PDA

View Full Version : HONOLULU POLICE CHIEF AND STATE OF HAWAII SUED FOR SECOND AMENDMENT VIOLATIONS


Pages : [1] 2

Funtimes
08-24-2011, 11:14 AM
Link to the RECAP Docket. (http://ia600709.us.archive.org/0/items/gov.uscourts.hid.98653/gov.uscourts.hid.98653.docket.html)

8/31/2011: Motion for Preliminary injunction filed in District Court:
http://www.hawaiidefensefoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Memorandum-in-Support-of-PI.pdf

8/30/2011: Refiled complaint New case # Case 1:11-cv-00528-ACK -KSC

NEWS RELEASE

Hawaii Defense Foundation
P.O. Box #1798  Aiea, Hawaii 96817
(808) 664-1827  Fax: 808-748-3376

For Immediate Release: 8/23/2011

Honolulu, HI – The Hawaii Defense Foundation’s founding director and president, Christopher Baker, has filed a lawsuit against Honolulu Chief of Police Louis Kealoha, the Honolulu Police Department, the City and County of Honolulu, the State of Hawaii, and Governor Neil Abercrombie in connection with civil rights violations of the Second and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.

The complaint filed in the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii by attorneys Richard Holcomb, Alan Beck, and Kevin O’Grady alleges that Hawaii’s license to carry statute and various other firearm regulations are unconstitutional. State law mandates that citizens may be provided licenses to carry only in “exceptional circumstance” or “where a need or urgency has been sufficiently indicated,” all at the discretion of the county’s Chief of Police. The complaint asserts that this language violates the Second Amendment, which secures the right of all responsible, law-abiding citizens to bear arms for the purpose of self-defense. Additionally, the complaint also addresses the use of non-lethal tools for self-defense such as electric guns, which are banned in in Hawaii.

“The Second Amendment protects the right to self-defense. Everyday around the islands good people are robbed, assaulted, raped, or in the worst cases murdered. It’s simply a matter of physics, the Police can’t be everywhere to stop criminals from committing violent acts. We must be allowed to carry the tools that give us a chance to protect ourselves from harm,” says Chris Baker. “We want criminals to have to think about the consequences of attacking someone,” he continued, “but right now, nothing serves as a deterrent to them - the odds are in their favor.”
Hawaii Defense Foundation (www.TheHDF.org (http://www.TheHDF.org)) is a domestic not-for-profit corporation based in Honolulu, Hawaii. The Foundation serves the community by providing various services, such as: legal defense of civil rights, educational courses on firearm safety, self-defense training, and life saving techniques – such as first aid and CPR. The Foundation has many supporters and members across the State of Hawaii.

If you would like to show your support or are looking for additional information please contact the Foundation’s Secretary, Erica Castillo, at (808) 664-1827 or info(at)hawaiidefensefoundation.org.

###

Copy of the complaint can be found:
http://ia600709.us.archive.org/0/items/gov.uscourts.hid.98653/gov.uscourts.hid.98653.1.0.pdf

Copy of the press release:
http://www.hawaiidefensefoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Lawsuit-Press-Release.pdf

dvcrsn
08-24-2011, 11:23 AM
good

Ubermcoupe
08-24-2011, 11:24 AM
Hopefully this will get some traction. I will be looking forward to this :)

taperxz
08-24-2011, 11:24 AM
I was waiting for this!

Just bought my daughter a car over there for school because of what i saw in public transportation and the vagrants in waikiki.

When she moves off campus the first think i will do is gift her a handgun and have her take it back with her.

Crom
08-24-2011, 11:25 AM
It warms my heart to read that. :) Best wishes to the HDF and Mr. Baker. I wish there were more plaintiffs though. I hope it all works out for the best.

jdberger
08-24-2011, 11:27 AM
Good luck with this, Funtimes. Y'all deserve a good win over there.

Sutcliffe
08-24-2011, 11:31 AM
I think 40 years of appeasment proved that point.

Tripper
08-24-2011, 11:36 AM
taper, careful with getting her a gun to take with her, know the laws, might be bad for her to take a gun. they are worse than cali for their gun laws and registration stuff from what i understand of an LEO moving there.

taperxz
08-24-2011, 11:40 AM
taper, careful with getting her a gun to take with her, know the laws, might be bad for her to take a gun. they are worse than cali for their gun laws and registration stuff from what i understand of an LEO moving there.

AFTER the win! We know the islands well.;)

Flopper
08-24-2011, 1:37 PM
Great, good luck guys!

CaliforniaLiberal
08-24-2011, 1:38 PM
Check this out. Makes you feel better about California Gun Laws. A little.


First you have to get a permit to acquire, then you have to register the gun after you get it.


Acquiring Firearms in Hawaii

http://www.honolulupd.org/info/gun134-2.htm


Here's just a portion of the process.


You will need the following documentation prior to completing the application. The application must be completed at the Firearms Section.

Valid photo identification.
Permit to acquire application.
Firearms questionnaire form.
Mental health waiver form.
Medical Waiver form.
Fingerprint card. (First time in-state purchase and $19.25 FBI fingerprinting fee.)
Background check. (Background check includes, but is not limited to, warrant checks, local and national arrest history, local and national criminal history, local and national criminal convictions, any pending cases and TRO's.)
Original Hunters Education card or an original Handgun Safety Training Course Affidavit. (Handguns only)
Proof of U.S citizenship if born outside the United States.

nicki
08-24-2011, 1:39 PM
I read through the brief and it reads well.

My concerns are that I didn't see comments from the following:

Heller
MacDonald
Elzell
Nordyke
Peruta
Richards.

I also didn't see a 9th amendment cause of action. Certainly not being able to protect oneself would cause someone to restrict their movements.

Of course there will be motion wars.

Since we now have a law firm that filed a lawsuit in Hawaii, perhaps we may want to create our own lawsuit regarding carry for non residents.

I realize we have Gray's lawsuit going in Denver, but a Hawaii Lawsuit would be in the 9th circuit and potentially could give us a "Split Circuit".

We already know the plays by the other side in Gray's case, so we could take those out in a Hawaii case.

Many people travel to Hawaii on vacation, not being able to protect yourself while on "Vacation" is bs. Hawaii also has many part time residents.

Hawaii is the only state in the 9th circuit with bans on any type of carry, a Federal Judge in Hawaii wouldn't have the "unloaded carry option" to weasel out of a CCW case.

Nicki

bwiese
08-24-2011, 1:41 PM
These guys do have an advantage.

HI has a direct copy of the 2nd in their state constitution. :)

Arguing that it means something different than what the US RKBA means, and which has been incorporated, is going to be an uphill battle for the antis.

wildhawker
08-24-2011, 2:13 PM
Nicki,

Reduce your tempo just touch. Unless you think we (CGF, SAF, et al) haven't a strategy or have overlooked something as glaring as interstate travel - I think our comments here and elsewhere should summarily put any fears for either to rest - we'll make the appropriate play at the appropriate time.

-Brandon

I read through the brief and it reads well.

My concerns are that I didn't see comments from the following:

Heller
MacDonald
Elzell
Nordyke
Peruta
Richards.

I also didn't see a 9th amendment cause of action. Certainly not being able to protect oneself would cause someone to restrict their movements.

Of course there will be motion wars.

Since we now have a law firm that filed a lawsuit in Hawaii, perhaps we may want to create our own lawsuit regarding carry for non residents.

I realize we have Gray's lawsuit going in Denver, but a Hawaii Lawsuit would be in the 9th circuit and potentially could give us a "Split Circuit".

We already know the plays by the other side in Gray's case, so we could take those out in a Hawaii case.

Many people travel to Hawaii on vacation, not being able to protect yourself while on "Vacation" is bs. Hawaii also has many part time residents.

Hawaii is the only state in the 9th circuit with bans on any type of carry, a Federal Judge in Hawaii wouldn't have the "unloaded carry option" to weasel out of a CCW case.

Nicki

wash
08-24-2011, 2:23 PM
I would love to go plinking in paradise.

Good luck with the lawsuit.

I hope that it creates a good decision that we can apply against Californian laws.

I will look to see if I can support HDF after I get done renewing my current memberships.

aklover_91
08-24-2011, 2:30 PM
Acquiring Firearms in Hawaii

http://www.honolulupd.org/info/gun134-2.htm


Here's just a portion of the process.


You will need the following documentation prior to completing the application. The application must be completed at the Firearms Section.

Valid photo identification.
Permit to acquire application.
Firearms questionnaire form.
Mental health waiver form.
Medical Waiver form.
Fingerprint card. (First time in-state purchase and $19.25 FBI fingerprinting fee.)
Background check. (Background check includes, but is not limited to, warrant checks, local and national arrest history, local and national criminal history, local and national criminal convictions, any pending cases and TRO's.)
Original Hunters Education card or an original Handgun Safety Training Course Affidavit. (Handguns only)
Proof of U.S citizenship if born outside the United States.

Isn't that last one illegal?

OleCuss
08-24-2011, 2:38 PM
Do we know if these lawyers are good at this kind of stuff and/or if they are coordinating with the "right" people?

CCWFacts
08-24-2011, 3:05 PM
I don't know if this is good or bad. Is the NRA or SAF involved with this? Could this be a Gorski type situation? Hawaii was already harmed by a pro se case which effectively canceled their constitutional RKBA provision.

KarLorian
08-24-2011, 3:54 PM
Glad to see this got off the ground funtimes. Could you post a link to donate to the HDF. As someone who was born in Hilo, I really wish you the best of luck.

GaryV
08-24-2011, 4:04 PM
From the excerpt posted by CaliforniaLiberal I'd say that Hawaii's laws are most vulnerable to a challenge of the US citizenship requirement for even purchasing a gun. That one is clearly in direct violation of Heller and McDonald.

OleCuss
08-24-2011, 4:11 PM
I don't know if this is good or bad. Is the NRA or SAF involved with this? Could this be a Gorski type situation? Hawaii was already harmed by a pro se case which effectively canceled their constitutional RKBA provision.

I think this is better than the Gorski-level.

I did a quick scan of the filing and it seemed pretty well written and to make some good points. Not as much fun to read as Gura and a few others but my quick scan did not show any stupidity. But IANAL and could be missing a lot - especially since it was just a scan.

nick
08-24-2011, 4:29 PM
Isn't that last one illegal?

Well, how about the background check checking "arrest history".

taperxz
08-24-2011, 4:50 PM
It appears to me that Hawaii has such strict laws, challenging them won't be much of a problem. As Hawaii 2A groups get up to speed on all of this they will eventually knock down that wall brick by brick.

The people of Hawaii are of a different mindset than the rest of us from the main land. Many of the general population there really see no need for guns and embrace their history of island life. Some would have preferred to not be a part of the USA.

The Hawaii Defense foundation will, LIKE CGF, need to move in ways that are politically convincing to the population/government/courts. Along with SCOTUS rulings the org. will bring 2A rights to Hawaii. Finances will also be a hurdle for them as there just arent that many gun owners in the state. There never really has been on the island, unlike the mainland.

RRangel
08-24-2011, 4:52 PM
This is going to be interesting to see play out. How Hawaii tries to get around the state Constitution is going to be fun to watch. Heck, the whole nation has incorporation of an individual right.

tonelar
08-24-2011, 4:59 PM
I was waiting for this!

Just bought my daughter a car over there for school because of what i saw in public transportation and the vagrants in waikiki.

When she moves off campus the first think i will do is gift her a handgun and have her take it back with her and ship it to a HI ffl.

Fixed it for you.

Gray Peterson
08-24-2011, 5:03 PM
Look, let's take this for what it is.

It's not specifically SAF or NRA "supported", but let's keep in perspective what we're dealing with here.

9th Circuit already has two carry cases up there. This case will be the "Hawaii Cleanup Case", and I believe it will likely be stayed with every other case once SCOTUS picks up a carry case.

Paladin
08-24-2011, 5:13 PM
Look, let's take this for what it is.

It's not specifically SAF or NRA "supported", but let's keep in perspective what we're dealing with here.

9th Circuit already has two carry cases up there. This case will be the "Hawaii Cleanup Case", and I believe it will likely be stayed with every other case once SCOTUS picks up a carry case.

As long as the right cases by the "right people" set the precedents, Gorski-wannabes can't harm us nearly as much....

Ding126
08-24-2011, 5:29 PM
Ho'omaika'i 'ana & Pomaika`i

Gray Peterson
08-24-2011, 5:35 PM
As long as the right cases by the "right people" set the precedents, Gorski-wannabes can't harm us nearly as much....

They are not Gorski-wannabe's. They seem competent....

Paladin
08-24-2011, 5:39 PM
They are not Gorski-wannabe's. They seem competent....I was talking in general, and not even in particular in re. to HI.

Glad to hear your opinion that they're solid though. :thumbsup:

taperxz
08-24-2011, 5:45 PM
Fixed it for you.
I was waiting for this!

Just bought my daughter a car over there for school because of what i saw in public transportation and the vagrants in waikiki.

When she moves off campus the first think i will do is gift her a handgun and have her take it back with her and ship it to a HI ffl.
NO NO NO she is still a CA resident:D Just in school there! I gift to her here and she takes it where ever law allows her to;)

wildhawker
08-24-2011, 5:49 PM
Look, let's take this for what it is.

It's not specifically SAF or NRA "supported", but let's keep in perspective what we're dealing with here.

9th Circuit already has two carry cases up there. This case will be the "Hawaii Cleanup Case", and I believe it will likely be stayed with every other case once SCOTUS picks up a carry case.

Indeed, Gray.

The cases that go before USSC/circuits will be the binding precedents that will guide the lower courts on follow-on cases such as this one.

While the case is not a joint venture of any sort, some of us did have an opportunity to discuss the issues with the plaintiff and review some of the work prior to its filing. I, for one, certainly appreciate that sort of trust and cooperation between synergistic interests.

Here's to the best of success on this case!

-Brandon

CCWFacts
08-24-2011, 7:08 PM
I'm relieved to hear that, Wildhawker and Gray. Hawaii is going to need a firm reminder that they are part of the United States.

CaliforniaLiberal
08-24-2011, 7:14 PM
NO NO NO she is still a CA resident:D Just in school there! I gift to her here and she takes it where ever law allows her to;)



http://www.honolulupd.org/info/gun134-3.htm

Out-of-State Registration

There is no 14-day waiting period for Out-of-State Registration. Once the firearm arrives in the state you have 3 calendar days, (72 Hours), to bring it in to the Honolulu Police Department Firearms Section.

Please have a valid photo identification and proof of citizenship, if born outside the United States, bring proof of citizenship such as an Original US Passport, Original Naturalization Certificate, Original Born Abroad Certificate, or if you are in the military your Enlisted (ERB) or Officer (ORB) Record Brief will suffice only if the document states you are a United States Citizen.

lumwilliam
08-24-2011, 7:34 PM
I don't see the point for hawaii. Some of those Samoans are so big...if you were ever attacked by one, anything concealable would be moot. You'd need something in 30.06 or something that fires deershot at least.

taperxz
08-24-2011, 7:38 PM
http://www.honolulupd.org/info/gun134-3.htm

Out-of-State Registration

There is no 14-day waiting period for Out-of-State Registration. Once the firearm arrives in the state you have 3 calendar days, (72 Hours), to bring it in to the Honolulu Police Department Firearms Section.

Please have a valid photo identification and proof of citizenship, if born outside the United States, bring proof of citizenship such as an Original US Passport, Original Naturalization Certificate, Original Born Abroad Certificate, or if you are in the military your Enlisted (ERB) or Officer (ORB) Record Brief will suffice only if the document states you are a United States Citizen.
Jeez louise!! AFTER THE SUIT BEING BROUGHT ON!!! but thank you for the intel.

Gray Peterson
08-24-2011, 7:51 PM
I don't see the point for hawaii. Some of those Samoans are so big...if you were ever attacked by one, anything concealable would be moot. You'd need something in 30.06 or something that fires deershot at least.

Funny you should mention that. American Samoa completely bans handgun possession in home still.

taperxz
08-24-2011, 7:57 PM
Funny you should mention that. American Samoa completely bans handgun possession in home still.

REALLY! It should also be noted that the biggest employer there is a popular tuna company owned by no other than Nancy Pelosis husband.

epilepticninja
08-24-2011, 8:01 PM
Hawaii is going to need a firm reminder that they are part of the United States.

I was stationed on Oahu for six years. If people don't think it is the Republic of Hawaii, they are fooling themselves. They hate the mainland and anything to do with it, including the laws. And Honolulu PD is one of the most jacked up departments I've ever seen.

taperxz
08-24-2011, 8:05 PM
I was stationed on Oahu for six years. If people don't think it is the Republic of Hawaii, they are fooling themselves. They hate the mainland and anything to do with it, including the laws. And Honolulu PD is one of the most jacked up departments I've ever seen.

YUP! 3 days ago I heard a cop telling a guy delivering on kuhio that he could arrest him for parking in a loading zone!!

Window_Seat
08-24-2011, 8:18 PM
I recapped the docket page (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.hid.98528/gov.uscourts.hid.98528.docket.html) and the complaint for all to see.

Erik.

Funtimes
08-24-2011, 9:09 PM
fml... not having a good week.

JimSar
08-24-2011, 9:24 PM
Ho'omaika'i 'ana & Pomaika`i

I speak Hawaiian, too. "Book 'em Dano, murder one" :)

Rossi357
08-24-2011, 9:26 PM
I'm wondering if the Honolulu PD brief will mention Ezell. I suspect it will read like a brady brief.

dantodd
08-24-2011, 9:37 PM
I'm wondering if the Honolulu PD brief will mention Ezell. I suspect it will read like a brady brief.

more like a brah-ady brief. *rim shot*

(man that was achingly bad.)

Al Norris
08-24-2011, 9:42 PM
Thanks Window Seat. Earlier, PACER didn't show the case... [facepalm] HI time! Arghhh!

hoffmang
08-24-2011, 9:50 PM
I recapped the docket page (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.hid.98528/gov.uscourts.hid.98528.docket.html) and the complaint for all to see.

Erik.

The complaint took a few hours to get docketed into RECAP. It wasn't there as late as 1PM Pacific...

-Gene

DannyInSoCal
08-24-2011, 10:02 PM
I sent a $100 - Good cause....

Trailboss60
08-24-2011, 10:30 PM
FWIW, Hawaiii reporter.com is a pretty good source to follow what takes place on the islands regarding issues like this, they are fair in their reporting on gun rights issues.






http://www.hawaiireporter.com/hawaii-government-sued-over-restrictive-firearms-laws/123

Malia Zimmerman is a real reporter that deserves to be called a journalist, unlike so many in her trade.

Wernher von Browning
08-24-2011, 10:43 PM
REALLY! It should also be noted that the biggest employer there is a popular tuna company owned by no other than Nancy Pelosis husband.

Mmmmm... not quite.

(Factchecking and correction is left as an exercise for the student. Show your work. Start... now.)

adrenaline
08-24-2011, 10:48 PM
I was stationed on Oahu for six years. If people don't think it is the Republic of Hawaii, they are fooling themselves. They hate the mainland and anything to do with it, including the laws.Not everyone feels this way....

I know....born and raised (26 years).... A lot of my cousins and siblings are gunners. This is great news.

Funtimes
08-24-2011, 10:54 PM
Just before someone blasts me on it; it seems I had a error in the printing. This will be corrected tomorrow morning at 8 a.m. I have copies of the document, with the said missing pages, but two copies have them (not sure wtf). Will probably never figure out why or what, just that it will get fixed. Should change my name to "Notsofuntimes" this past week, crazy stuff has been happening -- figures something would go wrong for us here.

Side note! I did get A's in my class for this semester lol.

KarLorian
08-25-2011, 2:07 AM
Not everyone feels this way....

I know....born and raised (26 years).... A lot of my cousins and siblings are gunners. This is great news.

Indeed, Hawaii-gunners aren't as vocal as us CalGunners right now, but we shouldn't count them out just yet. I mean hell if you wanna look at how many anti's we have here in CA it might eclipse the whole population of HI.

HI has roughly 3.5% of CA's population.


Glad to see that this case was discussed with some of the "Right People" before it got to this point. While we shouldn't demand that everybody cow-tow to the "Will of the Right People", we do need to make sure that others don't screw up the progress we are on track to create.


Donated $100 to HDF
Confirmation #: 4CF51413KF909900N

Funtimes
08-25-2011, 2:33 AM
I really did try to communicate with all the "right" people. And, as Brandon said, shared what I was up to. I know SAF / NRA / CGF knew this was coming. I've spent the last year working on websites, groups, gun shows, doing the 501.c3 paperwork, researching and reading. So it was a big project in the making for me.

Thank you for the people who donated. No joke I've been working two additional jobs to help pay for this stuff. Doing DUI investigations on the side as well as bi-weekly handgun safety training under HDF as a volunteer to raise funds. I can honestly say from me personally -- thank you for the help.

OleCuss
08-25-2011, 5:34 AM
Thank you!

Your efforts and sacrifice are appreciated.

Bruce
08-25-2011, 6:28 AM
On appeal, this would eventually go to the Ninth Circus; right? Could be interesting.

HowardW56
08-25-2011, 6:47 AM
On appeal, this would eventually go to the Ninth Circus; right? Could be interesting.

Depending on the outcome of some cases now pending in the 9th, it could be over quickly...

yellowfin
08-25-2011, 6:57 AM
If I'm reading this right, doesn't it look like Hawaii/Honolulu is already noncompliant with Salute v Pitchess right off the bat which is law for all of the 9th Circuit?

emgee00
08-25-2011, 7:14 AM
Awesome!

swilson
08-25-2011, 7:32 AM
Good!

Uxi
08-25-2011, 8:19 AM
Hopefully this will get some traction. I will be looking forward to this :)

Indeed! Nice complement to Prieto. :D

press1280
08-25-2011, 9:01 AM
If I'm reading this right, doesn't it look like Hawaii/Honolulu is already noncompliant with Salute v Pitchess right off the bat which is law for all of the 9th Circuit?

Probably, but it's unlikely the PD will come out and say that they flat out won't issue to anyone. They'll just say he was denied for lack of cause(even though they apparently didn't explain or didn't give him any kind of appeal process-something which even NJ gives you). Salute seems like it would only work if the PD makes it impossible to apply or has a states policy not to issue CCWs at all.

Funtimes
08-25-2011, 9:04 AM
Probably, but it's unlikely the PD will come out and say that they flat out won't issue to anyone. They'll just say he was denied for lack of cause(even though they apparently didn't explain or didn't give him any kind of appeal process-something which even NJ gives you). Salute seems like it would only work if the PD makes it impossible to apply or has a states policy not to issue CCWs at all.

There are no policies. :)

CCWFacts
08-25-2011, 9:10 AM
I was stationed on Oahu for six years. If people don't think it is the Republic of Hawaii, they are fooling themselves.

Yeah but the Kingdom of Hawaii was militarily defeated by the United States and were made into a territory and then into a state. The US Government has the tools necessary to enforce whatever is deemed necessary. Same applies to the US' other island territories which also have collectivist, un-American societies, but find themselves under the control of the US and the 9th Circuit. Stone age technology vs. US technology of the 1940s, one side wins, the other side loses, and the loser must bend to the rules of the winner, however uncomfortable that may be.

They hate the mainland and anything to do with it, including the laws.

Yes except they're ok with laws that send money over to them.

And Honolulu PD is one of the most jacked up departments I've ever seen.

My understanding is it's basically a Third World style PD. Although, come to think of it, there are some Third World PDs I would prefer to deal with vs. HPD.

Window_Seat
08-25-2011, 9:57 AM
The complaint took a few hours to get docketed into RECAP. It wasn't there as late as 1PM Pacific...

-Gene
I think I took credit for something someone else beat me at doing, so I retract... Thanks Gene! ;)

Erik.

rips31
08-25-2011, 2:15 PM
i agree with this. born and raised there and 1/2 of my family is still there. we are all hunters/gunnies.

glad hawaii is getting its reminder that they're the 50th state.

Not everyone feels this way....

I know....born and raised (26 years).... A lot of my cousins and siblings are gunners. This is great news.

Window_Seat
08-26-2011, 1:49 PM
There is now a recap docket page (http://archive.recapthelaw.org/hid/98528/).

Erik.

joefrank64k
08-26-2011, 4:09 PM
Hope it goes well for them! Im donating DONATED $100 right now. Hawaii is a place I would like to end up, but their gun laws sure are funky.

joefrank64k
08-27-2011, 10:17 AM
Finally got a chance to read the recap docket...good stuff!

Meplat
08-27-2011, 10:28 AM
Better the law catch her with it than the bad guys catch her without it!taper, careful with getting her a gun to take with her, know the laws, might be bad for her to take a gun. they are worse than cali for their gun laws and registration stuff from what i understand of an LEO moving there.

Funtimes
09-01-2011, 12:09 AM
Alright, because of a cleric error we re-filed this two-days ago. ****ty, but stuff happens.

Anyways:
We filed a somewhat revised complaint; and then yesterday we also filed a motion for preliminary injunction.

The new docket has been recapped, but is not present yet. I also recapped the complaint. Well, at least I think I did? All I have to do is download it with the recap addon enabled right? If so then it is complete.

Case #: Case 1:11-cv-00528-ACK-KSC Someone please update the wiki to reflect this change in docket and filing.

I will post a copy of the complaint and other documents as soon as I can.

http://www.hawaiidefensefoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Memorandum-in-Support-of-PI.pdf

Also, before it is pointed out, I already busted my buddy's chops for the typo on page 25.

Feel free to comment on the points raised, while I can't comment on all of it I'm happy to hear feedback regardless of how good or bad.

NeuTag
09-01-2011, 12:37 AM
These guys do have an advantage.

HI has a direct copy of the 2nd in their state constitution. :)

Arguing that it means something different than what the US RKBA means, and which has been incorporated, is going to be an uphill battle for the antis.

This is a strange state. It was stolen from the rightful rulers by the USA gov. at the time.....It still has the ability to become a sovereign nation like the Philippines. The descendants of the original royal ruler still live. All they need is popular opinion and an army of voters. I wish the fellow well. I will never in my life visit there. Why? I am Californian. The islands have nothing to offer.

Except TV shows like Hawaii 5 o and Magnum...from hollywood.

Anchors
09-01-2011, 12:46 AM
Alright, because of a cleric error we re-filed this two-days ago. ****ty, but stuff happens.

Anyways:
We filed a somewhat revised complaint; and then yesterday we also filed a motion for preliminary injunction.

The new docket has been recapped, but is not present yet. I also recapped the complaint. Well, at least I think I did? All I have to do is download it with the recap addon enabled right? If so then it is complete.

Case #: Case 1:11-cv-00528-ACK-KSC Someone please update the wiki to reflect this change in docket and filing.

I will post a copy of the complaint and other documents as soon as I can.

http://www.hawaiidefensefoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Memorandum-in-Support-of-PI.pdf

Also, before it is pointed out, I already busted my buddy's chops for the typo on page 25.

Feel free to comment on the points raised, while I can't comment on all of it I'm happy to hear feedback regardless of how good or bad.

Bummer, good luck to you...again!
ETA: I read some more of the PDF. I like this part a lot...going straight for the throat!

The requested injunction would allow all Hawaii citizens, who are not otherwise specifically adjudicated to be so dangerous as to curtail or infringe upon their presumptively intact constitutional rights, such as Mr. Baker, to carry and bear firearms and otherise freely exercize their Second Amendment Rights as the framers of the United States Constitution (and more recently, the majority of the United States Supreme Court) intended.
Emphasis mine.

2Bear
09-01-2011, 1:14 AM
we'll make the appropriate play at the appropriate time.


http://bestanimations.com/Games/Chess/Chess-01-june.gif

Funtimes
09-01-2011, 1:31 AM
I'm going to look forward to the opposition responses, especially in light of Peruta. I think it will be also interesting to see that they say about a few of the other counts.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/63717832 is also a copy of the Preliminary Injunction.

Funtimes
09-12-2011, 12:45 AM
Case was re-assigned to just judge JUDGE ALAN C KAY. Our initial review shows signs of him being somewhat of an originalist.

Additionally,
NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 5 Plaintiff's MOTION for Preliminary Injunction set for Court Hearing on 1/17/2012 at 10:00 AM before JUDGE ALAN C KAY.

Scheduling Conference is on November 28th, 2011 at 9:00 a.m.

Paul S
09-12-2011, 7:28 AM
Case was re-assigned to just judge JUDGE ALAN C KAY. Our initial review shows signs of him being somewhat of an originalist.



If your opinion of the jurist holds true that could bode well for the cause. We can only hope. I suspect the 'fight' will be long and difficult.

dantodd
09-12-2011, 9:16 AM
Geesh. 5 months to a PI hearing. That seems too long.

Heretodaygonetomorrow
09-12-2011, 2:14 PM
My 18 YO son recently completed Basic Training and the US Army posted him to HI (many/most of the other graduates of his same training cycle are now vacationing/traveling in Afganistan). He's upset that the laws there prohibit residents from owning any gun until over 21 YO. Before he received his post information, he was looking forward to buying a shotgun and a AR immediately.

I would have thought that the Government of the State of HI, and the residents all recognizing that HI is the US State furthest from the mainland, and the most likely to be attacked (as was demonstrated in 1941) first would be interested in a strong, layered, defense capability.

The idea that the HI Government expects 18 YOs military members to risk their own lives to protect the lives of residents) and their civil rights, but are not responsible enough to be trusted with personal weapons is ridiculous.

Funtimes
09-12-2011, 2:32 PM
Geesh. 5 months to a PI hearing. That seems too long.

How long should it generally take? i was thinking that since a PI should take the place of the TRO and a TRO is only good for "two weeks" (hah! Pun intended); so my understanding is that a PI should be really fast to fillin for the TRO expiring. This is something I have already asked about and have been looking into the arguments.

Sutcliffe
09-12-2011, 3:22 PM
I cna't wait.

Che
09-16-2011, 2:17 AM
Chris:

Can you post the updated complaint?
I'm only seeing the 8/23 version.

Funtimes
09-16-2011, 4:32 AM
Chris:

Can you post the updated complaint?
I'm only seeing the 8/23 version.


Complaint: http://ia600709.us.archive.org/0/items/gov.uscourts.hid.98653/gov.uscourts.hid.98653.1.0.pdf

Docket: http://ia600709.us.archive.org/0/items/gov.uscourts.hid.98653/gov.uscourts.hid.98653.docket.html

QQQ
09-16-2011, 8:16 AM
Good luck, Chris!

This is a strange state. It was stolen from the rightful rulers by the USA gov. at the time.....

If you look at the history of the Hawaii, the only reason a unified monarchy existed in the first place was that one king from one island invaded and conquered the others. So it always cracks me up when they talk about how the US government is somehow less legitimate.

kauaibuilt
09-16-2011, 8:41 AM
Good luck, Chris!



If you look at the history of the Hawaii, the only reason a unified monarchy existed in the first place was that one king from one island invaded and conquered the others. So it always cracks me up when they talk about how the US government is somehow less legitimate.

Close but not quite... Chief conquered ALMOST all and became king. The British landowners originally took over HI and were forced to give it back to the monarchy by the US. Then the US decided that HI was of importance (IIRC it was of great tactical advantage) and took it over.

CaliforniaLiberal
09-16-2011, 9:02 AM
.....If you look at the history of the Hawaii, the only reason a unified monarchy existed in the first place was that one king from one island invaded and conquered the others. So it always cracks me up when they talk about how the US government is somehow less legitimate.


So by this logic any part of the world that has ever had a previous war for territory has no rights against an invader who would take their land? For example "The United States was stolen from the previous inhabitants so the present people and government have no claim to legitimacy."

Thus it would "Crack you up" if Americans conquered by an invading enemy objected to the invasion and foreign rulers?

By your reasoning whoever is the most recent conquerer has the best claim to legitimacy.

Broadhead
09-25-2011, 6:05 PM
By your reasoning whoever is the most recent conqueror has the best claim to legitimacy.

I think he is reasoning that no conqueror has a valid claim to legitimacy.

glbtrottr
09-26-2011, 7:09 AM
Sue them to oblivion. They don't have a ton of money.

Hopalong
09-26-2011, 10:54 AM
Good. Welcome to the USA.

They will resist, kicking and screaming, just like California.

jar
11-29-2011, 11:02 AM
EP: Rule 16 Scheduling Conference held on 11/28/2011. Rule 16 Scheduling Conference Order to be issued. Bench Trial set for 11/27/2012 09:00 AM before JUDGE ALAN C KAY. Final Pretrial Conference set for 10/16/2012 09:00 AM before JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG. Settlement Conference set for 8/23/2012 11:00 AM before JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG. Motions due by 6/27/2012. Discovery due by 9/28/2012. (C5 - no record, 9:00-9:10am.) (JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG)(sna, )No COS issued for this docket entry (Entered: 11/28/2011)

edlegault
11-29-2011, 11:51 AM
Nothing like slow justice......

Uxi
11-29-2011, 12:28 PM
Isn't there supposed to be some sort of a right to a speedy trial? That's deep into 2012. Who thinks it'll be close to done before 2013? Then, regardless what happens, it will be appealed.

Ubermcoupe
11-29-2011, 12:37 PM
:eek: discovery is a year away :facepalm:

SilverBulletZ06
11-29-2011, 1:22 PM
So does that just about round out the "may issue" states now? NY, NJ, CA, MD, HA? What about Connecticut and Mass?

zhyla
11-29-2011, 1:34 PM
Isn't there supposed to be some sort of a right to a speedy trial?

That's guaranteed in the case of a criminal trial, and it's the accused that has that right. Read your constitution, it's not that long.

QQQ
11-29-2011, 1:41 PM
I think he is reasoning that no conqueror has a valid claim to legitimacy.

Yes.

Ubermcoupe
11-29-2011, 1:45 PM
...NY, NJ, CA, MD, HI?

Splitting hairs, I know. but yea your list looks about right... Funny how those are all the places I have lived/currently live/would like to live :(

press1280
11-29-2011, 2:39 PM
So does that just about round out the "may issue" states now? NY, NJ, CA, MD, HA? What about Connecticut and Mass?

Mass has Hightower. CT is a de facto shall-issue(my mail!), DE is also basically shall-issue(and unlicensed open carry in most areas). The only real may-issue w/o a lawsuit is RI.

anthonyca
11-29-2011, 2:44 PM
These guys do have an advantage.

HI has a direct copy of the 2nd in their state constitution. :)

Arguing that it means something different than what the US RKBA means, and which has been incorporated, is going to be an uphill battle for the antis.

I love it. The RKBA legal team takes an uphill battle for the antis and pours on the snow, then makes it uphill both ways. Go get em!

hoffmang
11-29-2011, 8:24 PM
Mass has Hightower. CT is a de facto shall-issue(my mail!), DE is also basically shall-issue(and unlicensed open carry in most areas). The only real may-issue w/o a lawsuit is RI.

Even Rhode Island is apparently "usually issue" though technically "may issue."

-Gene

CCWFacts
11-29-2011, 8:42 PM
Even Rhode Island is apparently "usually issue" though technically "may issue."

My understanding is that RI should be classified as shall-issue. There are known good causes that they are required to accept, like having a C&R FFL. It's a hassle, but a C&R FFL is shall-issue, so therefore a RI LTC is shall-issue. Also RI accepts various shall-issue out-of-state permits.

It's on the threshold of shall-issue. In many ways, it's so close that anyone who really wants an LTC there already has one, so there may be less incentive to push for LTC reform.

Think of it. If most sheriffs here issued to any applicant who could articulate some kind of good cause ("I like to go hiking in remote areas sometimes" or "I have to drive home from work late at night sometimes") it would take the wind out of the LTC reform movement.

Knuckle Dragger
11-29-2011, 8:47 PM
Even Rhode Island is apparently "usually issue" though technically "may issue."

-Gene

Actually Rhode Island is technically "shall issue". There's still a suitable person and proper reason component to the issuance of a license but that's not as significant a constraint as one might think. A 'collector' of firearms has a 'proper reason'.

The real problem is that issuing authorities, including the Attorney General, tend to play dumb regarding RI Supreme Court precedent. The good news is that they typically back down quickly when confronted with a knowledgeable applicant.

Funtimes
11-29-2011, 11:29 PM
I don't think discovery will take that long and this will be resolved on motions instead of the trial date. MTD / PI / Judgement on Pleadings (state) is set for the 17th, so we will know more then. There is a chance the date may be adjusted slightly.

Funtimes
12-13-2011, 7:15 AM
Set clocks back two months.

EO: 5 Plaintiff's MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and 15 Defendants Honolulu Police Department, City and County of Honolulu and Louis Kealoha's MOTION to Dismiss Complaint set for 1/17/2012 is hereby continued to 3/21/2012 at 10:00 AM before JUDGE ALAN C KAY. Judge Kay is on unavailable status on 1/17/2012. (JUDGE ALAN C KAY)(lls, )

(Entered: 12/08/2011)

PI Motion and the States Judgement on the Pleadings is also same day.

OleCuss
12-13-2011, 7:37 AM
Thank you for the update!

Bigtime1
12-13-2011, 1:56 PM
Any time I read "...has filed a lawsuit against (insert city here) Chief of Police (insert name here), the (insert city here) Police Department, the City and County of (insert name name here), the State of (insert state here), and Governor (insert name here) in connection with civil rights violations of the Second and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution." I feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

May justice prevail.

Ubermcoupe
12-13-2011, 2:03 PM
Bummer. March it is.

Funtimes
02-14-2012, 12:48 AM
Brady Center Urges Court To Throw Out Challenge To Hawaii Gun Law

Feb 13, 2012

Washington, DC -- The Brady Center filed a brief today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii urging the court to dismiss a challenge to Hawaii’s strong gun laws restricting the carrying of loaded guns in public.

“Hawaii’s strong gun laws protect families from the severe danger of loaded guns in public,” said Jonathan Lowy, Director of the Brady Center’s Legal Action Project. “We urge the court to follow more than a dozen other courts around the nation in recognizing that there is no right to carry loaded guns in our streets, parks, and playgrounds.”

The lawsuit, Baker v. Kealoha, challenges Hawaii gun laws limiting public carrying of loaded guns to “exceptional case[ s ] ” because of the severe risks posed by guns in public. The Brady Center’s brief urges the court to dismiss the lawsuit, citing legal rulings from around the nation that the Second Amendment is limited to a narrow right to possess guns in the home for self-defense and does not grant a right to carry loaded guns in public.

The Brady Center’s brief cites studies showing that guns in public expose all members of society to great risks, as guns are used far more often to kill and wound innocent victims than to kill and wound criminals, and guns are also used far more often to intimidate and threaten than they are used to thwart crimes.

The Brady Center’s brief also cites data showing that Hawaii’s strong gun laws have helped Hawaii achieve the lowest gun death rate in the nation, less than a third the national average.

The Brady Center is being represented by attorneys with the Brady Center’s Legal Action Project; Mark M. Murakami of Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert in Honolulu and; Jonathan Diesenhaus from Hogan Lovells in Washington, D.C.

freonr22
02-14-2012, 1:08 AM
Tag

Scratch705
02-14-2012, 1:51 AM
and guns are also used far more often to intimidate and threaten than they are used to thwart crimes.

The Brady Center’s brief also cites data showing that Hawaii’s strong gun laws have helped Hawaii achieve the lowest gun death rate in the nation, less than a third the national average.


i find these two parts just funny.

1. if a person with CCW did show their gun to intimidate/threaten would be thieves then of course there is no crime reported since none did occur due to the use of the gun as intimidation.

2. i guess NY and CA aren't used as examples of how strong gun laws prevent gun deaths? :rolleyes: instead i find it funny how they use the high crime rate committed by criminals with guns to argue that more laws are needed for CA/NY. :rolleyes:

morrcarr67
02-14-2012, 7:01 AM
The Brady Center’s brief cites studies showing that guns in public expose all members of society to great risks, as guns are used far more often to kill and wound innocent victims than to kill and wound criminals, and guns are also used far more often to intimidate and threaten than they are used to thwart crimes.



This is my favorite part.

I just wonder if it was legal for these innocent victims to have guns if they would be able to use them to defend themselves. This way maybe more guns would be used to kill and wound criminals. :rolleyes:

Decoligny
02-14-2012, 7:18 AM
"The Brady Center’s brief cites studies showing that guns in public expose all members of society to great risks, as guns are used far more often to kill and wound innocent victims than to kill and wound criminals, and guns are also used far more often to intimidate and threaten than they are used to thwart crimes."

This statement is true.

This is because the law abiding gun-carrying citizen is much less likely to use his legally carried gun than is the criminal.

A criminal may rob 100 people, and only 1 may be armed. He may even wound or kill a few of those 100. The 1 legally armed citizen may end up shooting the criminal, but will most likely use it to intimidate the criminal (scare the crap out of him so he runs away). But the criminal has none the less used his gun to intimidate, or to wound or kill innocents, much more often than the law abiding citizen has used his gun to intimidate, wound or kill criminals.

yellowfin
02-14-2012, 7:26 AM
^ Perhaps the Bradys would prefer that those using a firearm to defend themselves would forgo voluntarily refraining from shooting and instead make it a point to always shoot their assailants to prove the event happened?

Glock22Fan
02-14-2012, 7:41 AM
guns are also used far more often to intimidate and threaten than they are used to thwart crimes.

And let's see, who is likely to intimidate and threaten? Not your typical law-abiding CCW holder. No, it's the ne'erdowells and gang bangers, the muggers and the rapists. And the reason that guns are less likely to be used to thwart crimes is because the Bradies have been sufficiently successful that most victims are unarmed.

Talk about self-fulfilling prophecies.

scarville
02-14-2012, 7:47 AM
Nothing like slow justice......
Justice delayed is justice denied. Nevertheless, gun owners are not a politically favored group in Hawaii so I would expect the Establishment (:)) to defer making any decision one way or the other for as long as possible.

Maestro Pistolero
02-14-2012, 8:08 AM
The elephant in the living room is that that the supply-side approach to controlling gun violence can never work in a country that has weapon possession written into it's constitution, because there will ALWAYS be a supply available for criminals. Therefore, the only controlling factor for criminal use is lawful deterrence by force.

Even the death penalty isn't a deterrent. But the knowledge by the criminal that he will likely be shot right now if he enters this home or robs that person, is a compelling deterrent.

Window_Seat
02-14-2012, 8:13 AM
In an amicus curiae brief to The United States District Court for the District of Hawaii, the Brady Center has urged the Judge in the case to throw out Valentine's Day.

The Brady brief stated in part that "[v]alentine's Day is one in which the Supreme Court has held the practice of casual and explicit kissing to be limited (most notably) to within only some parts of the home..." The brief further asserted that "[k]issing causes diseases such as Infectious mononucleosis', and should be strictly forbidden in any form what-so-ever outside the confines of the home, and as a result, the exercise and practice must be strictly regulated even within the home only to the effect that the practice is disabled with lock and Government restricted key."

"Valentine's Day, which has been rampantly known to cause individuals to rampantly parade around town centers and school zones kissing one another and engaging in card exchanges, should be deemed a danger to society and abolished."

The Legal Community against Violence has joined the brief.

Erik.

Maestro Pistolero
02-14-2012, 8:55 AM
Studies have shown that .274% of all unwanted pregnancies happen on Valentine's day.

hvengel
02-14-2012, 10:34 AM
"The Brady Center’s brief cites studies showing that guns in public expose all members of society to great risks, as guns are used far more often to kill and wound innocent victims than to kill and wound criminals, and guns are also used far more often to intimidate and threaten than they are used to thwart crimes."

This statement is true.

This is because the law abiding gun-carrying citizen is much less likely to use his legally carried gun than is the criminal.

A criminal may rob 100 people, and only 1 may be armed. He may even wound or kill a few of those 100. The 1 legally armed citizen may end up shooting the criminal, but will most likely use it to intimidate the criminal (scare the crap out of him so he runs away). But the criminal has none the less used his gun to intimidate, or to wound or kill innocents, much more often than the law abiding citizen has used his gun to intimidate, wound or kill criminals.

I read a study (sorry I don't have a link) where the researchers went into prisons and asked those who were convicted of armed robbery a number of questions. One of those was how often did they commit these crimes. The responses were in the range of 100 to 300 time/year. In other words these perps treated this as a job and went to "work" on a regular basis.

In places like LA and SF a perp doing 100 robberies a year could conceivably do this for 100 or more years before running into an armed "victim". On the other hand the same perp in Texas or Florida would have this happen several times each year. It's no wonder that Lott found the shall issue resulted in significant declines in violent crime.

glockwise2000
02-14-2012, 10:54 AM
Ho'omaika'i 'ana & Pomaika`i

Which means???? Ignorant to island dialect.

Good for HI. I hope the end result would favor 2A.

My only burning question would be: would this have a direct effect to us here in Kali?

marcusrn
02-14-2012, 10:02 PM
"Exceptional cases only" read already shot or beaten to death or has more income or stature than the honorable MR Christopher Baker. Citizens need not apply.

Strong work Chris and God speed with your case. Marcus

Purple K
02-22-2012, 11:54 AM
Recent activity on the docket: http://ia700709.us.archive.org/0/items/gov.uscourts.hid.98653/gov.uscourts.hid.98653.docket.html

2-16-2012 PLAINTIFF CHRISTOPHER BAKER’S
RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

wolfwood
03-08-2012, 6:31 PM
lots of updates in this case

http://ia600709.us.archive.org/0/items/gov.uscourts.hid.98653/gov.uscourts.hid.98653.44.1.pdf

Look at 16 in that link
they actually saying convicted felon Dog the Bounty Hunter Chapam who under federal law can't own a gun therefore no process server needs one. Its almost like the onion over there. I guess it is the official opinion of Hawaii now that all process servers should have a posse of 15 and 4 SUVs as well

Funtimes
03-08-2012, 6:48 PM
Apparently, its not for the children now, its for the "pets."

HowardW56
03-08-2012, 7:01 PM
Apparently, its not for the children now, its for the "pets."


:rofl2: Bark, Bark, Bark, Bark, Bark, Bark, Bark, Bark, Bark....

Smokeybehr
03-08-2012, 7:07 PM
Well, I guess the police should only carry pepper spray, because only criminals (Duane Chapman) carry pepper spray.

Neptune
03-09-2012, 10:38 AM
The San Francisco County Sheriff is doing his job without possessing a firearm due to his domestic violence indictment, so it only makes sense through that logic that Sheriff's Deputies, and therefore all LEO's need not possess or carry firearms to do their jobs.


__

1JimMarch
03-09-2012, 6:38 PM
WAIT. We just had a federal case back east that says people "employed by somebody prohibited from guns" also can't carry guns - via federal law.

How does that NOT apply to this whole department?

choprzrul
03-09-2012, 6:50 PM
^^^^^^

1JimMarch is now officially nominated and in the running for the coveted "Post of the Year" award.

Congratulations.

.

NightOwl
03-09-2012, 8:02 PM
WAIT. We just had a federal case back east that says people "employed by somebody prohibited from guns" also can't carry guns - via federal law.

How does that NOT apply to this whole department?

I'd love to see a lawsuit brought for this.

Funtimes
03-21-2012, 6:36 PM
These notes are from a Mr. Sgan who was in the gallery at the hearing today.
***** I DID NOT WRITE THIS JUST REPOSTING****


Here are my notes on Judge Kay’s oral order today.

Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction is denied. Plaintiff did not satisfy the four factor analysis to determine whether a preliminary injunction should issue. Plaintiff is unlikely to prevail on the merits. Plaintiff’s asserted harm is speculative. The balance of equities favors Defendants, not Plaintiff. Granting the preliminary injunction is not in the public interest.

City & County’s motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part. The Court dismisses HPD and Chief Kealoha in his personal capacity. Chief Kealoha is party only with respect to injunctive relief, if any.

The State’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is denied. The complaint is lengthy and not sufficiently precise. However, the court finds sufficient clarity under Ninth Circuit precedent that Plaintiff set out the various claims of the complaint.

Count 13 of the Complaint is dismissed. Injunctive relief is a prayer for relief, not an independent count or cause of action.

The City & County of Honolulu is not subject to 5th Amendment. The Fifth Amendment applies to the federal government, not a municipality.

Judge Kay’s written order will explain his reasoning.
6 minutes ago · Like
David Sgan
Here are my two cent comments from the peanut gallery.

1. At the outset of the hearing, Judge Kay asked whether the parties wanted to submit evidence in support or opposition to the preliminary injunction motion. None of the parties sought to admit further evidence in support of their position. Since Plaintiff has the burden of proof in a preliminary injunction motion, this may have been an important opportunity missed.

2. Judge Kay rejected Plaintiff’s reading of the HRS §§ 134-24, and 134-25, Place to Keep statutes, as a prohibition on in-home possession of loaded firearms, and therefore, a violation of the Supreme Court’s Heller and McDonald decisions. Judge Kay was highly critical, if not incredulous, towards Plaintiff’s statutory construction and interpretation.

3. The Court was critical of the “lumping together” of all the named defendants in the averments of the complaint. Judge Kay wants specific attribution of parties, facts, and theories of liability. He expressed his agreement with the C&C’s attorney that the complaint is excessively long. He also agreed that HPD is not “sui juris” as an entity, but is really just a department or organ of municipal government.

4. Now the good stuff with respect to the 2nd Amendment. Judge Kay is concerned about other courts staying their decisions until the 9th Circuit sitting en banc decides the Nordyke case. He asked each counsel what their position on staying this case pending a decision in the Nordyke case. The answers he got from counsel ranged from “the facts and issues in Nordyke are too different to this case” to “that case may be useful to provide an applicable standard of scrutiny to the right to keep and bear arms outside the home.” He then added that the “real issue in Nordyke” is the standard of review applicable in the Ninth Circuit. He mentioned Judge O’Scannlain’s “substantial burden” standard on Second Amendment rights, echoing the abortion standard, and perhaps foreshadowing the forthcoming en banc opinion.

5. As expected, the State and City’s position is that the Heller and McDonald decisions limited the right to keep and bear arms in the home and no more. Judge Kay doesn’t accept this position at face value. He is rightly concerned about the non-exhaustive list of either permissible or restricted sensitive areas discussed as obiter dictum in the Heller and McDonald decisions. Judge Kay criticized these Supreme Court opinions for their lack of clarity.

6. Judge Kay also talked aloud about a recent Fourth Circuit decision. He noted that the Fourth Circuit, without reaching a decision about the correct standard of review, expressed its reasoning that the Heller and McDonald cases must be read to recognize a general right to bear arms outside the home. This is because the Supreme Court expressly recognized and carved out “sensitive areas” where government may prohibit gun possession. If there were no such general 2A right, then there would be no need to carve out such gun-free zones. However, he also noted that the Fourth Circuit ultimately decided to await further instruction from the Supreme Court before issuing a decision consistent with that line of reasoning.

7. With respect to the issuance of carry permits by Chief Kealoha of HPD, Judge Kay was critical of Plaintiff’s avowed “exceptional circumstances” that would warrant issuance of a permit. Judge Kay relied on anecdotal evidence that Chris Baker was the only one out of 75 process servers who actually applied for a permit. Plaintiff’s counsel made some inroads by arguing that “exceptional circumstances” are not necessary in the presence of a constitutional right deprivation. If there is a constitutional right, then Chief Kealoha’s exclusive and unreviewable authority does not satisfy procedural due process. Judge Kay responded weakly and unpersuasively that Baker didn’t ask for an explanation following his denial. Plaintiff’s counsel scored points here.

8. With respect to the element of irreparable injury, Plaintiff’s counsel waded straight back into Judge Kay’s rejection of the argument that the Place to Keep statutes prohibit carrying loaded firearms inside your home. In other words, Hawaii law is and has been consistent with the Heller and McDonald decisions with respect to your right to keep and bear a loaded firearm in your home, work, place of sojourn, and at the range. Plaintiff’s counsel argued that even a momentary and minimal denial of a constitutional right constitutes irreparable harm. This is a familiar and valid concept recognized in Free Speech cases. Judge Kay had no response, but rejected the argument by implication in his order.

9. Judge Kay returned to his observation that none of the other process servers seem to have Baker’s need to carry a firearm in the course of their service duties. No one apprised the Court that some of Hawaii’s process servers are LEOs moonlighting, and don’t need to avail themselves of the permit process.

10. With respect to the public interest factor, Judge Kay is relying on his survey of cases, perhaps post-Miller and pre-Heller, to conclude that the “vast majority” of courts have ruled that granting injunctive relief in 2A cases is not in the public interest. Judge Kay’s public interest analysis is not very persuasive and presented (and may continue to present) an opportunity for Plaintiff to discredit.

The whole question of whether a judge even has the capacity to evaluate the “public interest” has been challenged in a variety of civil contexts including antitrust and securities regulations. As if to exact a concession, Judge Kay cited Defendants’ proffered statistics as evidence and the Court’s own “common sense” before asking Plaintiff’s counsel to comment or rebut. I think Judge Kay knows he’s on weak ground by using anecdotes (e.g., road rage, Zimmerman), suspect data, and his “common sense” in order to deprive Chris Baker of a fundamental constitutional right to keep and bear arms for self-defense outside the home.

I also think that Judge Kay is relying on the causal fallacy that rates of crimes committed with a firearm vary directly with gun sales and ownership. As far as I can tell, all the statistics used on either side of the various 2A debates and cases are highly suspect, grossly misleading, and wildly inconclusive. It reminds me of Prof. Coase’ quote, “if you torture the data long enough, it will confess." Nonetheless, the context of a preliminary injunction behooves Plaintiff to come forward with statistics and perhaps an expert to show and opine that the increased issuance of carry permits does not increase local violent crime rates.

taperxz
03-21-2012, 6:54 PM
The City & County of Honolulu is not subject to 5th Amendment. The Fifth Amendment applies to the federal government, not a municipality.

WHAT??? ianal but what?

taperxz
03-21-2012, 6:56 PM
This post is an echo of one thing, Hawaii doesn't think they are part of the USA. JMO

OleCuss
03-21-2012, 7:09 PM
A number of years ago a brigade based in Hawaii was readying for deployment to Iraq and was sent to Texas to get further training.

I had an interest in the matter and checked on a Hawaiian paper's comments on the matter. They said that the unit had left the mainland for further training.

Yup! They considered Hawaii to be the mainland. . .

I think it isn't so much that Hawaii doesn't believe it is part of the U.S., but many there believe they are the only part of the U.S. that really matters or is of any real quality.

BTW, the portion of the brigade which was in Hawaii sucked at many levels - but mostly at the headquarters level.

taperxz
03-21-2012, 7:20 PM
Even the ninth can rip this apart. just saying LOL

Scarecrow Repair
03-21-2012, 7:27 PM
The City & County of Honolulu is not subject to 5th Amendment. The Fifth Amendment applies to the federal government, not a municipality.

OK, color me confused. This strikes me as bizarre. My first reactions are that either the judge was misquoted, or the judge thinks the 5th amendment was never incorporated against the states, or I am far more ignorant than I thought.

What am I missing here?

ETA to correct a typo, and apologize for being redundant :-)

Funtimes
03-21-2012, 10:17 PM
OK, color me confused. This strikes me as bizarre. My first reactions are that either the judge was misquoted, or the judge thinks the 5th amendment was never incorporated against the states, or I am far more ignorant than I thought.

What am I missing here?

ETA to correct a typo, and apologize for being redundant :-)

It generally only applies to the federal government (as far as due process goes).

Scarecrow Repair
03-22-2012, 8:22 AM
It generally only applies to the federal government (as far as due process goes).

Why? Wasn't the 5th incorporated against the states?

Not trying to be pedantic. I really don't understand this.

fd15k
03-22-2012, 9:22 AM
Why? Wasn't the 5th incorporated against the states?

Not trying to be pedantic. I really don't understand this.

Amendment V

Right to indictment by a grand jury

This right has been held not to be incorporated against the states. See Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 (1884). Because many state constitutions provide for indictment by grand jury, at least in the case of serious crimes, it is unlikely that the Supreme Court will revisit the decision not to incorporate this right against the states.

Protection against double jeopardy

This right has been incorporated against the states. See Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 (1969).

Constitutional privilege against self-incrimination

This right has been incorporated against the states. See Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1 (1964).
A note about the Miranda warnings: The text of the Fifth Amendment does not require that the police, before interrogating a suspect whom they have in custody, give him or her the now-famous Miranda warnings. Nevertheless, the Court has held that these warnings are a necessary prophylactic device, and thus required by the Fifth Amendment by police who interrogate any criminal suspect in custody, regardless of whether he or she is ultimately prosecuted in state or federal court.

Protection against taking of private property without just compensation

This right has been incorporated against the states. See Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. City of Chicago, 166 U.S. 226 (1897).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights#Amendment_V

wolfwood
03-22-2012, 1:43 PM
Even the ninth can rip this apart. just saying LOL

What's there to rip up brother? The defendants tried to force the plaintiff to amend his complaint in order to delay him getting to a hearing on the merits. That was denied. Most of the parties were retained. Other than the PI being denied this was a success. While that might be a issue for appeal it might be more prudent for the plaintiff to simply move to having the trial heard on its merits. Once the judge's decision comes out we will have a fuller picture. Anyone that paints this as anything there than a success and ultimately a step towards restoring civil liberties to Hawaii had unrealistic expectations. Moreover, individuals like that reporter should consider experts are expensive and the attorneys on this case are working for free without any help, guidance or support in any shape way or form from the gun lobby (NRA, SAF, etc.). If the reporter has money for an expert for the next hearing I'd suggest that he contact funtimes and donate.

hammerhead_77
03-22-2012, 2:17 PM
A number of years ago a brigade based in Hawaii was readying for deployment to Iraq and was sent to Texas to get further training.

I had an interest in the matter and checked on a Hawaiian paper's comments on the matter. They said that the unit had left the mainland for further training.

Yup! They considered Hawaii to be the mainland. . .

I think it isn't so much that Hawaii doesn't believe it is part of the U.S., but many there believe they are the only part of the U.S. that really matters or is of any real quality.

BTW, the portion of the brigade which was in Hawaii sucked at many levels - but mostly at the headquarters level.


and THAT ^^^^ describes life in the "25th Dimension" [/threadjack]

Funtimes
03-22-2012, 6:59 PM
What's there to rip up brother? The defendants tried to force the plaintiff to amend his complaint in order to delay him getting to a hearing on the merits. That was denied. Most of the parties were retained. Other than the PI being denied this was a success. While that might be a issue for appeal it might be more prudent for the plaintiff to simply move to having the trial heard on its merits. Once the judge's decision comes out we will have a fuller picture. Anyone that paints this as anything there than a success and ultimately a step towards restoring civil liberties to Hawaii had unrealistic expectations. Moreover, individuals like that reporter should consider experts are expensive and the attorneys on this case are working for free without any help, guidance or support in any shape way or form from the gun lobby (NRA, SAF, etc.). If the reporter has money for an expert for the next hearing I'd suggest that he contact funtimes and donate.

Yeah nothing out of the ordinary. We would have been the first on a PI I believe if we won it at District. We await the reasoning of the denial before we can do anything else.

The commentator was another attorney friend of ours. He clarified and wasn't meaning to suggest our attorney, or us should have paid, but just simply that it could have helped.

wolfwood
05-03-2012, 10:27 AM
well the order came out and the plaintiffs survived the 12b6 but lost on some other counts.

so it looks like the case moves to a trial on the merits

looks like the court relied heavily on the Brady Campaigns amicus in the order

the order can be found here

http://www.bradycenter.org/xshare/Order_Granting_MJOP_4.30.12.pdf

curtisfong
05-03-2012, 11:40 AM
looks like the court relied heavily on the Brady Campaigns amicus in the order

That disgusts me.

J.D.Allen
05-03-2012, 12:19 PM
That disgusts me.

But should not surprise you

wolfwood
05-03-2012, 12:26 PM
this still is a victory however as the plaintiff surivived the motion to dismiss and accordingly will move to the next stage of the litigation.

they retained the City and County of Honolulu, the Chief of Police in his official capacity for injuntive relief, and the Cheif of Police in his individual capacity as defendants.

curtisfong
05-03-2012, 2:31 PM
But should not surprise you

It does not. It just proves that the court system is full of moronic judges.

Rossi357
05-03-2012, 2:59 PM
Read like a copy/paste from all the other 9th circuit cases.

hoffmang
05-03-2012, 4:50 PM
This is very far from a victory. A hint of how bad it is is that it completely ignores Woolard even though it was brought to this judge's attention.

-Gene

SoCal Bob
05-03-2012, 5:34 PM
This is very far from a victory. A hint of how bad it is is that it completely ignores Woolard even though it was brought to this judge's attention.

-Gene

Bad, as in "No good can come from this", or
Bad, as in bad for the court because they are setting themselves up for a circuit split?

The Original Godfather
05-03-2012, 8:14 PM
^ Yes.


:p :D

Kukuforguns
05-04-2012, 11:54 AM
Bad, as in "No good can come from this", or
Bad, as in bad for the court because they are setting themselves up for a circuit split?

Bad, as in defendants will prevail in District Court on the merits. The District Court denied the request for a preliminary injunction by concluding (I'm condensing here) that plaintiff failed to establish likelihood of success. Moreover, the court found that Hawaii law already allows people to bear arms outside of the home in identified circumstances, which satisfies the right to bear arms protected by the Second Amendment, especially in light of the fact that the Supreme Court has not held that the Second Amendment extends beyond the home. The court's opinion clearly indicates that plaintiff will lose on the merits.

However, this is not bad in the sense that Heller and McDonald both lost at the District Court level.

wolfwood
05-05-2012, 10:16 AM
This is very far from a victory. A hint of how bad it is is that it completely ignores Woolard even though it was brought to this judge's attention.

-Gene

The way that I'm reading the Judge is he is saying hey I am not touching this until I here something from a higher court moreover as this is a preliminary injunction I would rather not say you guys will suceed on the merits when that is unclear due to the fact no one has any holding case law yet as to outside the home.

He also did not address Bateman, less than lethal weapons ie tasers and batons and he addressed procedural due process in a footnote. So its clear the judge certainly missed some points. However, I see nothing here that indicates he isn't willling to listen once the second amendment comes out of flux.

Remember a preliminary injunction is not mandatory or even usual in a case of this nature. It invovles a higher standard and mutiple factors to win on. Even on defeat it serves to get many issues addressed on the record and allows counsel to tailor their ultimate arguements morein line wtih the judges preference.

Im not saying that it is a victory in the same way as say Bateman which has been fully decided on its merits but considering a big firm NRA funded case recently got thrown out on a procedurally on a 12b6 in Illnois and this is being down by two dudes in Hawaii and a guy in San Diego pro bono without any national support and national oppossition on the part of the Brady Campaign I'd say its a victory in the sense that the goal of a procedural hearing is to survive it and move on to the merits. That goal was accomplished. Therefore it was a victory.

wildhawker
05-05-2012, 10:23 AM
That's a horrible way to judge important civil rights litigation. Unless, you know, your goal is to "feel good" about... something.

-Brandon

wolfwood
05-05-2012, 10:29 AM
I am not sure what you mean. You go to a hearing with the purpose of surviving it and moving to the next stage. You accomplish it why should that be something to feel bad about?

hoffmang
05-05-2012, 10:53 AM
I am not sure what you mean. You go to a hearing with the purpose of surviving it and moving to the next stage. You accomplish it why should that be something to feel bad about?

This judge has all but ruled there is no right to carry outside your home and he refused to point out that there are other Federal District Courts that disagree with him, even though he was made aware of those.

-Gene

nicki
05-05-2012, 1:10 PM
My gut tells me that the 9th circuit appeals court will grudgingly recognize some form of carry in the Peruta/Richards case.

The writing is on the wall that if a good carry case hits the SCOTUS, then the last holdout states could get hammered.

A carry permit system that is a minor burden similar to say getting a driver's license would probably survive, but permit systems that are more burdensome may not.

What if the Supreme court decided to treat gun rights like say voting rights because after all, we don't have a tier of rights, they all are equal.

Government policies designed specifically to suppress voting have been found unconstitutional, one could argue that gun rights and voting rights are historically inter connected.


I think the other side will use stall tactics in the courts all the way up to en banc hearings and I think that we may see the other side deliberately throw their cases at end band hearings to avoid giving the SCOTUS a clean case to rule on.

Nicki

kcbrown
05-05-2012, 3:27 PM
My gut tells me that the 9th circuit appeals court will grudgingly recognize some form of carry in the Peruta/Richards case.


Why in the world would they do that on their own? No, the 9th will entirely deny the right until their hand is forced, and even then they will deny it as much as they possibly can, quite possibly requiring multiple trips up to the Supreme Court for the same case. It's not like such a thing isn't unprecedented for them...

jrw1911
05-05-2012, 3:57 PM
Man this is some involved and well thought out decision. These Federal judges must have a stable of clerks at the ready to pump out a 61 pg decision. You never see anything like this in state courts. The ruling reads like it was written by the Brady Center. The judge also set out his legal reasoning why plaintiff will not prevail on any of their COA's. (read pg 45 -55). Yes -no right to carry outside the home.

mrdd
05-05-2012, 5:00 PM
This judge has all but ruled there is no right to carry outside your home and he refused to point out that there are other Federal District Courts that disagree with him, even though he was made aware of those.

-Gene

Sounds like this judge is corrupt, at least intellectually.

Paladin
05-05-2012, 8:22 PM
This is very far from a victory. A hint of how bad it is is that it completely ignores Woolard even though it was brought to this judge's attention.

-Gene
If the judge continues to ignore Woolard, isn't that good in that it will make it more likely that he'll get his head handed to him on appeal???

FWIW, 5+ years and 3,000 posts later and I'm still -- practically -- no closer to getting a LTC/CCW. :( Clean criminal background (minor moving violations excepted), but acc to my sheriff, if you let me carry a gun in public, I'll turn into a raving madman. (Just like I do every time I come home and holster up: blood in the hallway, shootouts over who gets to use the bathroom first.... :rolleyes:)

HowardW56
05-05-2012, 8:33 PM
If the judge continues to ignore Woolard, isn't that good in that it will make it more likely that he'll get his head handed to him on appeal???

FWIW, 5+ years and 3,000 posts later and I'm still -- practically -- no closer to getting a LTC/CCW. :( Clean criminal background (minor moving violations excepted), but acc to my sheriff, if you let me carry a gun in public, I'll turn into a raving madman. (Just like I do every time I come home and holster up: blood in the hallway, shootouts over who gets to use the bathroom first.... :rolleyes:)

You have to be careful with those armed bathroom monitors...

I don't care if you had beer & burritos, get in line!!!

wolfwood
05-30-2012, 6:39 PM
activity in this case

http://ia600709.us.archive.org/0/items/gov.uscourts.hid.98653/gov.uscourts.hid.98653.52.0.pdf

http://ia600709.us.archive.org/0/items/gov.uscourts.hid.98653/gov.uscourts.hid.98653.55.0.pdf

http://ia600709.us.archive.org/0/items/gov.uscourts.hid.98653/gov.uscourts.hid.98653.57.0.pdf

Chontkleer
05-30-2012, 7:02 PM
I was stationed on Oahu for six years. If people don't think it is the Republic of Hawaii, they are fooling themselves. They hate the mainland and anything to do with it, including the laws. And Honolulu PD is one of the most jacked up departments I've ever seen.

Well when you've been annexed at gunpoint...

pHredd9mm
05-30-2012, 7:06 PM
Interesting bringing up Tasers and batons as "arms"...

OleCuss
05-30-2012, 7:15 PM
Well when you've been annexed at gunpoint...

Yeah, but when even those who are in the Hawaiian National Guard and have sworn an oath to serve and to defend the Constitution and have been taught Army Values still behave in a deliberately unsoldierly and blatantly unethical manner to those they are supposed to be supporting - sorry, there's no excuse. And I'm not talking an isolated incident or two, I'm talking a pattern of behavior consistent at all levels.

And, BTW, I read a Hawaiian paper once in which they commented that their local brigade was leaving the mainland in order to train in Texas. Yeah, that's right, they considered themselves to be the mainland. . .

I can certify that the racist and corruption rot is heavy in their National Guard. My involvement with Hawaiian matters has otherwise been blessedly minimal.

ironpete
05-30-2012, 11:13 PM
Wow, you're really on about all that...second time you mentioned it. Tell me this, do you really care about the other states (the ones you're not living in?) Hawaii and the Hawaiians have been screwed over time and time again so I forgive them for being Hawaii-centric. Do you even have an inkling of what what transpired there? Annexed at gunpoint doesn't even describe the half of it. Hawaii is a 3rd world country for native Hawaiians so I cut them some slack. Racism exists everywhere and I've seen it vs Hawaiians on the mainland all the time. Maybe it was the first time you personally tasted some? Now I'm not saying it is right, but walk a mile in someone else's shoes...be the bigger man, etc. Your righteous and certifiable indignation does nothing but set up barriers. Perhaps they are likewise happy that your involvement with Hawaiian matters has been blessedly minimal.

-Pete

Yeah, but when even those who are in the Hawaiian National Guard and have sworn an oath to serve and to defend the Constitution and have been taught Army Values still behave in a deliberately unsoldierly and blatantly unethical manner to those they are supposed to be supporting - sorry, there's no excuse. And I'm not talking an isolated incident or two, I'm talking a pattern of behavior consistent at all levels.

And, BTW, I read a Hawaiian paper once in which they commented that their local brigade was leaving the mainland in order to train in Texas. Yeah, that's right, they considered themselves to be the mainland. . .

I can certify that the racist and corruption rot is heavy in their National Guard. My involvement with Hawaiian matters has otherwise been blessedly minimal.

OleCuss
05-31-2012, 3:57 AM
There's no excuse for racism.

And no, I'm not excusing what was done to Hawaii. There is no such excuse.

I also don't excuse those who take an oath and don't try like crazy to keep it.

You'll also note that I'm not saying all (or even a large minority of) Hawaiians are like this. But this thread is significantly about the Hawaiian government - and especially about how it is abusing its power to violate the fundamental rights of its citizens. Racism, corruption, and incompetence in a part of that government which has taken solemn oaths incompatible with that behavior is indicative of systemic problems within that government.

wolfwood
05-31-2012, 7:00 AM
Yeah, but when even those who are in the Hawaiian National Guard and have sworn an oath to serve and to defend the Constitution and have been taught Army Values still behave in a deliberately unsoldierly and blatantly unethical manner to those they are supposed to be supporting - sorry, there's no excuse. And I'm not talking an isolated incident or two, I'm talking a pattern of behavior consistent at all levels.

And, BTW, I read a Hawaiian paper once in which they commented that their local brigade was leaving the mainland in order to train in Texas. Yeah, that's right, they considered themselves to be the mainland. . .

I can certify that the racist and corruption rot is heavy in their National Guard. My involvement with Hawaiian matters has otherwise been blessedly minimal.

Bringing up the National Guard really is a bad example. The National Guard in general is organization that during the best of time is barely competent. Remember it is the red headed step child of a organization that strives for mediocrity as a goal i.e. the United States Army. When I served in the Marines Reserve as a Tank Crewman I had the unfortunate experience of working with Guard units. It was like watching a real life Benny Hill show. The Hawaiian Marine Reserve units all act with the level of professionalism expected of the world's finest fighting force. I can attest to this as I worked with several of them.

OleCuss
05-31-2012, 7:32 AM
Glad to hear the Marine reserves are good!

I enjoyed the shot at the Army in general. . . It's not universally true, of course, but there is more truth in it than there should be.

And there are a few Guard units which have been quite good in the past. Not sure at this time where their competence level is. But yeah, there have been a remarkable number of Guard units which did not even strive for mediocrity.

In this State I actually have hope for the general Guard competency. There are few things which I will complement JB on, but he did put Baldwin in as TAG, and that was the best possible choice. Baldwin likes competence. Not sure Baldwin will have enough tools and time at his disposal to actually clean up the mess which is the CNG, but I'm confident he'll do what can be done.

Oh, and BTW, so far as I can tell, the Marine Reserves in California are pretty good as well. I've not had a lot of contact with them, but what contact I have had was suggestive of competence.

wolfwood
05-31-2012, 8:53 AM
Interesting bringing up Tasers and batons as "arms"...

see # 48 of the docket
http://ia700709.us.archive.org/0/items/gov.uscourts.hid.98653/gov.uscourts.hid.98653.48.6.pdf

wolfwood
06-14-2012, 11:18 PM
movement from defendants

http://ia700709.us.archive.org/0/items/gov.uscourts.hid.98653/gov.uscourts.hid.98653.61.0.pdf

wolfwood
06-19-2012, 7:53 PM
judge Kay gave a written order on the motion to stay

http://ia700709.us.archive.org/0/items/gov.uscourts.hid.98653/gov.uscourts.hid.98653.63.0.pdf


https://ecf.ca9.uscourts.gov/cmecf/servlet/TransportRoom?servlet=ShowDocMulti&incPdfHeader=Y&pacer=t&incPdfHeaderDisp=Y&outputType=doc&d=8229369&dktType=dktPublic&incPdfFooter=y&caseId=232077&outputForm=view

wolfwood
06-26-2012, 9:24 PM
opening brief was filed with the ninth
and a notice of priority filed due to the appeal being a preliminary injunction appeal

edit the notice of priority can be found here

http://www.scribd.com/doc/98411386/Filed-Notice-of-Priority

Funtimes
06-27-2012, 1:08 AM
http://www.scribd.com/doc/98399297/Appellant-Brief-File-Copy-065

http://www.hawaiidefensefoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Appellant-Brief-File-Copy-065.pdf

wolfwood
08-10-2012, 4:05 PM
City filed their answering brief a few days ago

http://www.scribd.com/doc/102589814/Answering-Brief

NoJoke
08-10-2012, 5:41 PM
City filed their answering brief a few days ago

http://www.scribd.com/doc/102589814/Answering-Brief

Wow, less restrictive requirements than San Diego!
(1)be of the age of 21 years or older;
(2)be a citizen of the United States or a duly accredited officialrepresentative of a foreignnation;
(3)demonstrate a reason to fear injury to his/her person or
property that constitutes an exceptional case;
(4)be qualified to use the firearm in a safe manner;(5) appear to bea
suitable person to be so licensed;
(6)not be prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm
under H.R.S. § 134-7;and
(7)not have been adjudged insane or appear mentally deranged.

Like this part:
McDonal d v. City of Chicago,
U.S. , 130 S.Ct. 3020 (2010) established a fundamental,
individual right to “possess and carry guns” 3
, that said right includes “a generalright to carry guns in
public” 4 and that said right is only subject to one“presumptively lawful”
5 restriction with respect to law-abiding, able citizens—the prohibition against carrying guns in “sensitive
places”. 6 Consequently, Baker reasoned, the denial of his application for a concealed carry license
wasunconstitutional, as is the statute that mandates it (H.R.S. §
134-9(c))

Funtimes
08-11-2012, 12:06 AM
Wow, less restrictive requirements than San Diego!
(1)be of the age of 21 years or older;
(2)be a citizen of the United States or a duly accredited officialrepresentative of a foreignnation;
(3)demonstrate a reason to fear injury to his/her person or
property that constitutes an exceptional case;
(4)be qualified to use the firearm in a safe manner;(5) appear to bea
suitable person to be so licensed;
(6)not be prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm
under H.R.S. § 134-7;and
(7)not have been adjudged insane or appear mentally deranged.

Like this part:
McDonal d v. City of Chicago,
U.S. , 130 S.Ct. 3020 (2010) established a fundamental,
individual right to “possess and carry guns” 3
, that said right includes “a generalright to carry guns in
public” 4 and that said right is only subject to one“presumptively lawful”
5 restriction with respect to law-abiding, able citizens—the prohibition against carrying guns in “sensitive
places”. 6 Consequently, Baker reasoned, the denial of his application for a concealed carry license
wasunconstitutional, as is the statute that mandates it (H.R.S. §
134-9(c))


Our requirements cannot be met - and have not been met by anyone in Honolulu. So, if SD has issued at least 1 permit, you are doing better than Honolulu.

randian
08-11-2012, 12:18 AM
Wow, less restrictive requirements than San Diego!
How so? The "reason to fear injury" is only applicable to "an exceptional case", a loophole you can refuse anybody for (rather similar to how NJ does it). No 5, "appear to be a suitable person" can be similarly used ("sorry, you just don't appear suitable"). No 7, "appear mentally deranged"? "All would-be gunowners by definition appear mentally deranged. Denied".

wildhawker
08-11-2012, 1:25 AM
How so? The "reason to fear injury" is only applicable to "an exceptional case", a loophole you can refuse anybody for (rather similar to how NJ does it). No 5, "appear to be a suitable person" can be similarly used ("sorry, you just don't appear suitable"). No 7, "appear mentally deranged"? "All would-be gunowners by definition appear mentally deranged. Denied".

Right, it's a different way of saying "discretionary issue", er, "good cause" and "good moral character", er, "prior restraint on a fundamental right."

There. That last one was what I meant.

-Brandon

kimber_ss
08-11-2012, 1:53 AM
As a former "kama'aina", I hope the situation in Hawaii changes there for the good of it's residents. It will probably be a difficult but worthwhile change for the better.

From my "insider" take on the situation, there is a strong "tourism" angle to decisions made there. Tourist dollars speak volumes there, and antis push the false "safety" angle to keep tourist dollars flowing. :rolleyes:

wolfwood
08-14-2012, 1:47 AM
Our requirements cannot be met - and have not been met by anyone in Honolulu. So, if SD has issued at least 1 permit, you are doing better than Honolulu.


Being a life long San Diego native I can assure you that San Diego's requirements can be met. I have many friends that have CCW permits from SD County. While I certainly am not in a position to question the legality of SD's policies not being a attorney aligned with any case related to SD's ccw issues, I can tell you that Hawaii at least on your island is much more restrictive.

wolfwood
08-14-2012, 2:16 PM
the Brady Campaign filed a amicus brief
this is the second one they filed one at the district court level against a preliminary injunction as well

http://www.scribd.com/doc/102880530/Bradycampaignamicusbrief-New

wolfwood
08-22-2012, 1:51 PM
and here is the reply brief
that means briefing is done in this appeal


http://www.scribd.com/doc/103533734/Reply-Final

NoJoke
08-22-2012, 1:56 PM
How so? The "reason to fear injury" is only applicable to "an exceptional case", a loophole you can refuse anybody for (rather similar to how NJ does it). No 5, "appear to be a suitable person" can be similarly used ("sorry, you just don't appear suitable"). No 7, "appear mentally deranged"? "All would-be gunowners by definition appear mentally deranged. Denied".

Missed the exceptionable case part.

It's funny, these restrictions start off ok then just nose-dive into being impossible.

donw
08-22-2012, 2:13 PM
Being a life long San Diego native I can assure you that San Diego's requirements can be met. I have many friends that have CCW permits from SD County. While I certainly am not in a position to question the legality of SD's policies not being a attorney aligned with any case related to SD's ccw issues, I can tell you that Hawaii at least on your island is much more restrictive.

i lived in San Diego from 1956 until 2002.

unless things have changed dramatically, which i admit, may have, it was next to impossible to get a CCW.

i applied when bill kollender was sheriff and was told: "You may pass all classes, meet all requirements, pay all fees and we can still deny you...just because we feel like it..."

Rossi357
08-22-2012, 3:02 PM
i lived in San Diego from 1956 until 2002.

unless things have changed dramatically, which i admit, may have, it was next to impossible to get a CCW.

i applied when bill kollender was sheriff and was told: "You may pass all classes, meet all requirements, pay all fees and we can still deny you...just because we feel like it..."

Nothing has changed much.
Their canned answer now is...."If we give you one everyone will want one." Even though they know that it's not true.

Dreaded Claymore
08-22-2012, 3:17 PM
Their canned answer now is...."If we give you one everyone will want one." Even though they know that it's not true.

And even if it were, why would that be so bad? :mad:

wolfwood
08-30-2012, 8:53 PM
a motion to stay pending a decision in Richards was filed today by the plaintiff I'll upload it later

we will let Gura/Kilmer do their thing and figure it out from there

wolfwood
08-30-2012, 11:25 PM
here is the motion to stay

http://www.scribd.com/doc/104491360/Motion-to-Stay-at-Ninth

wolfwood
09-04-2012, 4:24 PM
the stay was denied it looks like it is going to be Second Amendment day
at the Ninth since Peruta, Richards and Baker will likely all be heard the same day. I'll upload this on to scribbd later. It just came across my email. This should be real fun. I have never met funtimes in person before even though I know him very well via phone calls.

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Notice of Docket Activity

The following transaction was entered on 09/04/2012 at 4:32:13 PM PDT and filed on 09/04/2012
Case Name: Christopher Baker v. Louis Kealoha, et al
Case Number: 12-16258
Document(s): Document(s)

Docket Text:
Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: HB): The court denies appellant’s motion to stay appellate proceedings in this preliminary injunction appeal pending issuance of the decision in Richards, et al. v. Prieto, et al., No. 11-16255. The Clerk shall calendar this appeal, No. 12-16258, before the panel that will be assigned to decide appeal No. 11-16255. Briefing is completed. The amicus brief submitted by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence is filed. Within 7 days of the filing of this order, the filer is ordered to file 7 copies of the brief in paper format, with a green cover, accompanied by certification, attached to the end of each copy of the brief, that the brief is identical to the version submitted electronically.[8309708] (WL)

Crom
09-05-2012, 8:01 AM
Does anyone find it weird that the stay was not granted? I would think it would have been almost automatic?

2Bear
09-05-2012, 9:26 AM
the stay was denied it looks like it is going to be Ninth Circuit day at the Ninth

Bring it. I'm just a few blocks away from the JRB Courthouse. Party on, Wayne...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d7/U.S._Post_Office_%26_Courthouse_%28San_Francisco%2 9.jpg/800px-U.S._Post_Office_%26_Courthouse_%28San_Francisco%2 9.jpg

curtisfong
09-05-2012, 4:39 PM
Does anyone find it weird that the stay was not granted? I would think it would have been almost automatic?

The court system is corrupt. Judges have absolutely no desire (let alone incentive) to make decisions that go against their bias.

wolfwood
09-08-2012, 6:34 PM
here is the order denying the stay which was unopposed by the defendants

http://www.scribd.com/doc/105349328/Stay-Denied-New

Crom
09-10-2012, 10:08 AM
here is the order denying the stay which was unopposed by the defendants

http://www.scribd.com/doc/105349328/Stay-Denied-New

Wonderful. /sarcasm No explanation from the court on why...

wolfwood
09-13-2012, 10:26 AM
notice of supplemental authority filed

http://www.scribd.com/doc/105834494/Notice-of-Supplemental

Yanna Appellate decision

hatidua
09-14-2012, 9:19 AM
Acquiring Firearms in Hawaii

http://www.honolulupd.org/info/gun134-2.htm


Here's just a portion of the process.


You will need the following documentation prior to completing the application. The application must be completed at the Firearms Section.

Valid photo identification.
Permit to acquire application.
Firearms questionnaire form.
Mental health waiver form.
Medical Waiver form.
Fingerprint card. (First time in-state purchase and $19.25 FBI fingerprinting fee.)
Background check. (Background check includes, but is not limited to, warrant checks, local and national arrest history, local and national criminal history, local and national criminal convictions, any pending cases and TRO's.)
Original Hunters Education card or an original Handgun Safety Training Course Affidavit. (Handguns only)
Proof of U.S citizenship if born outside the United States.

Wow, that's significantly more difficult than acquiring NFA/class-III items in most states!

Purple K
09-14-2012, 6:23 PM
The Yanna case is in State Court not Federal, how much weight does that carry?

press1280
09-15-2012, 1:49 AM
The Yanna case is in State Court not Federal, how much weight does that carry?

It carries some weight, maybe more so because AFAIK it's the only court that has protected tasers under the 2A.

Funtimes
10-09-2012, 12:38 PM
Notice of Docket Activity

The following transaction was entered on 10/09/2012 at 12:54:50 PM PDT and filed on 10/09/2012
Case Name: Christopher Baker v. Louis Kealoha, et al
Case Number: 12-16258
Document(s): Document(s)

Docket Text:
Notice of Oral Argument on Thursday, December 6, 2012 - 9:00 AM - Courtroom 1, 3rd Floor - James R. Browning US Courthouse - San Francisco, CA. Please return ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF HEARING NOTICE form to: SAN FRANCISCO Office. Please open attached documents to view details about your case. [8352270] (RB)

Rossi357
10-09-2012, 1:40 PM
notice of supplemental authority filed

http://www.scribd.com/doc/105834494/Notice-of-Supplemental

Yanna Appellate decision

The 2nd amendment says "arms", not guns.

Paladin
10-22-2012, 5:26 PM
Notice of Docket Activity

The following transaction was entered on 10/09/2012 at 12:54:50 PM PDT and filed on 10/09/2012
Case Name: Christopher Baker v. Louis Kealoha, et al
Case Number: 12-16258
Document(s): Document(s)

Docket Text:
Notice of Oral Argument on Thursday, December 6, 2012 - 9:00 AM - Courtroom 1, 3rd Floor - James R. Browning US Courthouse - San Francisco, CA. Please return ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF HEARING NOTICE form to: SAN FRANCISCO Office. Please open attached documents to view details about your case. [8352270] (RB)
Are there any plans for a CGN/CGF meetup for this? If so, be sure to announce it early since this is between Thanksgiving and Christmas and people might have to adjust other plans (travel, office parties), around it.

Funtimes
10-22-2012, 11:03 PM
Are there any plans for a CGN/CGF meetup for this? If so, be sure to announce it early since this is between Thanksgiving and Christmas and people might have to adjust other plans (travel, office parties), around it.

/paging Jdberger lol

jdberger
10-23-2012, 10:20 PM
/paging Jdberger lol

Yup. I'm on it...

Y'all make plans for lunch in the City.

Maestro Pistolero
10-23-2012, 11:02 PM
I'll be attending. Looking forward to finally meeting some of you for the first time.

Funtimes
10-23-2012, 11:15 PM
Yup. I'm on it...

Y'all make plans for lunch in the City.

You don't want the guy from Hawaii planning it hahaha :P.

wolfwood
11-15-2012, 11:22 AM
Notice of Docket Activity

The following transaction was entered on 11/15/2012 at 10:56:19 AM PST and filed on 11/15/2012
Case Name: Christopher Baker v. Louis Kealoha, et al
Case Number: 12-16258

Docket Text:
Added attorney Christine Van Aken for Louis Kealoha City and County of Honolulu, in case 12-16258. [8402915] (JFF)

So I got this in the email. From a quick google search this lady is a pretty heavy hitter. Can anyone tell me anything about her?

taperxz
11-15-2012, 5:57 PM
Notice of Docket Activity

The following transaction was entered on 11/15/2012 at 10:56:19 AM PST and filed on 11/15/2012
Case Name: Christopher Baker v. Louis Kealoha, et al
Case Number: 12-16258

Docket Text:
Added attorney Christine Van Aken for Louis Kealoha City and County of Honolulu, in case 12-16258. [8402915] (JFF)

So I got this in the email. From a quick google search this lady is a pretty heavy hitter. Can anyone tell me anything about her?

If i am reading it correctly, she was for civil rights ( gay marriage) and if she represents the Chief of Police for Honolulu she would now be against civil rights. I stand to be corrected though.

Funtimes
11-15-2012, 8:19 PM
If i am reading it correctly, she was for civil rights ( gay marriage) and if she represents the Chief of Police for Honolulu she would now be against civil rights. I stand to be corrected though.

That would be correct.

wildhawker
11-15-2012, 9:47 PM
As far as I understand, opposing counsel's personal views are not explicitly known. However, something can be inferred from her clerkship with Souter - at least intelligence, if not a bias.

-Brandon

nicki
11-16-2012, 12:02 AM
Does this mean we are going to invite her to our lunch after "orals"?

I mean, we are good sports, right.;)

Nicki

wolfwood
11-16-2012, 1:09 AM
As far as I understand, opposing counsel's personal views are not explicitly known. However, something can be inferred from her clerkship with Souter - at least intelligence, if not a bias.

-Brandon

I honestly don't know how this stuff works but I have to imagine that she would not have agreed to this unless she believes in gun control because I doubt the City is paying her and she is going to have to spend a lot of time preparing for this as there are many issues besides the CCW stuff involved in this case. Its honestly very flattering that we are being treated seriously enough to have all these mainland attorneys come in. Between the Chicago Corporate Counsel assisting in drafting some of their pleadings, the Brady Campaign filing two separate amicus briefs and now this very smart lady coming in, I find a certain validation to pursuing this matter despite not having the same background as other people involved in this matter. And I love a good fight. This is Madison Square Garden and we are the co main event. Having such a game opponent will just motivate us to train more.

press1280
11-24-2012, 12:48 PM
The calendar shows the panel for Baker, Richards, and Peruta:

O'Scannlain (Reagan Nominee)
Thomas (Clinton Nominee)
Callahan (Bush 43 Nominee)

For those that don't know Conseulo Callahan, read this clip from the NRA's website:

Last fall, a three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based court reinstated a wrongful death lawsuit against the firearm industry that had been previously tossed out by a Los Angeles federal judge before it went to trial. The suit, Ileto v. Glock, seeks to blame Glock and others for the horrendous criminal actions of deranged white supremacist Buford Furrow. In 1999, Furrow shot and killed postal worker Joseph Ileto, and wounded three children at a Jewish Community Center in Grenada Hills, California, after illegally acquiring firearms. What is not often reported is that, while a Glock pistol was used in Furrow`s heinous crime, the gun was originally sold to a police department, which subsequently sold it to a licensed dealer, who in turn sold it to a collector, who finally sold it to Furrow. Glock is being targeted but did nothing illegal.

Following last fall`s decision, Glock asked that the full court reconsider the ruling. Last week, the full court voted to allow the suit to proceed. Significantly, eight of the judges dissented. In writing the dissent, Judge Consuelo Callahan said, "The potential impact of the panel`s decision is staggering. Any manufacturer of an arguably dangerous product that finds its way into California can be hauled into court in California to defend against a civil action brought by a victim of the criminal use of that product." Drawing an obvious conclusion, Judge Callahan went on to say, "Thus, General Motors would be sued by someone who was hit by a Corvette that had been stolen by a juvenile."

O'Scannlain is the same from the various Nordyke cases, and supported incorporation of the 2A to help set up a circuit split to get McDonald to SCOTUS.

wolfwood
11-29-2012, 8:34 AM
This notice was just filed in Baker.

***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing.

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Notice of Docket Activity

The following transaction was entered on 11/29/2012 at 9:23:24 AM PST and filed on 11/29/2012
Case Name: Christopher Baker v. Louis Kealoha, et al
Case Number: 12-16258
Document(s): Document(s)

Docket Text:
Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: KKW):At oral argument, the parties should be prepared to discuss the following two questions: 1) Assuming that Plaintiff-Appellant correctly reads certain state statutes to forbid the use of handguns at firing ranges, does he have standing to challenge those statutes on that ground? 2) What effect, if any, does the lack of state defendants have on this case? See Evers v. Cnty. of Custer, 745 F.2d 1196 (9th Cir. 1984); Martin A. Schwartz & Kathryn R. Urbonya, Section 1983 Litigation 101 (2d ed. 2008) (“A local government’s mere enforcement of state law, as opposed to express incorporation or adoption of state law into local regulations or codes, has been found insufficient to establish Monell liability”); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2403(b). [8419153] (KKW)

Notice will be electronically mailed to:

Mr. Alan Alexander Beck, Attorney
Mr. Richard Loren Holcomb, Jr., Attorney
Kendall Moser
Mark Motojuro Murakami, Attorney
Kevin O'Grady, Attorney
Curtis Edwin Sherwood, Deputy Corporation Counsel
Ms. Christine Van Aken, Deputy City Attorney


The following document(s) are associated with this transaction:
Document Description: Main Document
Original Filename: 12-16258_Order Parties to Prepare Issues.pdf
Electronic Document Stamp:
[STAMP acecfStamp_ID=1106763461 [Date=11/29/2012] [FileNumber=8419153-0] [8f23f6a3737433c47e41d961a5768478a3ae8b931313c369ae 8f791879315a92852eb72e4314caae6dba057f226142c4d873 b4253bba81d195afd11be7eb8f29]]

wolfwood
11-29-2012, 9:44 PM
http://www.scribd.com/doc/114988449/Response-to-Notice-of-Supplmental-Authority-New-York-2

response was filed to the Defendants 28j letter

wolfwood
12-05-2012, 1:02 AM
28j letter filed

http://www.scribd.com/doc/115586232/Notice-of-Supplmental-authority-for-Monell

Window_Seat
12-05-2012, 7:56 AM
28j letter filed

http://www.scribd.com/doc/115586232/Notice-of-Supplmental-authority-for-Monell

So question: Is this what they're concerned about?

"t is when execution of a government's policy or custom, whether made by its lawmakers or by those whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent official policy, inflicts the injury that the government as an entity is responsible under [42 USC § 1983]. Since this case unquestionably involves official policy as the moving force of the constitutional violation found by the District Court, [I]see supra, at 660-662, and n. 2, we must reverse the judgment below. In so doing, we have no occasion to address, and do not address, what the full contours of municipal liability under 1983 may be. We have attempted only to sketch so much of the 1983 cause of action against a local government as is apparent from the history of the 1871 Act and our prior cases, and we expressly leave further development of this action to another day." Monell v. Department of Social Services 436 U.S. 658, 694, 695, (1978).

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/436/658

The way I'm reading it, Monell was about respondeat superior, no? What does respondeat superior have to do with this case, and why would the court direct the plaintiffs to discuss that doctrine if it was about employee/employer tort law?

It is the departmental policy by the CLEO, for the CLEO in his official capacity to deny carry licenses by default, so... Or do I have it wrong again? :D

And ZERO MORE DAYS AND A (really early) WAKE-UP!!!

Erik.

wolfwood
12-05-2012, 8:29 AM
So question: Is this what they're concerned about?

"t is when execution of a government's policy or custom, whether made by its lawmakers or by those whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent official policy, inflicts the injury that the government as an entity is responsible under [42 USC § 1983]. Since this case unquestionably involves official policy as the moving force of the constitutional violation found by the District Court, [I]see supra, at 660-662, and n. 2, we must reverse the judgment below. In so doing, we have no occasion to address, and do not address, what the full contours of municipal liability under 1983 may be. We have attempted only to sketch so much of the 1983 cause of action against a local government as is apparent from the history of the 1871 Act and our prior cases, and we expressly leave further development of this action to another day." Monell v. Department of Social Services 436 U.S. 658, 694, 695, (1978).

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/436/658

The way I'm reading it, Monell was about respondeat superior, no? What does respondeat superior have to do with this case, and why would the court direct the plaintiffs to discuss that doctrine if it was about employee/employer tort law?

It is the departmental policy by the CLEO, for the CLEO in his official capacity to deny carry licenses by default, so... Or do I have it wrong again? :D

And ZERO MORE DAYS AND A (really early) WAKE-UP!!!

Erik.

I'm counsel for this case so I can't really go into why they are asking because that goes into exactly what we are going to be talking about tomorrow. I can say that is what they are asking about and this part of what you said is true and part of the record.


It is the departmental policy by the CLEO, for the CLEO in his official capacity to deny carry licenses by default

If its not clear after the hearing I can and will address it.

Divedeep808
12-05-2012, 9:12 AM
I was stationed in Hawaii for seven years. Its a great place but very liberal, your suppose to register any firearms you bring on island within thirty days of arrival. As for the cops there are very good cops out there but there are also some very corrupt cops out there. The island could benefit greatly from concealed carry as there are a lot of strong arm robbery's and assaults. I remember several instances when I was there where someone got beat to death and ten people stood there and watched and did nothing, all it would have took is one concealed carry person and those people would still be alive today. I believe the presence of a firearm is enough to detour most criminals and I do not advocate shooting anyone except in the most extreme of circumstances.

Window_Seat
12-05-2012, 11:21 AM
I'm counsel for this case so I can't really go into why they are asking because that goes into exactly what we are going to be talking about tomorrow. I can say that is what they are asking about and this part of what you said is true and part of the record.




If its not clear after the hearing I can and will address it.

Thanks Wolfwood, and best regards to you for tomorrow. :cool:

Erik

wolfwood
12-05-2012, 1:17 PM
Thank You Very Much. I obviously am not attempting to hide who I am. Wolfwood is just a screen name I've gone by for a long time. So just so you guys know. I'm Alan Beck. Funtimes is the client Chris Baker.
Rick Holcomb is my partner. He has a family so according has better things to do than go on the internet. He will be the one arguing. We've been practicing a lot via phone and video conferencing.

MOA1
12-05-2012, 5:12 PM
I feel privileged just to be able to read what's going on in this case by those on the front line.

Thanks.

IVC
12-05-2012, 5:29 PM
I'm counsel for this case so I can't really go into why they are asking because that goes into exactly what we are going to be talking about tomorrow.

Good luck with the case.

It was obvious from your posts in Peruta/Richards thread that you were a legal expert. It helps when you reveal your identity since it adds weight to those posts and makes them that much more relevant to those of us who are here to learn.

We have several members who are clearly in the field and probably well known, but who tend to use their familiarity with the court procedure *and* anonymity to stir the pot rather than provide information. I thank you for "coming out" and wish you all the best in the court.

the armoured porcupine
01-05-2013, 6:49 PM
Hi there Erik :waves:
I was just checking in here to see if there has been any change in the status of this case after the oral arguments.
while catching up podcasts from Armed American Radio, there was a mention that the 9th circuit might have dismissed this, suit, so I came here to get news from the source to post on my FB blog, facebook . com/the.armoured.porcupine

Purple K
03-13-2014, 12:02 PM
Since the oral arguments for Peruta, Richards and Baker were on the same day and Peruta and Richards have been announced... What's the latest on Baker?

hardlyworking
03-13-2014, 12:09 PM
I don't think there is any news yet. But expect O'Scanlain "See: Peruta, reversed/remanded" any day

dave_cg
03-13-2014, 2:21 PM
I don't think there is any news yet. But expect O'Scanlain "See: Peruta, reversed/remanded" any day

I thought Baker also included a challenge to state law not found in Peruta? Isn't there a chance that the Baker decision could be more than "See: Peruta" because of that?

hunterb
03-13-2014, 2:30 PM
With all the meth-heads and racist natives with their primitive, backwards culture, personally I feel you need a firearm in Hawaii more than Los Angles.

Python2
03-13-2014, 3:07 PM
With all the meth-heads and racist natives with their primitive, backwards culture, personally I feel you need a firearm in Hawaii more than Los Angles.

Damn, I did'nt know I am married to a racist natives with their primitive, backward culture. I better warn all her patient :eek:

Wolverine
03-13-2014, 3:17 PM
I thought Baker also included a challenge to state law not found in Peruta? Isn't there a chance that the Baker decision could be more than "See: Peruta" because of that?

It is possible that the 9th Circuit could rule that the statute in question is unconstitutional and would thereby be more than "see: Peruta". Or they could leave that up to the District court.

For example if the District Court had ruled the statute constitutional because there is no 2nd amendment right to carry in public then the 9th Circuit could simply remand the case back to District court and let that judge redo his analysis based on the fact that his premise was wrong (like they did in Richards).

It is possible that even in light of Peruta the District court could find the statute constitutional due to some other factor. Then Baker would have to take it back up to the 9th Circuit. This would suck for the people in Hawai'i but the courts are fickle and don't pay much attention to how long it takes to get your case resolved (see: Nordyke).

Chewy65
03-13-2014, 4:26 PM
It is possible that the 9th Circuit could rule that the statute in question is unconstitutional and would thereby be more than "see: Peruta". Or they could leave that up to the District court.

For example if the District Court had ruled the statute constitutional because there is no 2nd amendment right to carry in public then the 9th Circuit could simply remand the case back to District court and let that judge redo his analysis based on the fact that his premise was wrong (like they did in Richards).

It is possible that even in light of Peruta the District court could find the statute constitutional due to some other factor. Then Baker would have to take it back up to the 9th Circuit. This would suck for the people in Hawai'i but the courts are fickle and don't pay much attention to how long it takes to get your case resolved (see: Nordyke).

This one clearly challenges a state statute so I don't think it could be a simple see Peruta, even if much Peruta's rationale will be applicable.

per the article quoted by post 1 of this thread:
State law mandates that citizens may be provided licenses to carry only in “exceptional circumstance” or “where a need or urgency has been sufficiently indicated,” all at the discretion of the county’s Chief of Police.

fizux
03-13-2014, 10:04 PM
This one clearly challenges a state statute so I don't think it could be a simple see Peruta, even if much Peruta's rationale will be applicable.
per the article quoted by post 1 of this thread:
You mean, exactly like the Richards case, which basically said, "try again in light of Peruta"?

Well, I guess we are really lucky that the State of Hawaii is a named defendant in Baker, and is represented by the HIAG.

Ninask
03-13-2014, 11:38 PM
Hawaii would be awesome once their gun laws are amended
N

Chewy65
03-14-2014, 12:38 PM
You mean, exactly like the Richards case, which basically said, "try again in light of Peruta"?

Well, I guess we are really lucky that the State of Hawaii is a named defendant in Baker, and is represented by the HIAG.

Not exactly like Richards. Neither in Purata nor in Richards CA law does not tell the Sheriff what constitutes good cause, but left it up to the sheriff's discretion to determine what constitutes good cause. In Baker, HI state law provides that there must be exceptional need for a ccw.

In Richards, I understand that the 9th never reached the constitutionality of CA law because it first found that the sheriff's application was unconstitutional.

Foxmaster05
03-14-2014, 12:53 PM
Not exactly like Richards. Neither in Purata nor in Richards CA law does not tell the Sheriff what constitutes good cause, but left it up to the sheriff's discretion to determine what constitutes good cause. In Baker, HI state law provides that there must be exceptional need for a ccw.

In Richards, I understand that the 9th never reached the constitutionality of CA law because it first found that the sheriff's application was unconstitutional.

This is correct. In other words, Baker is a facial challenge (challenges constitutionality of statutes) & Peruta/Richards are as-applied challenges (challenges the application of those statutes).

IVC
03-14-2014, 1:48 PM
This is correct. In other words, Baker is a facial challenge (challenges constitutionality of statutes) & Peruta/Richards are as-applied challenges (challenges the application of those statutes).

We are rooting for courts to see it this way. There is an alternative view that Peruta/Richards are thinly veiled facial challenges because the *effect* of those rulings is striking down a state law.

AG is pushing that it's a facial challenge to get standing. We are pushing back by saying: "legislators used discretion to *prevent* undesirable people from obtaining CCW and it's coming back to bite them on the a@@ - it's an as-applied challenge, live with it."

We'll know relatively soon who's right and who's on first.

ryan_j
03-20-2014, 11:15 AM
Looks like we have a decision... and a win!

VAReact
03-20-2014, 11:20 AM
Trifecta! :party:

wolfwood
03-20-2014, 11:21 AM
I am sure that Mr. Corwin aka Tincon will find a way to insult me nevertheless.

CCWFacts
03-20-2014, 11:31 AM
That is awesome! The wins keep piling up! Now the obvious questions, is anything stayed? What's the timeline for issuing in HI?

kcbrown
03-20-2014, 11:31 AM
Nice! I'll have to read it to see what juicy bits are in there that will make the antis cry. :D ETA: It's very similar to the Richards decision, but also dismisses the question of the use of handguns at ranges based on plaintiffs apparently conceding lack of harm. So there isn't anything terribly new here that I can see.

One question: why does it say "not for publication" at the top? Is it waiting for something?

ryan_j
03-20-2014, 11:36 AM
Nice! I'll have to read it to see what juicy bits are in there that will make the antis cry. :D

One question: why does it say "not for publication" at the top? Is it waiting for something?

Peruta is controlling, so it's not a full opinion like Peruta.

kcbrown
03-20-2014, 11:56 AM
I am sure that Mr. Corwin aka Tincon will find a way to insult me nevertheless.

Well, you'll get no such from me! Congratulations, sir!

taperxz
03-20-2014, 12:01 PM
Good win! Congrats to both client and attorney.

Paladin
03-20-2014, 12:04 PM
The "third shoe" finally drops.... ;)

Great news!
:party:

but also dismisses the question of the use of handguns at ranges based on plaintiffs apparently conceding lack of harm.
That sucks. So the "sword of Damocles" stays above gunnies heads in HI whenever they go to a range???

CCWFacts
03-20-2014, 12:06 PM
That sucks. So the "sword of Damocles" stays above gunnies heads in HI whenever they go to a range???

Hawaii police are intractably corrupt. The sword of Damocles hangs over everyone they dislike, and that will include any haole who insists on his rights. From a practical point of view, it's wise to keep a low profile there.

wolfwood
03-20-2014, 12:07 PM
I have another appeal that takes care of the transport laws.
The government conceded as to every issue other than carry in Young.
I just can't wait to get a merits panel for that appeal
Remember this is a preliminary injunction appeal so Baker is not over either.
We could conceivably go after more things.
Whether we do that is something we will figure out later.
However we are not exactly getting paid for this so we will see

J.D.Allen
03-20-2014, 12:13 PM
NICE!!!:thumbsup:

Further evidence of how the court is leaning on the petition to intervene and En Banc request in the other cases perhaps???

CCWFacts
03-20-2014, 12:23 PM
NICE!!!:thumbsup:

Further evidence of how the court is leaning on the petition to intervene and En Banc request in the other cases perhaps???

Stupid question, but was this ruling from the Peruta panel, or a different panel? If it's from a different panel, that's even better, right?