Hawaii’s firearms statutes or, alternatively, directing the defendants to issue a license to Baker allowing him to carry (either concealed or openly) operable firearms . The district court denied the motion, concluding in pa rt that 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. We have jurisdiction purs uant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292, and we vacate and remand. “We review the district court’s decision to grant or deny a preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion.”

Shell Offshore, Inc. v. Greenpeace, Inc.

, 709 F.3d 1281, 1286 (9th C ir. 2013) (citatio n omitte d). Although our revi ew is generally “limited and deferential,” we review the underlying legal principles de novo “and a district court abuses its discretion when it makes an error of law.”

Id.

In

Peruta v. County of San Diego

,— F.3d —, No. 10-56971, 2014 WL 555862, at *18 (9th Cir. Feb. 13, 2014), we concluded that the Second Amendment provides a responsible, law-abiding citizen with a right to carry an operable handgun outside the home fo r the purpose of self-defen se. In light of our holding in

Peruta

, the district court made an error of law when it concluded that the Hawaii statutes did not implicate protected Second Amendment activity. According ly, we vacate the 2

Case: 12-16258 03/20/2014 ID: 9023773 DktEntry: 56-1 Page: 2 of 4