimring, Professor of Law, the University of California, Berkeley, Joint Appendix , Ka chalsky v. City of We stchester , 701 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 2012) ................................ ................................ ..... 9, 11 Declaration of James W. Johnson, Chief of the Baltimore County Police Department, Joint Appendix, Woollard v. Gallagher , 712 F.3d 865 (4th Cir. 2013) ................................ ................................ .............................. 20 Declaration of Terrence B. Sheridan, Superintendent of the Maryland State Case: 12-17808, 06/04/2020, ID: 11711527, DktEntry: 244, Page 6 of 35 v Police, Joint Appendix, Woollard v. Gallagher , 712 F.3d 865 (4th Cir. 2013) ................................ ................................ .......................... 15, 19, 20 , 21 S TATUTES & R ULES 1933 Haw. Sess. Laws (Special Sess.) Act 26, §§ 6, 8 .............................. 12 1961 Haw. Sess. Laws Act 163, § 1 ................................ ........................... 12 Fed. R. App. P. 29(a)(4) ................................ ................................ .................. 2 Haw. Rev. Stat. § 134 - 9( a ) ................................ ................................ ......... 10 Haw. Sess. Laws Act 206, §§ 5 - 7 ................................ ............................... 13 N.J.S.A. § 2C:58 - 4 ................................ ................................ ...................... 12 N.Y. Penal Law § 400.00(2)(f) ................................ ................................ ... 11 O THER A UTHORITIES Allison Schaefers, Honolul u LEO Killed in Ambush Remembered as ‘Rock’ of Community , T HE H ONOLULU S TAR - A DVERTISER (Mar. 9, 2020), https://www.policeone.com/police - heroes/articles/honolulu - leo - killed - in - am bush - remembered - as - rock - of - community - fNO3LHrrhrOKzcKM / ........ 19 Andrew Warren, State Attorney for the 13th Judicial Circuit, Concealed - Carry Reciprocity Would Be Bad for Florida , T AMPA B AY T IMES (Dec. 5, 2017), www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/Column - Concealed - c arry - reciprocity - would - be - bad for - Florida_163306216 ................................ ......... 6 Arlin James Benjamin Jr. et al., The Weapons Priming Effect , C URRENT O PINION IN P SYCHOLOGY 12:45 - 48 (2016) ................................ ................... 22 B ernard D. Rostker et al., RAND Ctr. on Quality Policing, Evaluation of the New York City Police Department Firearm Training and Firearm - Dis charge Review Process 14 (2008) ................................ ................................ ............ 15 Case: 12-17808, 06/04/2020, ID: 11711527, DktEntry: 244, Page 7 of 35 vi Cassandra K. Crifasi, et al., Association Between Firearm Laws & Homicide in Urban Counties , 95 J. U RB H EALTH 383 (2018), https://doi. org/10.1007/s11524 - 018 - 0273 - 3 ................................ ................. 23 Center for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, Firearm Mortality by State (April 29, 2020), https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/ firearm.htm ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 13 Chris Magnus, Lawmakers Must Listen to Law Enforcemen t on Dangerous Gun Bills , A RIZONA D AILY S TAR (Sept. 21, 2017), https://tucson.com/opinion/local/chris - magnus - lawmakers - must - listen - to - law - enforcement - on - dangerous/article_50ad9a22 - 74ba - 5c15 - acf3 - 10b22598804a.html ................................ ................................ ....................... 7 Corey Hutchins, In Colorado Springs, Di spatcher Brushed Off Reports of a Man with a Gun, Witness Says , W ASH P OST (Nov. 3 , 2015), htttps://washingtonpost.com/new/post - nation/wp/2015/11/03/in - colorado - springs - dispatcher - brushed - off - reports - of - a - aman - with - a - gun/ ................... 18 David Hemenway et al., Variation in Rates of Fatal Police Shootings across US States: the Role of Firearm Availability , 96 J. U RB H EALTH 63 (Feb. 2019 ) ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 15 David I. Swedler et al., Firearm Prevalence and Homicides of Law Enforcement Officers in the United States , 105 A M J. P UB H EALTH 2042 (Oct. 2015) ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 20 Doyin Oyeniyi, Texas Law Enforcement Group Wants Changes to Open Carry, But Will Lawmakers Listen? , T EXAS M ONTHLY (Aug. 1, 2016), https://www.texasmonthly.com/the - daily - post/texas - law - enforcement - group - wants - changes - o pen - carry - w ill - lawmakers - listen / ................................ ......... 7 Emily Schultheis, Dallas Mayor on “One of the Real Issues” with Guns , CBS N EWS (July 10, 2016), https://www.cbsnews.com/news/dallas - mayor - talks - one - of - the - real - issues - with - gun - rights / ................................ ............... 17 Francis Wilkinson, The Dangerous Theater of Open Carry , P ITTSBURGH P OST - G AZETTE (Sep. 3, 2019), https://www.post - gazette.com/opinion/Op - Ed/2019/09/03/Francis - Wilkinson - The - dangerous - theater - of - open - carry/stories/201909030019 ................................ ................................ ......... 17 Case: 12-17808, 06/04/2020, ID: 11711527, DktEntry: 244, Page 8 of 35 vii Harry Cheadle, Why the US Gun Violence Epidemic Hasn’t Reached Hawaii , V ICE (Aug, 21, 2019), https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/zmjxqe/why - the - us - gun - violence - epidemic - hasnt - reached - hawaii ................................ ................................ .... 13 Julia Harte, In Some U.S. Cities, Police Push Back Against ‘Open - Carry’ Gun Laws , R EUTERS (July 19, 2016), https://www.reuters.com/ar ticle/us - usa - police - guns - analysis/in - some - u - s - cities - police - push - back - against - open - carry - gun - laws - idUSKCN0ZZ0BQ ................................ ................................ 8 John Donohue et al., Right - to - Carry Laws and Violent Crime: A Comprehensive Assessment Using Panel Data, the LASSO, and a State - Level Synthetic Controls Analysis (Nat’l Bureau of Eco n. Research, Working Paper No. 23510, 2017) ................................ ................................ ...... 9, 22, 23 Joseph A. Peters et al., Gun Crime and Gun Control: The Hawaiian Experience , U NIVERSITY OF C HICAGO L EGAL F ORUM : Vol. 20 05: Iss. 1, Article 3, at 67 (2005) ................................ ................................ ..................... 9 Joseph Blocher, Firearm Localism , 123 Yale L.J. 82 (2013) ........................ 8 Letter from David LaBahn, President & CEO, Ass’n of Prosecuting Attorneys to Congressional Leaders (Nov. 27, 2017) ................................ .... 5 Letter from 17 Attorneys General to Congressional Leaders (Oct. 22, 2017) ................................ ................................ ................................ 6 Letter from the National Law Enforcement Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence to Congress (July 7, 2017) ................................ .............................. 7 Lupe Valdez, Our Police Officers Need Protection From Gun Violence Too , T HE H ILL (May 17, 2017, 11:40 AM), http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits - blog/civil - rights/333819 - our - police - officers - need - protection - from - gun - violence - too ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 19 Martin Kaste, Gun Carry Laws Can Complicate Police Interactions , NPR (July 19, 2016), https://www.npr.org/201 6/07/19/486453816/open - carry - concealed - carry - gun - permits - add - to - police - nervousness ............................ 17 Matthew D. Moore & CariAnn M. Bergner, The Relationship Between Firearm Ownership and Violent Crime , 13 J USTICE P OLICY J. 1 (2016) ....... 9 Case: 12-17808, 06/04/2020, ID: 11711527, DktEntry: 244, Page 9 of 35 viii Michael Siegel et al., Easiness of Legal Access to Concealed Firearm Permits and Homicide Rates in the Unite d States , 107 A M J. P UB H EALTH 1923 (2017) ................................ ................................ ............................... 9, 22 Molly Hennessey - Fiske, Dallas Police Chief: Open Carry Makes Things Confusing During Mass Shootings , T HE L OS A NGELES T IMES , July 11, 2016, https://lat.ms/2GpxGUw ................................ ................................ ............... 21 Perry Vandell & Russ Wiles, Arizona’ s Open - Carry Gun Law Poses Challenges for Police, Businesses , T HE A RIZONA R EPUBLIC (Aug. 7, 2019), https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona/2019/08/07/open - carry - gun - law - pose s - challenges - police - businesses - mass - shooting/1927290001/ .. 7 Saul Cornell & Nathan DeDino , A Well Regulated Right: The Early American Origins of Gun Control , F ORDHAM L. R EV 487 (2004) ................ 2 Siegel et al., The Impact of State Firearm Laws on Homicide and Suicide Deaths in the USA, 1991 - 2016: A Panel Study , 34 J. G EN I NTERNAL M ED 2021 (2019), https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11606 - 019 - 04922 - x ................... 2 3 Tom Jackman, Police Chiefs Implore Congress Not to Pass Concealed - C arry Reciprocity Gun Law , W ASH P OST (Apr. 19, 2018), https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true - crime/wp/2018/04/19/nations - police - chiefs - implore - congress - not - to - pass - concealed - carry - reciprocity - gun - law/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.73bc281f4c6c ................................ ............. 6 U.S. Census Bureau, Guide to State and Local Census Geography: Hawaii, https://www2.census.gov/geo/pdfs/reference/guidestloc/hi_gslcg.pdf (2010) ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 8 Case: 12-17808, 06/04/2020, ID: 11711527, DktEntry: 244, Page 10 of 35 1 Identity and Interest of Amicus Curiae Prosecutors Against Gun Violence (“PAGV”) is an independent, nonpartisan coalition that identifies and promotes prosecutorial and policy solutions to the national public health and safety crisis of gun violence. PAGV’s membership comprises 50 prosecutors, and serves over 76 million Americans in 24 states. Its miss ion includes sharing best practices for prosecuting gun offenders and defending common - sense gun safety policies. Prosecutors , and other local law enforcement agencies with which they collaborate daily, play a critical ro le in promoting citizen safety — the highest objective of state and local government s The key issue before this Court is whether a state may require that a citizen “sufficiently indicate” an “urgency” or “need , ” and be “engaged in the protection of life and property,” in order to carry a fi rearm in public . F rom their position on the front lines of efforts to curb gun violence and defend public safety in a wide cross - section of communities, prosecutors in the Ninth Circuit , and throughout the nation, will be directly affected by this case ’s outcome Accordingly, PAGV submits this amicus brief to emphasize the need for deference to local jurisdictions’ determinations about the type of firearm licensing requirements that are best suited to their specific public safety challenges , and to extend its support for Hawaii ’ s determination that a Case: 12-17808, 06/04/2020, ID: 11711527, DktEntry: 244, Page 11 of 35 2 “ sufficient need ” requirement for the public carr y of firearms effectuates that s tate’s interest in promoting public safety and reducing crime. 1 Summary of Argument Local ized public carry permitt ing standards are often critical tools for combating unlawful gun use and its deleterious effect s on public safety T he Supreme Court has emphasized that, pursuant to their police powers, states have broad discretion in creating legislative standards aimed at protecting citizens’ lives. See, e.g. , Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr , 518 U.S. 470, 475 (1996). The determination of how to regulate firearms is well within this discretion. Since our nation’ s founding, there has been a longstanding tradition of states regulating the possession of firearms in public due to the dangers posed to the public. 2 A ccordingly, the weight of p recedent demonstrates that 1 All parties in this case have consented to PAGV filing this amicus brief. 9th Cir. R. 29 - 2(a) (amicus curiae briefs submitted during pendency of en banc rehearing); Appellant’s Ltr. Consenting to Filing of Amicus Briefs, ECF. No. 228. PAGV certifies that this brief was not written in whole or in part by counsel for any party, and no person or entity other than PAGV, its members, and its counsel has made any monetary contribution to the preparation or submission of this brief. Fed. R. App. P. 29(a)(4). 2 Kachalsky v. Cty. of Westchester , 701 F.3d 81, 94 (2d Cir. 2012); United States v. Masciandaro , 638 F.3d 458, 470 - 71 (4th Cir. 2011) (“[O]utside the ho me, firearm rights have always been more limited, because public safety interests often outweigh individual interests in self - defense.”); see also Saul Cornell & Nathan DeDino , A Well Regulated Right: The Early American Origins of Gun Control , 73 F ORDHAM L R EV 487, 502 - 16 (2004). Case: 12-17808, 06/04/2020, ID: 11711527, DktEntry: 244, Page 12 of 35 3 restrictions on public carry do not impermissibly burden conduct protected by the Second Amendment Even assuming that public carry falls within the scope of protected conduct, p ermitting laws similar to the challenged Hawaii statute have been upheld as substantially related to the important governmen tal objective of public safety Federal courts — i ncluding the First, Second , Third, and Fourth Circuits — have upheld various states’ licensing schemes vesting authority in local off icials to impose “proper purpose,” “proper cause,” “justifiable need , ” or “good and substanti al reason” requirements for acquiring public carry permits. In contrast, eliminating law enforcement officials’ prerogative to make discretionary licensing decisi ons, as Appellant demands, will thwart law enforcement’s ability to promote public safety and protect lives. Empirical data and expert testimony from law enforcement officials confirm non - discretionary licensing laws ’ deleterious effects N on - discretionary licensing in creases the number of guns carried in public, which transforms routine police encounters into potentially high - risk scenarios and threatens the safety of both law enforcement and the public Discretion in issuing public carry permits is not only a common - sense administrative tool, but also a nec essary means of controlling crime and Case: 12-17808, 06/04/2020, ID: 11711527, DktEntry: 244, Page 13 of 35 4 violence That is why tens of millions of Americans, through their elected officials, have exercised their choice to grant local law enforcement ag encies discretion concerning the issuance of such permits. T his Court should not discount either t he will of these citizens or the dangers inherent in Appellant’s position Argument I. Local ized Discretion in Issuing Public Carry Permits Is Essential t o Exercising a State’s Police Power to Protect the Public The highest purpose of state and local governments is p rotecting and promoting the physical safety of their citizens. Accordingly, s tate and local governments retain broad discretion under their police powers to legislate in a manner reflecting local needs Pursuant to this mandate, law enforcement across the country believe s in the importance of vesting discretion with local decision makers to regulate firearms according to localized standards A. State and Local Governments ’ Paramount Duty to Protect Citizens Is Accompanied by Broad Discretion to Enact Localized Frameworks Responding to Public Safety Concerns The Supreme Court has observed tha t there is “no bett er example of the police power . . . reposed in the States, than the suppression of violent crime and vindication of its victims.” United States v. Morrison , 529 U.S. Case: 12-17808, 06/04/2020, ID: 11711527, DktEntry: 244, Page 14 of 35 5 598, 618 (2000). 3 Protecting citizens’ physical safety is not merely a power, but an obligation of state and local authorities. Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co. v. State Highway Com m ’n of Kan. , 294 U.S. 61 3, 622 (1935) (stating that state police power “springs from the obligation of the state to protect its citiz ens and provide for the safety and good order of society”). Commensurate with this significant responsibility, states retain “great latitude under their police powers to legislate as to the protection of the lives, limb, health, comfort and quiet of all pe rsons.” Medtronic , 518 U.S. at 475 (quotation omitted); accord Gonzales v. Oregon , 546 U.S. 243, 270 (2006). State and local lawmakers discharge this duty by “carefully and thoughtfully creat[ing] their own framework of standards . . to suit public saf ety needs.” 4 These homegrown standards reflect “the great diversity in 3 See also Kelley v. Johnson , 425 U.S. 238, 247 (1976) (“The promotion of safety of persons and property is unquestionably at the core of the State’s police power . . . ”); United Auto., Aircraft & Agric. Imple ment Workers of Am . v. Wis. Emp’t Relations Bd. , 351 U.S. 266, 274 (1956) (“The dominant interest of the State in preventing violence and property damage cannot be questioned. It is a matter of genuine local concern.”); United States v. Comstock , 560 U.S. 126, 153 (2010) (Kennedy, J., concurring in result) (“Residual power, sometimes referred to (perhaps imperfectly) as the police power, belongs to the States and the States alone.”). 4 Letter from David LaBahn, President & CEO, Ass’n of Prosecuting Attorneys to Congression al Leaders (Nov. 27, 2017). Case: 12-17808, 06/04/2020, ID: 11711527, DktEntry: 244, Page 15 of 35 6 geography, population, culture, and tradition” of lawmakers’ constituents. 5 They not only represent “decisions by state and local authorities about how to best ensure public safety,” 6 but also reflect “the will of their citizens” and symbolize “the core democratic principle that . . elected representatives make those laws.” 7 L aw enforcement leaders combating the gun violence epidemic consistently underline the foundational nature of this principle. Chris Magnus, Chief of Police for Tucson, Arizona, is entrusted with protecti ng a community that witnessed a gunman kill six people and injure others, including former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords. Based on his extensive policing expe rience , Magnus believes that the “best strategy for preventing and reducing crime is the ability to listen and respond accordingly to the 5 Letter from 17 Attorneys General to Congressional Leaders (Oct. 22, 2017). 6 Id 7 Andrew Warren, State Attorney for the 13th Judicial Circuit, Concealed - Carry Reciprocity Would Be Bad for Florida , T AMPA B AY T IMES (Dec. 5, 2017), http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/Column - Concealed - carry - reciprocity - would - be - bad - for - Florida_163306216. See also Tom Jackman, Police Chiefs Implore Congress Not to Pass Concealed - Carry Reciprocity Gun Law , W ASH P OST (Apr. 19, 2018 ), https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true - crime/wp/2018/04/19/nations - police - chiefs - implore - congress - not - to - pass - concealed - carry - reciprocity - gun - law/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.73bc281f4c6c. Case: 12-17808, 06/04/2020, ID: 11711527, DktEntry: 244, Page 16 of 35 7 needs of the community.” 8 As Magnus correctly stated, “[p]rotecting the safety of their residents has long been the purview of individual states, a right ensured by the 10th Amendment [.] ” 9 B. Appropriate, C ommon - S ense Gun R egulations V ary with Each C ommunity’s D istinctive P ublic S afety N eeds, M aking L ocalized P ermitting S tandards a V aluable T ool In analyzing a regulation’s public - safety impact and justifications, the views of officials entrusted with protecting Americans are entitled to considerable deference. PAGV strongly believes in the impor tance of vesting local authoritie s with adequate dis cretion to regulate firearms based on localized standards. This sentiment has particularly resonated with law enforcement leaders in the context of their communities’ needs to reasonably restrict public carry of firearms and promote public safety. 10 Indee d, the “vast 8 Chris Magnus, Lawmakers Must Listen to Law Enforcement on Danger ous Gun Bills , A RIZONA D AILY S TAR (Sept. 21, 2017), https://tucson.com/opinion/local/chris - magnus - lawmakers - must - listen - to - law - enforcement - on - dangerous/article_50ad9a22 - 74ba - 5c15 - acf3 - 10b22598804a.html; see also Perry Vandell & Russ Wiles, Arizona ’ s Open - Carry Gun Law Poses Challenges for Police, Businesses , T HE A RIZONA R EPUBLIC (Aug. 7, 2019), https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona/2019/08/07/open - carry - gun - law - poses - challenges - police - businesses - mass - shooting/1927290001/. 9 Magnus, supra note 8. 10 See, e.g. , Letter from the National Law Enforcement Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence to Congress (July 7, 2017) (asserting that “[s]tates Case: 12-17808, 06/04/2020, ID: 11711527, DktEntry: 244, Page 17 of 35 8 majority of gun contro l regulations in the United States are local,” and tailored to their respective communities ’ needs 11 L ocalized firearm permitting standards take into account the salient factors affecting public safety at the community level For instance, Hawaii’s h igh popula tion density — which ranks 13th 12 out of the 50 states — poses unique policing challenges . As a prominent criminology and criminal justice scholar notes , carrying loaded weapons in “shared public environments means that the implications . . are sp read over the community and localities should maintain their rights to legislate concealed carry laws that best meet the needs o f their citizens.”); Doyin Oyeniyi, Texas Law Enforcement Group Wants Changes to Open Carry, But Will Lawmakers Listen? , T EXAS M ONTHLY (Aug. 1, 2016), https://www.texasmonthly.com/the - daily - post/texas - law - enforcement - group - wants - changes - open - carry - will - law makers - listen/ (noting that a portion of a Texas open - carry bill that would have prevented law enforcement from checking people for gun licenses if they were openly carrying a gun was removed due to concerns from police officers and “75 percent of Texas po lice chiefs surveyed sa[ying] they were opposed to open carry”). Julia Harte, In Some U.S. Cities, Police Push Back Against ‘Open - Carry’ Gun Laws , R EUTERS (July 19, 2016), https://www.reuters.com/article/us - usa - police - guns - analysis/in - some - u - s - cities - poli ce - push - back - against - open - carry - gun - laws - idUSKCN0ZZ0BQ (noting that a majority of law enforcement leaders surveyed in Florida and Texas opposed proposed open - carry laws). 11 Joseph Blocher, Firearm Localism , 123 Y ALE L.J. 82, 99 (2013). 12 U.S. Census Burea u, Guide to State and Local Census Geography: Hawaii, https://www2.census.gov/geo/pdfs/reference/guidestloc/hi_gslcg.pdf (2010). Case: 12-17808, 06/04/2020, ID: 11711527, DktEntry: 244, Page 18 of 35 9 of users of public space.” 13 Handguns in particular, being “easy to carry and conceal,” often become a “priority concern of law enforcem ent.” 14 For governments responsible for maintaining public safety in densely populated areas , like Hawaii, this concern is amplified. 15 Empirical s t udies also show that licensing standards resulting in higher rates of public carry correlate with higher rates of firearm - related homicide and violence. 16 T he ability of local officials to determine who 13 Declaration of Franklin E. Zimring, Profes sor of Law, T he University of California, Berkeley, Joint Appendix at 490, Kachalsky , 701 F.3d 81 (“Zimring Decl.”). 14 Id. at 487. 15 See Matthew D. Moore & CariAnn M. Bergner, The Relationship Between Firearm Ownership and Violent Crime , 13 J USTICE P OLICY J. 1, 12, 14 (2016) (finding that population density has a positive relationship with violent crime). 16 Michael Siegel et al., Easiness of Legal Access to Concealed Firearm Permits and Homicide Rates in the United States , 107 A M J. P UB H EALTH 1923, 1927 - 29 (2017); John Donohue et al., Right - to - Carry Laws and Violent Crime: A Comprehensive Assessment Using Panel Data, the LASSO, and a State - Level Synthetic Controls Analysis 63 - 65 (Nat’l Bureau of Econ. Research, Working Paper No. 23510, 2017), https://pape rs.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2988731; see also Joseph A. Peters et al., Gun Crime and Gun Control: The Hawaiian Experience , U NIVERSITY OF C HICAGO L EGAL F ORUM : Vol. 2005: Iss. 1, Article 3, at 67, 74 (2005) (finding that more robust gun purchase regulations in Hawaii likely contributed to “an unusually sharp and abrupt drop in gun homicides . . . .”). Case: 12-17808, 06/04/2020, ID: 11711527, DktEntry: 244, Page 19 of 35 10 may carry firearms publicly in their jurisdictions is thus critical to public safety. C. Courts Have Recognized the Constitutionality of Discretionary Licensi ng Regimes Vesting Authority in Local Officials Nor is a s tate’s broad discretion to legislate to protect its citizen s through firearms permi tting eliminated by the Second Amendment. 17 T he Supreme Court has clearly stated that the Second Amendment does not grant the “right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” McDonald v. City of Chicago , 56 1 U.S. 742, 786 (2010) (quoting Heller , 554 U.S. at 626). Consistent with the obligation of state and local legislative bodies to enact laws addressing their communities’ particularized safety needs , courts have affirmed the constitutionality of licensing regimes vesting discretion in local authorities Here, t he challenged provision authorizes the respective chief of police to issue a public carry license upon determining that “the urgency or the need has been sufficiently indicated” and the applicant is “engaged in the protection of life and property ” Haw. Rev. Stat. § 13 4 - 9( a). 17 District of Columbia v. Heller , 554 U.S. 570, 636 (2008) (“The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns.”); Peruta v. Cty. of San Diego , 824 F.3d 919, 928 (9th Cir. 2016). Case: 12-17808, 06/04/2020, ID: 11711527, DktEntry: 244, Page 20 of 35