CCW lawsuit in Hawaii

Status
Not open for further replies.
Article posted for future reading...


Lawsuit Filed in Hawaii Over Denial of 'Right to Concealed Carry'
By George K. Young Jr., 9/24/2007 3:00:44 PM
On Aug. 24, 2007, I filed a civil lawsuit in the United States Federal District Court for the District of Hawaii, CV 07-00450HG/KSC. The purpose of the lawsuit is to seek damages, under 42 U.S.C. 1983, 1985, and 1986, for denying and prohibiting the free exercise of my Second Amendment Right.

On three previous ocassions, I have applied for either a concealed or unconcealed permit to carry a firearm and was denied. Since no attorney in the State of Hawaii is willing to take this case, I filed Pro Se.

The Defendants are the state of Hawaii and Gov. Linda Lingle; Mark Bennett, State Attorney General; County of Hawaii and Mayor Harry Kim; the Hawaii Police Department and Chief of Police Lawrence Mahuna.

I am suing for violation of:


a. U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 10: "No State shall pass any Bill of Attainder."

b. U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 10: "No State shall pass any ...law Impairing the Obligation of Contract.

c. U.S. Constitution, Amendment II: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

d. U.S. Constitution, Amendment IX: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

e. U.S. Constitution, Amendment XIV: "...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of CITIZENS of the United States..."
The Hawaii County Corporation Counsel, on 15 September 2007, initiated a "Motion to Dismiss" based on the following: "2. Young's lack of facts to support a cognizable legal theory also mandates dismissal of his Complaint. Young has no Second Amendment right to bear arms ... "the Second Amendment guarantees a "collective" rather than an individual right.

"Moreover, since the Second Amendment protects the people's right to maintain an effective state militia, and does not establish an individual right to own or possess firearms for personal or other use, Young lacks standing to challenge Section 134, HRS."

U.S. District Court Judge Helen Gilmore will hear the motion scheduled for Nov. 13, 2007.

It has become very apparent that the people of Hawaii, especially gun owners, should be made aware that they have now "lost" their constitutional right.

First, the implementation of "reasonable" laws; permit to acquire with photo and fingerprints; then waiting periods; then registration; then place to keep; and now ...no right to own or possess. Socialism, has now come to full circle to exist fully unrestrained here in Hawaii.

What is troubling, is how do you amend the Hawaii Constitution, Article 17 Bill of Rights, to which the Second Amendment was incorporated verbatim, under the assertion that it was an "individual right" in 1959?

The language is the same, how the meaning and purpose for which it was passed has now changed, without the permission of "...we the people". It is now the "...tail wagging the dog." The servant is now master. That which is Supreme is inferior. In other words, "...we now have a bastardized version of the U.S. Constitution."

George K. Young Jr., a resident of Hilo, Hawaii, can be reached at mailto:[email protected]

HawaiiReporter.com reports the real news, and prints all editorials submitted, even if they do not represent the viewpoint of the editors, as long as they are written clearly. Send editorials to mailto:[email protected]
 
I really really really hate to say this, because of what it says about my country, but Mr. Young has a fool for a lawyer.

Nonetheless, my sincerest hopes for a good run in court. Maybe an attorney will find an angle in this that makes helping the plaintiff good for his/her career or something. Otherwise, I think failure can safely be predicted. Sadly.

Andy
 
By the way, every time I see that "collective right" argument I just have to go for a little walk around the block in my head, all the while imagining a lulling tide under blue skies with a golden beach at my feet. Where did these judges go to law school? Ahhh, yes, the Hulaa'uawa'aa School Law School for the Ignorance and Denial of History. ;-)

(Dang, I hope my made-up Hawaiian doesn't actually mean anything... boy, would my face be red! Speaking of which, civic-minded persons everywhere should set up a consonant-for-vowel exchange between the various Polynesians and the Eastern Europeans-- perhaps "Brno" could become "Barnaau," and Hawaii "Havaxkakyschlee"... )
 
It looks like he is representing himself due to not being able to find a lawyer. Unless you're just stating the old adage that only fools represent themselves in court.
 
Hawaii is part of the 9th Cir. The 9th has adopted the "pure collective rights" model. He has no chance of prevailing in US District Court and almost no chance of convincing the 9th Circuit to reverse their stance. He should just wait for Heller to get decided by SCOTUS...

However, if he wants to put me up in Kaanapali and pay me humungous bucks, I will be more than happy to represent him.
 
I mean no disrespect to Mr. Young; however, he needs to obtain legal counsel before this legal situation is made worse. This is an important case. This isn't something you do pro se.
 
I hope this portends things to come

Lawsuits were just filed against a sherrif and the city council in Santa Maria CA a week ago. Offense is the best defense for civil rights.
 
:barf:
Lawsuits were just filed against a sherrif and the city council in Santa Maria CA a week ago. Offense is the best defense for civil rights.

I really hate to throw cold water on this, but...

YOU ARE IN THE 9th CIRCUIT!!!:barf:
 
This was posted only days ago.
Other news service orgs are picking it up quick.
Search results for this keep growing.

Maybe this will lead to some political reforms there over the next elections as the "PEOPLE" read the words and learn their place.

An earlier story on this by George Young also.
 
It isn't possible at all to appeal to the DC circuit in those areas?

No. You may challenge the validity of any federal law in the DC Circuit, but that is not what is happening here. The issue is the the validity of a Hawaiian law. That must go through the 9th Circuit if you are going to a federal court... He has no, none, nada, zip, zilch chance of prevailing absent a prior ruling from SCOTUS in Heller.
 
Wait wasn't it the 9th Circuit that said criminals can own machine guns as long as they don't break the law with it.

Yes, and yet they say the 2nd Amendment is a collective right also. Don't let it worry you that they aren't consistent. It doesn't worry them.
 
The Bill of Rights does not "grant rights" it protects rights. Note that the 2nd Amendment language is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms (a preexisting right) not "the people are granted the right to keep and bear arms (a government granted right). Hawaii's laws and all similar laws which are based on the logic presented in the article are clearly unconstitutional. However, his chances of success seem to be between slim and none.
 
To be perfectly honest, he has a better chance suing in state court under Hawai'i's RKBA provision and throwing in the 2nd amendment as an argument. That way when the court case does get decided by the Court of Appeal (remember, it takes an average of a year and a half for something to reach CoA), Heller will already be decided.
 
This is excellent news. Hopefully paradise will be opened up to gunowners as well. It would be nice to see another victory for the 2nd Amendment as we have been gaining some ground as of late.
 
Anyway, this case is really bad. State v. Mendoza already established an individual RKBA in the state constitution. This guy needs to go after the state under that basis.
 
The prime threat to human rights.....

......comes from coconuts falling out of the trees? Terrorists? Criminals? Sea-hags? Rabid crabs? Evil Spirits?

I just can't figure WHERE the threat and erosion of human rights and liberty is coming from! It CAN'T be from the folks who have sworn to up hold it.....can it?
 
Anyway, this case is really bad. State v. Mendoza already established an individual RKBA in the state constitution. This guy needs to go after the state under that basis.

Than email this guy and let him know.
 
You cannot carry in Hawaii? :confused: This makes no sense. I thought Magnum carried. :p
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top