district court’s decision denying Baker’s motion for a preliminary injunction and remand for further proceeding s consistent with

Peruta

.

1

As for Baker’s claim that certain Hawaii statutes forbid the use of handguns at firing ranges, Baker’s counsel conceded at oral argument that “Mr. Baker has used those ranges and uses them regularly and does fire handguns” and that “there is no imminent threat of prosecution” of Baker for his use of handguns at firing ranges. We may not ignore these concessions .

See Hilao v. Estate of Marcos

, 393 F.3d 987, 993 (9th Cir. 2004) (“A party . . . is bound by concessions made in its brief or at oral argumen t.”). Defendants c ontend tha t the use of handguns a t these ranges is common and that there is no reason for Baker to fear prosecution in this regard. Assuming—wi thout deciding—that Hawaii’s statutes forbid the use of handguns at firing ranges, Baker has not alleged any injury that would provide him with standing to challenge such prohibition.

See Whitmore v. Arkansas

, 495 U.S. 149, 158 (1990) (“Allegations of possible future injury do not satisfy the requirements of Art. III. A threatened injury must be certainly impending to

1

The district court also granted a motion for judgment on the pleadings as to all claims against the State of Hawaii and Governor Neil Abercrombie. Baker does not contest that de cision on appeal. On remand, the state attorney general should be formally notified o f, and give n an opportun ity to interven e in, furthe r proceeding s implic ating the constitutiona lity of the state sta tutes.

See

28 U.S.C. § 2403(b). 3

Case: 12-16258 03/20/2014 ID: 9023773 DktEntry: 56-1 Page: 3 of 4