PDA

View Full Version : The Guillory Case Law Applies to Hawaii!


Paladin
09-20-2007, 7:54 PM
With all the recent talk about Team Billy Jack using the Guillory federal case law to haul the Santa Maria CoP and/or city council into federal court (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=69602), I thought I'd point out the obvious: the 9th Circuit's holding in Guillory also applies to another "Last Holdout" state: Hawaii! That state is "May Issue" de jure, but "No Issue" de facto -- it is even worse than CA!

I'm no expert on a CA Guillory case, but from what little I understand, it requires: (1) CA's PRA law; (2) the CBS v. Block CA state case law; and (3) the Salute v. Pitchess CA state case law. If HI has equivalents of those in place, a Hawaiian Guillory case could be brought at any time!

If HI doesn't have one or more of those in place, pro-CCW people in HI now know the steps they need to take (i.e., legislation to pass, precedents to establish), in order to deliver a knock out punch to their anti-CCW chiefs/sheriffs.

If any of you know any pro-CCW people in Hawaii, or esp any pro-CCW Hawaiian attorneys, be sure to pass this suggestion on to them.

Edit to add key words for search engines: Hawaiian Honolulu concealed carry weapon CCW handgun pistol revolver self-defense citizen civilian RKBA Second Amendment 2nd

Edit: See these threads for more info re bringing a Guillory federal lawsuit:
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=58468
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=67462

CCWFacts
09-21-2007, 3:35 PM
It's a pretty different situation over there.

First, do they have a PRA law? They probably have something but it might not be like CA's, and there might not be CBS v Block as a lever.

Second, my understanding is that CCWs simply aren't issued there, ever, so it's hard to claim unfair issuance. I could be wrong on that; I don't have any good sources to back up that claim.

Third, levels of hostility towards CCW and police corruption are a lot higher over there.

That said... they did have someone introduce a shall-issue bill, something we can't seem to accomplish in this state.

They do happen to have the smallest county in the US there! But most of the residents of that county are leading a religious life so they're probably not too concerned with CCW.

Paladin
09-21-2007, 6:26 PM
It's a pretty different situation over there.

First, do they have a PRA law? They probably have something but it might not be like CA's, and there might not be CBS v Block as a lever.You are merely restating what I said: "I'm no expert on a CA Guillory case, but from what little I understand, it requires: (1) CA's PRA law; (2) the CBS v. Block CA state case law; and (3) the Salute v. Pitchess CA state case law. If HI has equivalents of those in place, a Hawaiian Guillory case could be brought at any time!

If HI doesn't have one or more of those in place, pro-CCW people in HI now know the steps they need to take (i.e., legislation to pass, precedents to establish), in order to deliver a knock out punch to their anti-CCW chiefs/sheriffs."

Second, my understanding is that CCWs simply aren't issued there, ever, so it's hard to claim unfair issuance. I could be wrong on that; I don't have any good sources to back up that claim.If true, that's where the HI equivalent of Salute v. Pitchess would kick in -- a blanket non-issuing policy is an illegal failure to exercise discretion.

Third, levels of hostility towards CCW and police corruption are a lot higher over there.Maybe true, but hard to believe, esp when comparing to CoPs/sheriffs of major urban cities/counties in CA.

The main point of my post was to alert pro-CCW HI residents (and their allies in CA) that the Guillory federal case law does apply to them and the additional laws/holdings that will make a Guillory lawsuit go much faster and smoother.

BTW I now have it on good authority that lack of Hawaiian equivalents to CA's CBS v. Block and PRA will make a successful federal Guillory case longer and more difficult, but not impossible. Lack of those additional laws can be overcome during Discovery w/various Motions. Whether there is a way of also getting around the lack of an equivalent to Salute v. Pitchess (assuming there is a lack), I don't know. If anyone wants more details, contact Team Billy Jack at: www.californiaconcealedcarry.com

Paladin
10-04-2007, 8:18 AM
With all the recent talk about Team Billy Jack using the Guillory federal case law to haul the Santa Maria CoP and/or city council into federal court (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=69602), I thought I'd point out the obvious: the 9th Circuit's holding in Guillory also applies to another "Last Holdout" state: Hawaii! That state is "May Issue" de jure, but "No Issue" de facto -- it is even worse than CA!

I'm no expert on a CA Guillory case, but from what little I understand, it requires: (1) CA's PRA law; **** If HI has equivalents of those in place, a Hawaiian Guillory case could be brought at any time!

If HI doesn't have one or more of those in place, pro-CCW people in HI now know the steps they need to take (i.e., legislation to pass, precedents to establish), in order to deliver a knock out punch to their anti-CCW chiefs/sheriffs.Well, it looks like HI (and a lot of other states, incl the few remaining May Issue states), do have PRA-like laws.

http://www.state.hi.us/oip/

Pass this on to friends, family, and shooting buddies in (and forums for) the "Last Holdout" May Issue states (NY, NJ, MD, HI, DE, RI, MA, IO, AL, CT). (I'm assuming that the No Issue jurisdictions (WI, IL, D.C.) in fact don't issue.)

This info is esp important for HI since Guillory v. County of Orange applies to HI as well. [Visions of BJ wearing his trademark hat w/a bright red Hawaiian shirt make me shudder. Probably best for someone to start a "Team Magnum PI" instead.]

Now you Hawaiians (and their supporters) know how to find out if Honolulu/HI is issuing at all, and if so, if they are issuing in a discriminatory fashion.

CCWFacts
10-04-2007, 8:54 AM
Actually, if HI never issues, the discovery phase might be very quick.

http://carryconcealed.net/legal/hawaii-ccw-state-laws.php

July 15, 2007 - from the Hawaii Reporter.

In the last 15 years, no law abiding citizen applying for a permit to carry a concealed firearm in Honolulu has been granted one -- not one domestic violence victim, not one person whose life was in danger, not one person working where they may be robbed at gunpoint. And the police chief has no plans to change that under Hawaii’s current law, which says the police department’s highest officer "may issue" a concealed carry permit should he choose to do so.

So discovery might be pretty easy. "How many permits have you issued in the past decade?" "None."

This suit would HAVE to be in Federal court. There is no way a court in Hawaii will help on this matter. Hawaii is in the 9th district (same as California in fact). One cool consequence of this is, if we get a "Son of Heller" case in the 9th that says that "carrying is a right" then Hawaii gets it too. That could knock out two of the remaining CCW problem states in one decision.

One place where they are ahead of us is they have a legislator who has introduced a CCW reform bill. Hello, if they can get one introduced in Hawaii, which is far more anti-CCW of a state than we are (believe me on this) why can't we get a bill introduced here?

Btw...

May Issue states (NY, NJ, MD, HI, DE, RI, MA, IO, AL, CT).

AL and CT are practically shall-issue and shouldn't be considered hold-out states. IO is closer to shall-issue than California is. Apparently RI is nearly shall-issue on the books, but needs to be sued, and the cases are much easier than CA's cases. The true hold-out states are NY, NJ, MD, HI, MA, CA, WI and IL, and DC. I would say we are at 42 / 50 at this point.

Subvertz
10-04-2007, 10:27 AM
CT gave me a CCW, I didn't even really get interviewed.
I didn't have to give any justification... :shrug:

CCWFacts
10-04-2007, 10:37 AM
Yes, CT and AL should definitely not be considered "holdouts". They are may-issue in theory, shall-issue in practice.

I suspect that what happened in AL is they have so much first-hand conscious knowledge of what Jim Crow is that they can smell it a mile away, and are very sensitive about it. They know that AL's law is prone to Jim Crow type abuses, so they stay clear of that by being shall-issue, because they know their courts will also be able to spot Jim Crow from a mile away.

Our courts, and people here, are not so aware of this whole Jim Crow situation, so people here are viewing our CCW law as a public safety law, not a Jim Crow law.

Regarding RI: It should not be listed as a hold-out, because I just remembered that they honor out-of-state shall-issue permits. That means they are shall-issue for about 299,000,000 Americans, and may-issue for about 1,000,000 Americans. And they do issue, and they could be sorted out in courts if someone wanted to. They will go shall-issue soon enough, meaning that Sarah Brady will be able to get a resident permit there if she wants one.

Re: police and court corruption in HI: Believe me, they are way beyond anything in California.

Paladin
10-04-2007, 4:30 PM
Yes, CT and AL should definitely not be considered "holdouts". They are may-issue in theory, shall-issue in practice.Yes, I know that. But I also know it will be a lot easier to change their practice, than change a state law. Sure, laws can change, but it is a lot easier and under the radar to just change practices. Who knows who the issuing authority will be in 10 or 20 yrs? Why leave it up to the local authorities? Sure, they'd be our last targets. But then again, given their practices, perhaps they should be our first targets since it will require very little change to get to Shall Issue? Hmmm, which is the best strategy? Ain't politics fun? :D

Paladin
10-04-2007, 4:52 PM
Actually, if HI never issues, the discovery phase might be very quick.

http://carryconcealed.net/legal/hawaii-ccw-state-laws.php



So discovery might be pretty easy. "How many permits have you issued in the past decade?" "None."
In my initial posting in this thread, I said there may be 3 steps that HI needs before a Guillory case can be brought there. Today's posting by me was to show that 1 of those 3 is already in place. Thus, HI may just need 2 steps before Guillory cases can be brought: the case/statutory law equivalents of CBS v. Block and Salute v. Pitchess. For all I know, those other 2 steps might already be in place too and all that is needed is a suitable plaintiff and willing HI lawyer.

The advantage of Guillory over Heller is that Guillory is the law of the 9th Circuit (incl CA and HI), right now. Who knows what the holding in Heller will be and how long until it might be used to force issuance of CCWs, if ever.

Paladin
10-13-2007, 5:03 PM
Yes, CT and AL should definitely not be considered "holdouts". They are may-issue in theory, shall-issue in practice.It looks like CT "May Issue," but they are restricting who gets a CCW renewed with average delays between 17 and 20 months!

See my thread over at: http://californiaccw.org/posts/list/4475.page