The Peruta dominos continue to fall. In an earlier decision in Baker v Kealoha, a District Court refused to rule in favor of the plaintiff, Christopher Baker. Baker had moved for an injunction against various Hawaii state agencies that had denied him a carry license. As a Ninth Circuit panel summed up the District Court’s rationale, the District Court denied the motion because, “Baker was not likely to establish that Hawaii’s restrictions on carrying firearms in public were unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, and therefore, Baker was not likely to succeed on the merits.” But that was pre-Peruta . . .

Today, though, a Ninth Circuit panel has ruled that,

In light of our holding in Peruta, the district court made an error of law when it concluded that the Hawaii statues did not implicate protected Second Amendment activity. Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s decision denying Baker’s motion for a preliminary injunction and remand for further proceedings consistent with Peruta.

So while there are still some formalities involved, the Peruta decision that is transforming California appears likely to have the same effect on the Aloha State. Just another day in paradise.

[h/t Danny C.]