Their intellectually dishonest petition makes a whole lot of specious claims, including that only weapons “commonly used for self-defense” are protected by the Second Amendment. That’s incorrect as the Bruen decision from the U.S. Supreme Court very clearly reiterated that arms usable for any “lawful purposes” are protected.
Their emotionally charged, overwrought and hyperbolic concluding paragraph should tell you all you need to know about how desperate Hawaii, and all the anti-Second Amendment supporters, are to overturn this pro-2A decision, because they indeed got it right about how important this decision in Teter is in the 2A fight:
If left undisturbed, the panel’s analysis will govern challenges involving many highly dangerous weapons that States quite reasonably seek to regulate or ban: assault weapons, high-capacity magazines, and more. In this matter of life and death, the Court should ensure its precedent fully comports with the balance the Supreme Court struck in Heller, McDonald, and Bruen.
Hawaii’s petition will now be circulated to all active Ninth Circuit judges and any senior judge that have chosen to participate. It is likely that the the opposing party will be required to respond to the petition about why the court should not rehear the case, though they could just vote on it. The court is currently closely split with 15 Democratic and 13 Republican appointees. Odds are that sooner or later court will vote to rehear the case, but we’ll see. If it is reheard En Banc, the panel will include the Chief Judge and 10 judges selected at random.