Young District Court Decision

7/30/2019 Young District Court Decision

1/40

1

I N THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT

FOR THE DI STRI CT OF HAWAI I

GEORGE K. YOUNG, J R. ,

Pl ai nt i f f ,

vs.

STATE OF HAWAI I and NEI LABERCROMBI E i n hi s capaci t yas Gover nor of t he St ate ofHawai i ; DAVI D M. LOUI E i n hi scapaci t y as Stat e At t or neyGener al ; COUNTY OF HAWAI I , asa sub- agency of t he St ate ofHawai i and WI LLI AM P. KENOIi n hi s capaci t y as Mayor oft he Count y of Hawai i ; and t heHI LO COUNTY POLI CEDEPARTMENT, as a sub- agencyof t he Count y of Hawai i andHARRY S. KUBOJ I RI i n hi scapaci t y as Chi ef of Pol i ce;J OHN DOES 1- 25; J ANE DOES 1-25; CORPORATI ONS 1- 5, and DOEENTI TI ES 1- 5,

Def endants.

)))

))))))))))))

))))))))))))

)

Ci v. No. 12- 00336 HG BMK

ORDER GRANTI NG COUNTY OF HAWAI I OFFI CI AL DEFENDANTS MOTI ON TODI SMI SS ( DOC. 23) AND STATE OF HAWAI I DEFENDANTS MOTI ON TO

DI SMI SS ( DOC. 25)

Pl ai nt i f f Geor ge K. Young, J r . sues Count y and St at e

Of f i ci al s al l egi ng vi ol at i ons of 42 U. S. C. 1983, 1985 and 1986

i n t he deni al of hi s appl i cat i on f or a l i cense t o car r y a weapon

i n publ i c, pur suant t o Hawai i Revi sed St at ut e 134- 9. Pl ai nt i f f

asser t s t hat t he enf or cement of Hawai i Revi sed St at ut es 134- 6

and 134- 9 vi ol at e t he r i ght s guar ant eed hi m by Ar t i cl e I of t he

Uni t ed St at es Const i t ut i on, and by t he Second, Ni nt h, and

Case 1:12-cv-00336-HG-BMK Document 42 Filed 11/29/12 Page 1 of 40 PageID #: 221


2/40

2

Four t eent h Amendment s. To r emedy t he al l eged vi ol at i ons,

Pl ai nt i f f seeks damages, an order enj oi ni ng t he enf or cement of

Chapt er 134 of Hawai i Revi sed St atut es, and a t hr ee- year per mi t

f or car r yi ng a weapon i n publ i c.

Def endants move t o di smi ss t he Compl ai nt .

Pl ai nt i f f ' s cl ai ms agai nst t he St at e and St at e Of f i ci al s ar e

bar r ed by t he doct r i ne of sover ei gn i mmuni t y. Pl ai nt i f f s cl ai ms

agai nst t he Count y and Count y Of f i ci al s f ai l because Pl ai nt i f f

has not al l eged a Const i t ut i onal vi ol at i on.

The Cour t GRANTS Def endant s Mot i ons t o Di smi ss Pl ai nt i f f s

Compl ai nt .

PROCEDURAL HI STORY

On J une 12, 2012, Pl ai nt i f f f i l ed a Compl ai nt . ( Doc. 1. )

On August 10, 2012, t he Count y Of f i ci al Def endant s f i l ed a

Mot i on t o Di smi ss Pl ai nt i f f ' s Compl ai nt . ( Doc. 23. ) The Count y of

Hawai i and Hi l o County Pol i ce Depar t ment were never ser ved.

On August 16, 2012, t he St ate of Hawai i Def endant s f i l ed a

Mot i on t o Di smi ss Pl ai nt i f f ' s Compl ai nt . ( Doc. 25. )

On Sept ember 6, 2012, Pl ai nt i f f f i l ed an Opposi t i on t o t he

Mot i ons t o Di smi ss. ( Doc. 29. )

On Oct ober 1, 2012, t he Count y of Hawai i Of f i ci al s

Def endant s f i l ed a Repl y. ( Doc. 33. )

On Oct ober 1, 2012, t he St ate of Hawai i Def endant s f i l ed a

Repl y. ( Doc. 34. )



3/40

3

The Cour t el ect ed t o deci de t he mat t er wi t hout a hear i ng

pur suant t o Local Rul e 7. 2( d) .

BACKGROUND

A. Factual Al l egat i ons Set For t h I n The Compl ai nt

The Compl ai nt al l eges t hat Def endant s vi ol at ed Pl ai nt i f f

Geor ge K. Young, J r . s r i ght s under t he Uni t ed St at es

Const i t ut i on by denyi ng hi s appl i cat i ons f or a l i cense t o car r y a

f i r ear m, pur suant t o Hawai i Revi sed St at ut e ( HRS) 134- 9.

Pl ai nt i f f al so al l eges t hat HRS 134- 6, whi ch was r epeal ed i n

2006, i s unconst i t ut i onal .

B. Legal Al l egat i ons Set For t h I n The Compl ai nt

The Compl ai nt set s out cl ai ms asser t i ng t hat HRS 134- 6

and 134- 9 ( Hawai i s Fi r ear m Car r yi ng Laws) vi ol at e Pl ai nt i f f s

r i ght s guar ant eed by Ar t i cl e I of t he Uni t ed St at es Const i t ut i on,

and by t he Second, Ni nt h, and Four t eent h Amendment s.

Pl ai nt i f f s pr i mar y cont ent i on i nvol ves HRS 134- 9,

Hawai i s Li cense t o Car r y Law. The l aw condi t i ons t he abi l i t y t o

car r y a pi st ol or r evol ver and ammuni t i on i n publ i c. Haw. Rev.

St at . 134- 9.

The ot her chal l enged pr ovi si on, HRS 134- 6, was r epeal ed i n

2006 and r epl aced by HRS 134- 21 t hrough 134- 27. See Act 66,

6, of t he 2006 Haw. Sess. Laws; St at e v. Anchet a, 220 P. 3d 1052

( Haw. Ct . App. 2009) ( not i ng t he si mi l ar i t y bet ween HRS 134- 6 and

t he r epl acement st at ut es) . The st at ut es at i ssue r egul at e t he

t r anspor t at i on of weapons out si de of a per son s pr i vat e pr oper t y.



4/40

4

Peopl e who hol d a Li cense t o Carr y, pur suant t o HRS 134- 9, are

exempt f r om t he pr ovi si ons.

Count s One thr ough Fi ve al l ege the f ol l owi ng cl ai ms agai nst

al l Def endant s:

COUNT ONE - " ( 42 U. S. C. 1983, 1985, 1986) Vi ol at i on ofU. S. Const i t ut i on, Ar t i cl e I , Sect i on 10, Cl s. 1: No St at eshal l . . . pass . . . any Bi l l of At t ai nder . . .

COUNT TWO - " ( 42 U. S. C. 1983, 1985, 1986) Vi ol at i on of U. S.Const i t ut i on, Ar t i cl e I , Sect i on 10: No St at e shal l . . .pass any . . . l aw i mpai r i ng t he Obl i gat i ons ofCont ract . . .

COUNT THREE - "Vi ol at i on of U. S. Const i t ut i on, Amendment I I "

COUNT FOUR - "Vi ol at i on of U. S. Const i t ut i on, Amendment I X"

COUNT FI VE - "Vi ol at i on of U. S. Const i t ut i on, Amendment XI V . . . No St at e shal l make or enf or ce any l aw whi ch shal labr i dge t he pr i vi l eges and i mmuni t i es of ci t i zens of t heUni t ed St at es . . . "

The Compl ai nt al so al l eges a cause of act i on under t he Due

Process Cl ause of t he Four t eent h Amendment . ( Compl ai nt at pg. 6. )

Pl ai nt i f f r equest s a per manent i nj unct i on pr event i ng t he

enf or cement of HRS Chapt er 134, damages, and puni t i ve damages. He

al so request s t hat he be i mmedi atel y i ssued a per mi t t o carr y an

unconceal ed or conceal ed weapon f or t hr ee years.

C. Pl ai nt i f f s Pr evi ous Cases

Pl ai nt i f f has pr evi ousl y f i l ed t wo si mi l ar Compl ai nt s i n t he

Feder al Di st r i ct of Hawai i . I n t he f i r st case, Young v. Hawai i ,

548 F. Supp. 2d 1151 ( D. Haw. 2008) ( Young I ) , Pl ai nt i f f sued

St at e and Count y Of f i ci al s based on t he deni al of hi s appl i cat i on

t o car r y a weapon i n publ i c. The f act ual and l egal basi s are



5/40

5

near l y i dent i cal t o t he case bef ore t he Cour t . On March 12, 2008,

t he Di st r i ct Cour t di smi ssed t he Compl ai nt wi t h pr ej udi ce. The

Cour t hel d t hat sover ei gn i mmuni t y bar r ed sui t agai nst t he St at e

and St at e of f i ci al s. As t o t he Count y, t he Cour t hel d t hat

Pl ai nt i f f l acked st andi ng to sue f or a Second Amendment

vi ol at i on, r ef l ect i ng t he st at e of t he l aw at t he t i me of t he

deci si on.

I n the second case, Young v Hawai i , No. 08- 00540, 73 Fed. R.

Ser v. 3d 1635 ( D. Haw. J ul . 2, 2009) ( Young I I ) , Pl ai nt i f f

al l eged t he same vi ol at i ons as i n Young I af t er he was agai n

deni ed a per mi t af t er r eappl yi ng. Thr ee di f f er ences exi st ed

bet ween Young I and Young I I . Fi r st , i n Young I I , Pl ai nt i f f

br ought causes of act i on agai nst Count y Of f i ci al s i n t hei r

i ndi vi dual capaci t i es, as wel l as of f i ci al capaci t i es. Second,

af t er Young I , t he Supr eme Cour t of t he Uni t ed St ates deci ded

Hel l er v. Di st r i ct of Col umbi a, 540 U. S. 570 ( 2008) , hol di ng t hat

t he Second Amendment of t he Uni t ed St at es Const i t ut i on conf err ed

a l i mi t ed r i ght t o i ndi vi dual s t o keep and bear ar ms. Thi r d, at

t he t i me of t he Di st r i ct Cour t s Or der , t he Ni nt h Ci r cui t Cour t

of Appeal s hel d that t he Second Amendment appl i ed t o t he st at es,

not j ust t o t he f eder al gover nment . Nordyke v. Ki ng, 563 F. 3d 439

( 9t h Ci r . 2009) , vacat ed, 611. F. 3d 1015 ( 9t h Ci r . 2010) ( r emandi ng

back t o panel af t er McDonal d v. Ci t y of Chi cago) , r ehear i ng en

banc, 681 F. 3d 1041 ( 9t h Ci r . 2012) . Whi l e Hel l er and Ki ng di d

conf er st andi ng on Pl ai nt i f f t o chal l enge an al l eged i nf r i ngement



6/40

6

of hi s Second Amendment r i ght , Pl ai nt i f f was est opped f r om

br i ngi ng t he cl ai ms a second t i me due t o t he pr ecl usi ve ef f ect of

Young I .

STANDARD OF REVI EW

Def endant s move t o di smi ss t he al l eged causes of act i on i n

Count s I t hr ough V, pur suant t o Feder al Rul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e

12( b) ( 6) . The Cour t may di smi ss a compl ai nt as a mat t er of l aw

pur suant t o Rul e 12( b) ( 6) wher e i t f ai l s t o st at e a cl ai m upon

whi ch r el i ef can be gr ant ed. Rul e 8( a) ( 2) of t he Feder al Rul es of

Ci vi l Pr ocedur e requi r es a shor t and pl ai n st at ement of t he cl ai m

showi ng t hat t he pl eader i s ent i t l ed t o r el i ef . When consi der i ng

a Rul e 12( b) ( 6) mot i on t o di smi ss, t he Cour t must pr esume al l

al l egat i ons of mat er i al f act t o be t r ue and dr aw al l r easonabl e

i nf er ences i n f avor of t he non- movi ng par t y. Par et o v. F. D. I . C. ,

139 F. 3d 696, 699 ( 9t h Ci r . 1998) . Concl usor y al l egat i ons of l aw

and unwar r ant ed i nf er ences ar e i nsuf f i ci ent t o def eat a mot i on t o

di smi ss. I d. at 699. The Cour t need not accept as t r ue

al l egat i ons t hat cont r adi ct mat t er s pr oper l y subj ect t o j udi ci al

not i ce or al l egat i ons cont r adi ct i ng t he exhi bi t s at t ached t o t he

compl ai nt . Spr ewel l v. Gol den St at e War r i or s, 266 F. 3d 979, 988

( 9t h Ci r . 2001) .

I n Bel l At l . Cor p. v. Twombl y, t he Uni t ed St at es Supr eme Cour t

addr essed t he pl eadi ng st andards under t he Feder al Rul es of Ci vi l

Pr ocedur e i n t he ant i - t r ust cont ext . 550 U. S. 544 ( 2007) . The

Supr eme Cour t st at ed t hat Rul e 8 of t he Feder al Rul es of Ci vi l



7/40

7

Procedur e r equi r es more t han l abel s and concl usi ons, and a

f or mul ai c reci t at i on of t he el ement s of a cause of act i on, and

t hat [ f ] act ual al l egat i ons must be enough t o r ai se a r i ght t o

r el i ef above t he specul at i ve l evel . I d. at 555.

Most r ecent l y, i n Ashcr of t v. I qbal , t he Supr eme Cour t

cl ar i f i ed t hat t he pr i nci pl es announced i n Twombl y ar e appl i cabl e

i n al l ci vi l cases. 556 U. S. 662 ( 2009) . The Cour t st at ed t hat

t he pl eadi ng st andar d Rul e 8 announces does not r equi r e det ai l ed

f act ual al l egat i ons, but i t demands mor e than an unador ned, t he-

def endant - unl awf ul l y- har med- me- accusat i on. I d. at 678 ( ci t i ng

Twombl y, 550 U. S. at 555) . To survi ve a mot i on t o di smi ss, a

compl ai nt must cont ai n suf f i ci ent f act ual mat t er , accept ed as t r ue,

t o stat e a cl ai m t o rel i ef t hat i s pl ausi bl e on i t s f ace. I d.

( quot i ng Twombl y, 550 U. S. at 570) . A cl ai m has f aci al

pl ausi bi l i t y when t he pl ai nt i f f pl eads f act ual cont ent t hat al l ows

t he cour t t o dr aw t he r easonabl e i nf er ence t hat t he def endant i s

l i abl e f or t he mi sconduct al l eged. The pl ausi bi l i t y st andar d i s not

aki n t o a pr obabi l i t y r equi r ement , but i t asks f or mor e t han a

sheer possi bi l i t y t hat a def endant has act ed unl awf ul l y. I d.

( quot i ng Twombl y, 550 U. S. at 556) . Wher e a compl ai nt pl eads f act s

t hat ar e mer el y consi st ent wi t h a def endant s l i abi l i t y, i t

st ops shor t of t he l i ne bet ween possi bi l i t y and pl ausi bi l i t y of

ent i t l ement t o r el i ef . I d. ( quot i ng Twombl y, 550 U. S. at 557) .

The compl ai nt must cont ai n suf f i ci ent al l egat i ons of under l yi ng

f act s t o gi ve f ai r not i ce and t o enabl e t he opposi ng par t y t o



8/40

8

def end i t sel f ef f ect i vel y and must pl ausi bl y suggest an

ent i t l ement t o r el i ef , such t hat i t i s not unf ai r t o r equi r e t he

opposi ng part y t o be subj ect ed t o t he expense of di scover y and

cont i nued l i t i gat i on. AE ex rel Her nandez v. Cnt y. of Tul ar e, 666

F. 3d 631, 637 ( 9t h Ci r . 2012) ( i nt er nal quot at i ons omi t t ed) .

A pl ai nt i f f shoul d be gi ven l eave t o amend t he compl ai nt ,

unl ess i t coul d not be saved by any amendment . Har r i s v. Amgen,

I nc. , 573 F. 3d 728, 737 ( 9t h Ci r . 2009) ( i nt er nal quot at i ons

omi t t ed) . A cour t may deny l eave t o amend a compl ai nt i f a

pl ai nt i f f coul d not possi bl y cur e t he def i ci ency by al l egi ng ot her

f act s consi st ent wi t h t he chal l enged pl eadi ng. Tel esaur us VPC, LLC

v. Power , 623 F. 3d 998, 1003 ( 9t h Ci r . 2010) , cer t . deni ed, 132

S. Ct . 95 ( Oct . 03 2011) . A cour t may al so deny l eave t o amend i f i t

woul d be f ut i l e, such as when a cl ai m wi l l i nevi t abl y be def eat ed

on summary j udgment . J ohnson v. Am. Ai r l i nes, I nc. , 834 F. 2d 721,

724 ( 9t h Ci r . 1987) .

ANALYSI S

Pl ai nt i f f s al l egat i ons ar i se f r om bei ng deni ed a per mi t t o

car r y a f i r ear m, pur suant t o HRS 134- 9. Count y Of f i ci al s and

al l St at e Def endant s move t o di smi ss Pl ai nt i f f s causes of

acti on. St at e Def endant s cl ai m t hat Pl ai nt i f f s sui t agai nst t hem

i s bar r ed by t he El event h Amendment t o t he Uni t ed St at es

Const i t ut i on. Count y Of f i ci al Def endant s cl ai m t hat Pl ai nt i f f

l acks st andi ng and t hat t he Compl ai nt does not al l ege a Uni t ed



9/40

9

St at es Const i t ut i onal vi ol at i on. The Count y of Hawai i and Hi l o

County Pol i ce Depar t ment were not ser ved and have not ent ered an

appearance i n t he act i on.

I . PLAI NTI FF' S FEDERAL CONSTI TUTI ONAL CLAI MS AGAI NST THE STATE OF

HAWAI I DEFENDANTS ARE BARRED BY ELEVENTH AMENDMENT I MMUNI TY

Pl ai nt i f f sues t he St at e of Hawai i , Nei l Aber crombi e i n hi s

of f i ci al capaci t y as t he Gover nor of Hawai i , and Davi d M. Loui e i n

hi s of f i ci al capaci t y as t he At t or ney Gener al of Hawai i .

The doct r i ne of soverei gn i mmuni t y appl i es when ci vi l r i ght s

cl ai ms ar e br ought agai nst t he St at e of Hawai i . The St at e of

Hawai i has not wai ved i t s El event h Amendment i mmuni t y, and Congress

di d not abr ogat e t he St at es' sover ei gn i mmuni t y when enact i ng 42

U. S. C. 1983. Pl ai nt i f f s cl ai ms agai nst t he St at e of Hawai i and

Def endant s Aber cr ombi e and Loui e under 42 U. S. C. 1983, 1985, and

1986 f or vi ol at i on of t he pr ohi bi t i on on Bi l l s of At t ai nder s i n t he

Uni t ed St at es Const i t ut i on, t he Cont r act Cl ause, and t he Second,

Ni nt h, and Four t eent h Amendment s ar e bar r ed by El event h Amendment

I mmuni t y.

A. The Doctr i ne of Sover ei gn I mmuni t y

The doct r i ne of sover ei gn i mmuni t y i s set out i n t he El event h

Amendment of t he Uni t ed St at es Const i t ut i on:

The J udi ci al power of t he Uni t ed St at es shal l not be

const r ued t o extend t o any sui t i n l aw or equi t y,commenced or prosecuted agai nst one of t he Uni t ed Stat esby Ci t i zens of anot her St at e, or by Ci t i zens or Subj ect sof any For ei gn St at e.



10/40

10

U. S. Const . amend. XI . The Uni t ed St at es Supr eme Cour t has hel d

t hat El event h Amendment i mmuni t y ext ends t o sui t s agai nst a St at e

or i t s agenci es by ci t i zens of t hat same St at e. Hans v. Loui si ana,

134 U. S. 1 ( 1890) .

Sover ei gn i mmuni t y gener al l y bar s t he f eder al cour t s f r om

ent er t ai ni ng sui t s br ought agai nst a St at e or i t s agenci es, unl ess

a St at e wai ves i mmuni t y or Congr ess abr ogat es i mmuni t y pur suant t o

5 of t he Four t eent h Amendment t o t he Uni t ed St ates Const i t ut i on.

L. A. Cnt y. Bar Ass' n v. Eu, 979 F. 2d 697, 704 ( 9t h Ci r . 1992) ;

Wi l bur v. Locke, 423 F. 3d 1101, 1111 ( 9t h Ci r . 2005) , cer t . deni ed

546 U. S. 1173 ( 2006) .

Sover ei gn i mmuni t y al so bar s f eder al st atut or y and

const i t ut i onal cl ai ms f or money damages agai nst st at e of f i ci al s

sued i n t hei r of f i ci al capaci t i es, absent a wai ver or abr ogat i on of

i mmuni t y. See Di t t man v. St ate of Cal i f orni a, 191 F. 3d 1020, 1025-

26 ( 9t h Ci r . 1999) . St at e of f i ci al s may be subj ect t o sui t f orpr ospect i ve i nj unct i ve r el i ef under t he doct r i ne est abl i shed i n Ex

par t e Young, 209 U. S. 123 ( 1908) .

B. Hawai i Has Not Wai ved Sover ei gn I mmuni t y

I n or der t o wai ve sover ei gn i mmuni t y, a St at e' s consent must

be expr essed unequi vocal l y. Pennhur st St ate Sch. & Hosp. v.

Hal derman, 465 U. S. 89, 99 ( 1984) . The St at e of Hawai i has not

wai ved i t s sover ei gn i mmuni t y f r omsui t i n f eder al cour t f or ci vi l

r i ght s act i ons. See Li nvi l l e v. St at e of Hawai i , 874 F. Supp. 1095,



11/40

11

1103 ( D. Haw. 1994) . Here, t he St at e of Hawai i Def endant s have

i nvoked t he doct r i ne of sover ei gn i mmuni t y.

C. 42 U. S. C. 1983, 1985, and 1986 Do Not Abr ogat e

Sover ei gn I mmuni t y

Congress has t he power t o abrogat e the soverei gn i mmuni t y of

t he St ates, pur suant t o Sect i on 5 of Amendment XI V of t he Uni t ed

St at es Const i t ut i on: The Congr ess shal l have power t o enf or ce, by

appr opr i at e l egi sl at i on, t he pr ovi si ons of t hi s ar t i cl e. Congr ess

must do so by enact i ng a st at ut e whi ch expl i ci t l y and by cl ear

l anguage i ndi cat e[ s] on i t s f ace an i nt ent t o sweep away the

i mmuni t y of t he St ates. Quer n v. J ordon, 440 U. S. 332, 332 ( 1979) ;

Ki mel v. Fl a. Bd. of Regent s, 528 U. S. 62, 73 ( 2000) ( Congr ess may

abr ogat e t he St at es' const i t ut i onal l y secur ed i mmuni t y f r omsui t i n

f eder al cour t onl y by maki ng i t s i nt ent i on unmi st akabl y cl ear i n

t he l anguage of t he st at ut e) .

Pl ai nt i f f s cl ai ms ar e br ought pur suant t o 42 U. S. C. 1983.

Sect i on 1983 st at es, i n r el evant par t :

Ever y per son who, under col or of any st atut e, ordi nance,r egul at i on, cust om, or usage . . . subj ect s or causes t obe subj ect ed, any ci t i zen of t he Uni t ed St at es . . . t ot he depr i vat i on of any ri ght s, pr i vi l eges, or i mmuni t i essecur ed by the Const i t ut i on and l aws, shal l be l i abl e t ot he par t y i nj ur ed i n an act i on at l aw, sui t i n equi t y orot her pr oper pr oceedi ng f or r edr ess . . . .

42 U. S. C. 1983. Congr ess di d not abr ogat e t he St at es' El event h

Amendment i mmuni t y when enact i ng 42 U. S. C. 1983. Wi l l v. Mi ch.

Dep t of St at e Pol i ce, 491 U. S. 58, at 65- 66 ( 1989) . St at es and

St at e of f i ci al s act i ng i n t hei r of f i ci al capaci t i es, except wher e



12/40

12

sued f or pr ospect i ve i nj unct i ve r el i ef , ar e not consi der ed

per sons f or pur poses of Sect i on 1983 l i abi l i t y. I d. at 71;

Sherez v. Hawai i Dep t of Educ. , 396 F. Supp. 2d 1138, 1142- 43 ( D.

Haw. 2005) ( di smi ssi ng cl ai ms agai nst t he Depart ment of Educat i on

and agai nst St at e of f i ci al i n t hei r of f i ci al capaci t y on El event h

Amendment i mmuni t y gr ounds) . The same r ul e appl i es t o Pl ai nt i f f s

ot her El event h Amendment cl ai ms, as Congr ess di d not abr ogat e t he

Stat es' El event h Amendment i mmuni t y when enact i ng 42 U. S. C. 1985

and 1986.

The St at e of Hawai i has not wai ved sover ei gn i mmuni t y, and

Congr ess, i n passi ng 42 U. S. C. 1983, 1985, and 1986, di d not

abr ogat e El event h Amendment i mmuni t y of st at e government s. The

Cour t l acks j ur i sdi ct i on over al l of Pl ai nt i f f s f eder al

const i t ut i onal cl ai ms agai nst t he St at e of Hawai i , and over

Pl ai nt i f f s cl ai ms f or money damages agai nst t he Gover nor of Hawai i

and t he At t orney Gener al of Hawai i . The cl ai ms ar e DI SMI SSED WI TH

PREJ UDI CE.

D. Pl ai nt i f f s Cl ai ms Agai nst The Gover nor Of Hawai i and TheAt t or ney Gener al Of Hawai i I n Thei r Of f i ci al Capaci t i es

Pl ai nt i f f s cl ai ms under 42 U. S. C. 1983, 1985, and 1986 f or

pr ospect i ve i nj unct i ve r el i ef agai nst t he Gover nor of Hawai i and

t he St at e At t or ney Gener al , i n t hei r of f i ci al capaci t i es, ar e not

barr ed by sover ei gn i mmuni t y. Under t he doct r i ne est abl i shed i n Ex

par t e Young, 209 U. S. 123 (1908) , El event h Amendment i mmuni t y does

not appl y t o a sui t " f or pr ospect i ve decl ar at or y and i nj unct i ve



13/40

13

rel i ef agai nst stat e of f i cers, sued i n t hei r of f i ci al capaci t i es,

t o enj oi n an al l eged ongoi ng vi ol at i on of f eder al l aw. Wi l bur ,

423 F. 3d at 1111 ( quot i ng Agua Cal i ent e Band of Cahui l l a I ndi ans v.

Hardi n, 223 F. 3d 1041, 1045 ( 9t h Ci r . 2000) ) . Such act i ons ar e not

consi der ed act i ons agai nst t he St at e. Wi l l , 491 U. S. at 71 n. 10.

The Uni t ed St at es Supreme Cour t r ul ed i n 1908, i n Ex Par t e

Young t hat a cl ai magai nst a st at e of f i ci al i s appr opr i at e when t he

compl ai nt ( 1) al l eges an ongoi ng vi ol at i on of f eder al l aw and ( 2)

seeks r el i ef proper l y char act er i zed as pr ospect i ve. Ver i zon Md. ,

I nc. v. Publ i c Ser v. Comm' n, 535 U. S. 635, 645 ( 2002) ; ACS of

Fai r banks, I nc. v. GCI Commc n Corp. , 321 F. 3d 1215, 1216- 17 ( 9t h

Ci r . 2003) . The hol di ng by t he Uni t ed St ates Supr eme Cour t i n Ex

Par t e Young does not al l ow cl ai ms f or r et r oact i ve r el i ef . El event h

Amendment i mmuni t y bars a f ederal cour t f r omawardi ng compensat i on

f or past i nj ur i es f r omst at e t r easur y f unds. Edel man v. J or dan, 415

U. S. 651 ( 1974) . The sui t must be br ought agai nst a st at e of f i cerwi t h a suf f i ci ent connect i on t o a l aw s enf or cement . Penni ngt on

Seed, I nc. v. Produce Exch. No. 299, 457 F. 3d 1334, 1342 ( Fed. Ci r .

2006) . The named st at e of f i ci al must act ual l y vi ol at e f eder al l aw.

Br oad gener al i zat i ons, such as a gover nor or st at e at t or ney

gener al s obl i gat i on t o enf or ce al l st at e l aws, do not have a

suf f i ci ent nexus f or an Ex Part e Young cl ai m.

Whi l e Pl ai nt i f f r equest s an i nj unct i on agai nst t he enf or cement

of HRS Chapt er 134, he i s act ual l y chal l engi ng t he const i t ut i onal

val i di t y of Hawai i s Fi r ear mCar r yi ng Laws, HRS 134- 9 and 134- 23



14/40

14

t hr ough 134- 27. Pl ai nt i f f s pr i mar y cont ent i on i nvol ves t he

l i censi ng scheme i n HRS 134- 9. Pl ai nt i f f ar gues t hat because t he

Second Amendment guarant ees t he f undament al i ndi vi dual r i ght t o

bear ar ms, HRS Chapt er 134' s r est r i ct i ons are unconst i t ut i onal .

The anal ysi s of Hawai i s Fi r earm Car r yi ng Laws i nf r a f i nds t hemt o

be const i t ut i onal .

Addi t i onal l y, Pl ai nt i f f s cl ai ms agai nst Gover nor Aber crombi e

and At t orney Gener al Loui e are based on t hei r gener al over si ght of

Hawai i l aws. These al l egat i ons ar e i nsuf f i ci ent t o est abl i sh a

nexus bet ween t he named St at e of f i ci al s and t he al l eged vi ol at i on

of Pl ai nt i f f s ci vi l r i ght s. See Penni ngt on, 457 F. 3d at 1342- 43;

L. A. Cnt y. Bar Ass n v. Eu, 979 F. 2d 697, 704 ( 9t h Ci r . 1992) .

Gover nor Aber cr ombi e and At t or ney General Loui e do not have a

suf f i ci ent nexus t o the enf or cement of Hawai i s Fi r ear m Car r yi ng

Laws. See Young I , 548 F. Supp. 2d at 1164.

Pl ai nt i f f does not suf f i ci ent l y al l ege cl ai ms agai nst t heGover nor of Hawai i and t he St ate At t orney Gener al of Hawai i i n

t hei r of f i ci al capaci t i es. The cl ai ms agai nst Def endant s

Aber cr ombi e and Loui e ar e DI SMI SSED WI TH PREJ UDI CE.

I I . PLAI NTI FF S FEDERAL CONSTI TUTI ONAL CLAI MS AGAI NST THE COUNTYOF HAWAI I , THE HI LO COUNTY POLI CE DEPARTMENT, AND WI LLI AM P.KENOI AND HARRY S. KUBOJ I RI I N THEI R OFFI CI AL CAPACI TI ES

The Compl ai nt names t he Count y of Hawai i , t he Hi l o Count y

Pol i ce Depar t ment , Mayor Wi l l i am P. Kenoi , and Pol i ce Chi ef Har r y

S. Ki boj i r i as Def endant s. Mayor Kenoi and Pol i ce Chi ef Ki boj i r i

ar e sued onl y i n t hei r of f i ci al capaci t i es. Pl ai nt i f f has not



15/40

15

served t he Count y of Hawai i or t he Hi l o Count y Pol i ce Depart ment .

Mayor Kenoi and Pol i ce Chi ef Ki boj i r i move t o di smi ss al l cl ai ms.

A. Pl ai nt i f f ' s Cl ai ms Agai nst Def endant s Mayor Kenoi andPol i ce Chi ef Kuboj i r i Ar e Anal yzed i n t he Same Manner asI f They Wer e Di r ect l y Br ought Agai nst t he Count y ofHawai i

A Sect i on 1983 cl ai m agai nst a count y of f i ci al i n hi s or her

of f i ci al capaci t y i s t he same as br i ngi ng a di r ect act i on agai nst

t he government . See Wong v. Ci t y & Cnt y. of Honol ul u, 333 F. Supp. 2d

942, 947 ( D. Haw. 2004) ( ci t i ng Kent ucky v. Gr aham, 473 U. S. 159,

166- 67 n. 14 ( 1985) ) .

The cl ai ms asser t ed agai nst Def endant s Mayor Kenoi and Pol i ce

Chi ef Kuboj i r i , i n t hei r of f i ci al capaci t i es, ar e anal yzed as a

muni ci pal l i abi l i t y cl ai m agai nst t he Count y of Hawai i .

B. Muni ci pal Li abi l i t y Under 1983

Pl ai nt i f f ' s muni ci pal l i abi l i t y cl ai ms agai nst Def endant s

Mayor Kenoi and Pol i ce Chi ef Ki boj i r i ( Count y Of f i ci al

Def endant s) , i n t hei r of f i ci al capaci t i es, ar e based on 42 U. S. C.

1983. Sect i on 1983 pr ovi des a mechani sm f or pl ai nt i f f s t o

chal l enge al l egedl y unconst i t ut i onal act i ons by gover nment al

of f i ci al s. Chol l a Ready Mi x, I nc. v. Ci vi sh, 382 F. 3d 969, 978

( 9t h Ci r . 2004) . The st at ut e does not cr eat e any subst ant i ve

r i ght s. I d. To st at e a cause of act i on under 1983, a "pl ai nt i f f

must demonst r ate a depr i vat i on of a r i ght secur ed by t he

Const i t ut i on or l aws of t he Uni t ed St at es, and t hat t he def endant

act ed under col or of st at e l aw. Ki r t l ey v. Ri aney, 326 F. 3d 1088,



16/40

16

1092 ( 9t h Ci r . 2003) ; Leer v. Mur phy, 844 F. 2d 628, 632 ( 9t h Ci r .

1988) .

A muni ci pal i t y may be l i abl e i n a Sect i on 1983 act i on under

t wo t heor i es. I n t he f i r st i nstance, a muni ci pal i t y i s l i abl e i n

a Sect i on 1983 act i on f or i nj ur i es caused by a muni ci pal i t y s

unconst i t ut i onal pol i cy or cust om. See Monel l v. Dep' t of Soci al

Ser vs. , 436 U. S. 658, 694 ( 1978) ; Webb v. Sl oan, 330 F. 3d 1158,

1164 ( 9t h Ci r . 2003) , cer t . deni ed, 540 U. S. 1141 ( 2004) . The

of f i ci al pol i cy or customrequi r ement l i mi t s muni ci pal l i abi l i t y t o

act i ons i n whi ch t he muni ci pal i t y i s act ual l y responsi bl e f or t he

unconst i t ut i onal act . Gausvi k v. Per ez, 239 F. Supp. 2d 1047, 1053

( E. D. Wash. 2002) ( ci t i ng Pembaur v. Ci t y of Ci nci nnat i , 475 U. S.

469, 479- 80 ( 1986) ) . Even i f t he unconst i t ut i onal pr act i ce i s not

aut hor i zed by wr i t t en l aw, t he muni ci pal i t y may st i l l be l i abl e

when t he pr act i ces are so per manent and wel l - set t l ed as t o

const i t ut e a cust omor usage wi t h t he f or ce of l aw. Monel l , 436

U. S. at 691.

The second act i on f or whi ch a muni ci pal i t y may be hel d l i abl e

under Sect i on 1983 i s f or f ai l ur e t o t r ai n, super vi se, or

di sci pl i ne i t s empl oyees. Ci t y of Cant on v. Har r i s, 489 U. S. 378,

387 (1989) .

C. Pl ai nt i f f Fai l s To St at e A Federal Const i t ut i onal Cl ai mAgai nst t he Count y Of f i ci al Def endant s Under Sect i on 1983

I t i s not di sput ed t hat Count y Of f i ci al Def endant s act ed under

col or of St at e l aw. Pl ai nt i f f s cl ai ms agai nst t he Count y Of f i ci al

Def endant s are that t he Count y s pol i cy of enf or ci ng Hawai i s



17/40

17

Fi r ear mCar r yi ng Laws resul t s i n a depr i vat i on of Pl ai nt i f f s ci vi l

r i ght s under Ar t i cl e I of t he Uni t ed St at es Const i t ut i on, and t he

Second, Ni nth, and Four t eenth Amendment s t o t he Uni t ed Stat es

Const i t ut i on. Pl ai nt i f f s cl ai ms pr i mar i l y concer n t he l i censi ng

scheme f or pi st ol s and r evol ver s i n HRS 134- 9.

The st at ut e provi des:

( a) I n an except i onal case, when an appl i cant showsr eason t o f ear i nj ur y t o t he appl i cant ' s per son orpr oper t y, t he chi ef of pol i ce of t he appr opr i at e count ymay gr ant a l i cense to an appl i cant who i s a ci t i zen oft he Uni t ed St at es of t he age of t went y- one years or moreor t o a dul y accr edi t ed of f i ci al r epr esent at i ve of af or ei gn nat i on of t he age of t went y- one year s or mor e t ocar r y a pi st ol or r evol ver and ammuni t i on t her ef orconceal ed on t he person wi t hi n t he county where thel i cense i s gr ant ed. Wher e t he ur gency or t he need hasbeen suf f i ci ent l y i ndi cat ed, t he r espect i ve chi ef ofpol i ce may gr ant t o an appl i cant of good moral characterwho i s a ci t i zen of t he Uni t ed St at es of t he age oft went y- one years or more, i s engaged i n t he pr otect i on ofl i f e and pr oper t y, and i s not pr ohi bi t ed under sect i on134- 7 f r om t he owner shi p or possessi on of a f i r ear m, al i cense t o car r y a pi st ol or r evol ver and ammuni t i ont her ef or unconceal ed on t he per son wi t hi n t he count ywher e t he l i cense i s gr ant ed. The chi ef of pol i ce of t heappr opr i at e count y, or t he chi ef ' s desi gnat edr epr esent at i ve, shal l per f or man i nqui r y on an appl i cantby usi ng t he Nat i onal I nst ant Cr i mi nal Backgr ound CheckSyst em, t o i ncl ude a check of t he I mmi gr at i on and Cust omsEnf orcement databases wher e t he appl i cant i s not aci t i zen of t he Uni t ed St at es, bef or e any det er mi nat i on t ogr ant a l i cense i s made. Unl ess r enewed, t he l i censeshal l expi r e one year f r om t he dat e of i ssue.

( b) The chi ef of pol i ce of each count y shal l adoptpr ocedur es t o requi r e t hat any per son gr ant ed a l i cense

t o car r y a conceal ed weapon on t he person shal l :

( 1) Be qual i f i ed t o use t he f i r ear mi n a saf e manner ;

( 2) Appear t o be a sui t abl e per son t o be so l i censed;

( 3) Not be pr ohi bi t ed under sect i on 134- 7 f r om t he



18/40

18

owner shi p or possessi on of a f i r ear m; and

( 4) Not have been adj udged i nsane or not appear t obe ment al l y der anged.

( c) No per son shal l carr y conceal ed or unconceal ed on t heper son a pi st ol or r evol ver wi t hout bei ng l i censed t o do

so under t hi s sect i on or i n compl i ance wi t h sect i ons 134-5( c) or 134- 25.

( d) A f ee of $10 shal l be char ged f or each l i cense andshal l be deposi t ed i n t he t r easur y of t he count y i n whi cht he l i cense i s gr ant ed.

Haw. Rev. St at . 134- 9.

Hawai i s Pl aces t o Keep St at ut es r equi r e f i r ear ms t o be

conf i ned t o t he possessor s pl ace of busi ness, r esi dence or

soj our n, but al l owi ng l awf ul t r anspor t bet ween t hose pl aces and

r epai r shops, t ar get r anges, l i censed deal er shi ps, f i r ear ms shows,

f i r ear m t r ai ni ng, and pol i ce st at i ons. See Haw. Rev. St at . 134-

23, 134- 24; 134- 25; 134- 27. Sect i on 134- 26 pr ohi bi t s carr yi ng or

possessi ng a l oaded f i r ear mon a publ i c hi ghway. Hol der s of a val i d

l i cense t o car r y, pur suant t o HRS 134- 9, ar e exempt f r om t he

pr ovi si ons.

Count y Of f i ci al Def endant s seek di smi ssal of Pl ai nt i f f ' s

Sect i on 1983 cl ai ms on t he gr ounds t hat Pl ai nt i f f has f ai l ed t o

al l ege a depr i vat i on of a const i t ut i onal r i ght and l acks st andi ng.

1. Pl ai nt i f f Has St andi ng To Rai se a Second AmendmentChal l enge t o HRS Chapt er 134

Ar t i cl e I I I of t he Uni t ed St at es Const i t ut i on l i mi t s t he

j ur i sdi ct i on of t he f eder al cour t s t o adj udi cat i ng act ual cases or

cont r over si es. Al l en v. Wr i ght , 468 U. S. 737, 750 ( 1984) . St andi ng



19/40

19

i ncl udes const i t ut i onal and j ur i spr udent i al consi der at i ons. Luj an

v. Def ender s of Wi l dl i f e, 504 U. S. 555, 560- 61 ( 1992) .

Pl ai nt i f f has t he bur den t o est abl i sh st andi ng t o sue. I d. ,

504 U. S. at 560- 61. To est abl i sh st andi ng, Pl ai nt i f f f i r st must

show t hat he suf f er s f r oman i nj ur y i n f act t hat i s concret e and

par t i cul ar i zed and ei t her act ual or i mmi nent . Pl ai nt i f f must

t hen show t hat t he i nj ur y can be t r aced t o some wr ongf ul or i l l egal

conduct by the Def endant s t hat i s l i kel y t o be r edr essed by a

f avor abl e deci si on by t he cour t . I d. Pl ai nt i f f must demonst r at e

st andi ng f or each f or m of r el i ef he seeks. Cl ar k v. Ci t y of

Lakewood, 259 F. 3d 996, 1006 ( 9t h Ci r . 2001) ( ci t i ng Fr i ends of t he

Ear t h, I nc. v. Lai dl aw Envt l . Ser vs. , 528 U. S. 167, 191- 92 ( 2000) .

A pl ai nt i f f s cl ai ms t hat hi s r i ght s have been vi ol at ed ar e

assumed t o be val i d f or t he pur pose of hi s st andi ng i nqui r y. See

Luj an, 504 U. S. at 561; Kachal sky v. Cacace, 817 F. Supp. 2d 235, 249

n. 12 ( S. D. N. Y. 2011) . A pl ai nt i f f seeki ng i nj unct i ve r el i ef must

show t hat he i s suf f er i ng f r om ongoi ng i nj ur y or f aces t hr eat of

i mmedi ate i nj ur y. Los Angel es v. Lyons, 461 U. S. 95, 105 ( 1983) .

Pl ai nt i f f cl ai ms t hat Hawai i s Fi r ear m Car r yi ng l aws i n HRS

Chapt er 134 vi ol at e hi s r i ght s pr ot ect ed by t he Second Amendment t o

t he Uni t ed St at es Const i t ut i on.

The Second Amendment pr ovi des:

A wel l r egul at ed Mi l i t i a, bei ng necessar y t o t he secur i t yof a f r ee St ate, t he r i ght of t he peopl e t o keep and bearAr ms, shal l not be i nf r i nged.

U. S. Const . amend. I I .



20/40

20

I t i s possi bl e t hat a l i cense or per mi t deni al pur suant t o a

st at e admi ni st r at i ve scheme r egul at i ng f i r ear ms may const i t ut e an

act ual and ongoi ng i nj ur y f or i nf r i ngi ng upon an al l eged Second

Amendment vi ol at i on. See Kachal sky, 817 F. Supp. 2d at 248- 49; Dear t h

v. Hol der , 641 F. 3d 499, 501- 02 ( D. C. Ci r . 2011) . I n Par ker v.

Di st r i ct of Col umbi a, 478 F. 3d 370 ( D. C. Ci r . 2007) , t he Di st r i ct

of Col umbi a Ci r cui t Cour t of Appeal s hel d t hat t he deni al of a gun

l i cense const i t ut ed an i nj ur y i ndependent of t he pr ospect i ve

enf or cement of cr i mi nal l aws r el at ed t o gun possessi on. The deni al

of t he l i cense conf er r ed st andi ng on t he pl ai nt i f f t o chal l enge t he

st at ut e r egul at i ng t he i ssuance of per mi t s and t he st at ut es

cr i mi nal i zi ng possessi on wi t hout a l i cense. I d. at 375- 76 ( D. C.

Ci r . 2007) , af f ' d sub nom. Di st r i ct of Col umbi a v. Hel l er , 554 U. S.

570 ( 2008) ; see al so Ezel l v. Ci t y of Chi cago, 651 F. 3d 684, 695

( 7t h Ci r . 2011) ( pl ai nt i f f had st andi ng t o br i ng a pr e- enf or cement

const i t ut i onal chal l enge t o ci t y or di nance gover ni ng pr er equi si t es

f or gun owner shi p because f or ci ng hi m t o keep hi s f i r ear m out si de

t he ci t y was an ongoi ng i nj ur y t o hi s cl ai med r i ght t o possess

f i r ear ms f or sel f def ense) .

Pl ai nt i f f al l eges t hat t he enf or cement of Hawai i s Fi r ear m

Carr yi ng Laws depr i ve hi m of hi s Second Amendment r i ght t o car r y a

f i rearm i n publ i c. I f we assume t hat Hawai i s Fi r ear m Car r yi ng

Laws vi ol at e Pl ai nt i f f s f ederal const i t ut i onal r i ght s, Pl ai nt i f f

suf f i ci ent l y al l eges an i nj ur y and causat i on t o est abl i sh st andi ng

f or i nj unct i ve r el i ef . A deci si on enj oi ni ng t he enf or cement of t he



21/40

21

Hawai i st at ut es woul d r edr ess Pl ai nt i f f s i nj ur y. See Moor e v.

Madi gan, 842 F. Supp. 2d 1092, 1098 ( C. D. I l l . 2012) ( pl ai nt i f f s have

st andi ng t o seek rel i ef enj oi ni ng t he enf or cement of st at ut es t hat

al l egedl y i nf r i nge upon t hei r cl ai med r i ght t o car r y f i r ear ms i n

publ i c) .

The Compl ai nt does not set f or t h a basi s f or Pl ai nt i f f s

cl ai ms f or monet ary rel i ef , i ncl udi ng compensat ory damages of at

l east one- mi l l i on dol l ar s. Pl ai nt i f f does not have st andi ng t o

support hi s cl ai ms f or damages.

2. Pl ai nt i f f Fai l s t o St at e a Second Amendment Cl ai m

Af t er t he Cour t di smi ssed Pl ai nt i f f s f i r st const i t ut i onal

chal l enge t o HRS chapt er 134 i n Young v. Hawai i , 548 F. Supp. 2d 1151

( D. Haw. 2008) ( Young I ) , t wo si gni f i cant devel opment s occur r ed i n

Second Amendment l aw. Fi r st , i n Di st r i ct of Col umbi a v. Hel l er , t he

Uni t ed St at es Supr eme Cour t expl i ci t l y recogni zed that t he Second

Amendment conf ers an i ndi vi dual r i ght t o keep and bear arms. 554

U. S. 570 ( 2008) ( over t ur ni ng Hi ckman v. Bl ock, 81 F. 3d 98, 101- 102

( 9t h Ci r . 1996) ) . Second, i n McDonal d v. Ci t y of Chi cago, t he

Supreme Cour t det ermi ned t hat t he Second Amendment appl i es t o t he

act i ons of t he St at es t hr ough t he Four t eent h Amendment t o t he

Uni t ed St at es Const i t ut i on. 130 S. Ct . 3020 ( 2010) . Af t er McDonal d,

i t i s cl ear t hat nei t her st ate nor f eder al gover nment s may pass

l aws t hat vi ol at e t he Second Amendment r i ght t o bear arms. I d.

Bot h Supr eme Cour t deci si ons, Hel l er and McDonal d, f ocused on

t he r i ght t o bear ar ms f or sel f - def ense wi t hi n t he home. I n Hel l er ,



22/40

22

t he Supreme Cour t hel d t hat t he Second Amendment conf ers t he r i ght

f or l aw- abi di ng r esponsi bl e ci t i zens t o use ar ms i n def ense of

hear t h and home. Hel l er , 554 U. S. at 635; see al so McDonal d, 130

S. Ct . at 3044 ( [ O] ur cent r al hol di ng i n Hel l er [ i s] t hat t he

Second Amendment prot ect s t he per sonal r i ght t o keep and bear arms

f or l awf ul pur poses, most not abl y f or sel f - def ense wi t hi n t he

home. ) .

The Supreme Cour t Hel l er deci si on st at ed t hat t he Second

Amendment does not conf er a r i ght t o keep and car r y any weapon

what soever i n any manner what soever and f or what ever pur pose. I d.

at 626. Hel l er di d not , however , f or ecl ose t he possi bi l i t y that t he

cor e r i ght t o possess and car r y a weapon at home may ext end outsi de

t he home.

The Supreme Cour t deci si ons i n Hel l er and McDonal d cr eat ed

uncer t ai nt y sur r oundi ng ( 1) t he ext ent t o whi ch t he Second

Amendment r i ght s appl y outsi de t he home and ( 2) t he l evel of

scr ut i ny necessary i n eval uat i ng Second Amendment r est r i ct i ons.

Hel l er , 554 U. S. at 634; Uni t ed St at es v. Masci andar o, 638 F. 3d

458, 466- 67 ( 4t h Ci r . ) , cer t . deni ed, 132 S. Ct . 756 ( 2011) .

The Thi r d, Four t h, Sevent h, Tent h, and Di st r i ct of Col umbi a

Ci r cui t s have adopt ed a t wo- st ep appr oach f or eval uat i ng Second

Amendment chal l enges. Fi r st , a cour t must determi ne whether t he

chal l enged l aw r egul at es act i vi t y t hat f al l s wi t hi n t he Second

Amendment s scope. I f t he chal l enged l aw does not r egul ate

pr ot ect ed act i vi t y, t he i nqui r y i s compl et e. I f t he chal l enged l aw



23/40

23

does r egul ate act i vi t y wi t hi n the scope of t he Second Amendment , a

cour t must t hen det er mi ne whet her i t i mposes an unconst i t ut i onal

bur den by appl yi ng a l evel of scr ut i ny hi gher t han r at i onal r evi ew.

See Uni t ed St at es v. Mar zzarel l a, 614 F. 3d 85, 89 ( 3d Ci r . 2010) ,

cer t . deni ed, 131 S. Ct . 958 ( 2011) ; Hel l er v. Di st r i ct of Col umbi a,

670 F. 3d 1244, 1256- 58 ( D. C. Ci r . 2011) ; Ezel l , 651 F. 3d at 70204;

Uni t ed St at es v. Chest er , 628 F. 3d 673, 680 ( 4t h Ci r . 2010) ; Uni t ed

St ates v. Reese, 627 F. 3d 792, 80001 ( 10t h Ci r . 2010) .

a. The Second Amendment Does Not Provi de anUnl i mi t ed Ri ght t o Carr y a Weapon i n Publ i c

The hol di ng i n Hel l er i s t hat t he cor e Second Amendment

r i ght i s t hat of l aw- abi di ng, r esponsi bl e ci t i zens t o use ar ms i n

def ense of hear t h and home. 554 U. S. at 635- 36. At t he same t i me,

t he Supr eme Cour t r ecogni zed that t he Second Amendment does not

convey t he r i ght t o keep and car r y any weapon what soever i n any

manner what soever and f or what ever pur pose. I d. at 626.

The Supr eme Cour t hel d t hat t he Second Amendment does not

pr ot ect a r i ght t o possess weapons not t ypi cal l y possessed by l aw-

abi di ng ci t i zens f or l awf ul pur poses. The Supr eme Cour t al so

i dent i f i ed a non- exhaust i ve l i st of r egul at i ons t hat do not

i nf r i nge on Second Amendment r i ght s:

Al t hough we do not under t ake an exhaust i ve

hi st or i cal anal ysi s t oday of t he f ul l scope oft he Second Amendment , not hi ng i n our opi ni onshoul d be t aken t o cast doubt on l ongst andi ngpr ohi bi t i ons on t he possessi on of f i r ear ms byf el ons and t he ment al l y i l l , or l awsf or bi ddi ng t he car r yi ng of f i r ear ms i nsensi t i ve pl aces such as school s andgover nment bui l di ngs, or l aws i mposi ng



24/40

24

condi t i ons and qual i f i cat i ons on t hecommerci al sal e of arms.

I d. at 625- 27. The Supr eme Cour t added a f oot not e, cal l i ng t he

enumerat ed measur es presumpt i vel y l awf ul . I d. at 626 n. 26. Lower

cour t s have st r uggl ed wi t h how t o i nt er pr et t he t ext . I t i s uncl ear

whet her such conduct woul d f al l out si de t he scope of t he Second

Amendment or i f r egul at i ons on such conduct are pr esumpt i vel y

l awf ul because t hey pass const i t ut i onal must er under t he appl i cabl e

st andard of scr ut i ny. See Masci andaro, 638 F. 3d at 473;

Mar zzarel l a, 614 F. 3d at 91.

The wei ght of aut hor i t y i n t he Ni nt h Ci r cui t , ot her Ci r cui t s,

and st at e cour t s f avors t he posi t i on t hat t he Second Amendment

r i ght ar t i cul ated by the Supr eme Cour t i n Hel l er and McDonal d

est abl i shes onl y a nar r ow i ndi vi dual r i ght t o keep an oper abl e

handgun at home f or sel f - def ense. Uni t ed St at es v. Skoi en, 614 F. 3d

638, 640 ( 7t h Ci r . 2010) ( en banc) , cer t . deni ed, 131 S. Ct . 1674,

179 L. Ed. 2d 645 ( 2011) . The r i ght t o car r y a gun out si de t he home

i s not part of t he cor e Second Amendment r i ght . See i d. ;

Masci andaro, 638 F. 3d at 470- 71. I n Masci andar o, t he Four t h

Ci r cui t Cour t of Appeal s hel d t hat t he r i ght t o car r y a f i r ear m i n

publ i c i s mor e l i mi t ed t han at home because publ i c saf et y i nt er est s

out wei gh t he i ndi vi dual i nt er est i n sel f def ense. I d. ( not i ng

Hel l er s exami nat i on of 19t h- cent ur y deci si ons whi ch uphel d st at ut es

pr ohi bi t i ng car r yi ng conceal ed weapons) .



25/40

25

Most f eder al di st r i ct cour t s have uphel d st at ut es si mi l ar t o

Hawai i s Fi r ear m Car r yi ng Laws, hol di ng t hat such r egul at or y

schemes do not i nf r i nge upon r i ght s pr otect ed by t he Second

Amendment . See Pi szczatoski v. Fi l ko, 840 F. Supp. 2d 813 ( D. N. J .

2012) ; Kachal sky v. Cacace, 817 F. Supp. 2d 235, 258 ( S. D. N. Y. 2011) ;

Moore v. Madi gan, 842 F. Supp. 2d 1092, 1101- 06 ( C. D. I l l . 2012) .

A Di st r i ct Cour t i n t he Di st r i ct of New J er sey uphel d a

car r yi ng l aw si mi l ar t o Hawai i s i n Pi szczat oski , 840 F. Supp. 2d

813. The Di st r i ct Cour t i n Pi szczat oski hel d t hat t he car r yi ng l aw

di d not bur den pr ot ect ed conduct because t he Second Amendment di d

not pr ovi de an absol ut e r i ght t o car r y a gun f or sel f - def ense

out si de t he home. 840 F. Supp. 2d at 821- 831; see al so Moor e, 842

F. Supp. 2d at 1101- 06 ( f ocusi ng on l anguage i n t he Supr eme Cour t s

opi ni ons i n Hel l er and McDonal d l i mi t i ng t he scope of t he Second

Amendment ) .

A Di st r i ct Cour t i n t he Sout her n Di st r i ct of New Yor k uphel d

a car r yi ng l aw mor e r est r i ct i ve t han Hawai i s i n Kachal sky v.

Cacace, 817 F. Supp. 2d 235, 258 ( S. D. N. Y. 2011) . The NewYor k l aw

r equi r ed a per mi t t o carr y a conceal ed gun at home or i n publ i c. To

r ecei ve a per mi t , an appl i cant had to show a speci al need f or

sel f - pr ot ecti on di st i ngui shabl e f r omt hat of t he general communi t y

or of per sons engaged i n t he same pr of essi on. I d. at 23940

( i nt er nal ci t at i ons omi t t ed) . The Di st r i ct Cour t hel d t hat t he

car r yi ng l aw di d not i nf r i nge upon a const i t ut i onal r i ght because

( 1) t he st at ut e di d not oper at e as a compl et e ban on car r yi ng



26/40

26

conceal ed f i r ear ms and ( 2) t he Second Amendment does not prot ect

t he r i ght t o car r y a weapon conceal ed or openl y out si de the home.

I d. at 263- 65.

Hawai i Feder al Di st r i ct Cour t deci si ons have hel d t hat

Hawai i s car r yi ng l aws do not i nf r i nge upon pr ot ect ed r i ght s. I n

Young I I , t he Hawai i Di st r i ct Cour t hel d t hat Hawai i s f i r ear m

l i censi ng scheme i n HRS 134- 9 di d not i mpl i cat e act i vi t y

pr ot ect ed by t he Second Amendment because Hel l er di d not est abl i sh

possessi on of an unconceal ed f i r ear m i n publ i c as a f undament al

r i ght . No. 08- 00540, 2009 WL 1955749, at *8- 9; see al so Baker v.

Keal oha, Ci v. No. No. 11- 00528 ACK- KSC, Or der Gr ant i ng Def endant s

St at e of Hawai i and Governor Abercr ombi e s Mot i on f or J udgment on

t he Pl eadi ngs, Gr ant i ng i n Par t and Denyi ng i n Par t Def endant s Ci t y

and Count y of Honol ul u, Honol ul u Pol i ce Depar t ment and Loui s

Keal oha s Mot i on t o Di smi ss, and Denyi ng Pl ai nt i f f s Mot i on f or

Pr el i mi nar y I nj unct i on ( Doc. 51) ( Hawai i s Fi r ear mCar r yi ng Laws do

not i mpl i cate pr otect ed Second Amendment act i vi t y) .

Pl ai nt i f f al l eges that Def endant s vi ol at ed hi s ci vi l r i ght s by

denyi ng hi s appl i cat i ons, dat ed August 29, 2011 and Sept ember 16,

2011, f or a l i cense to carr y a conceal ed and unconceal ed f i r earm.

He al l eges t hat Hawai i s Fi r ear m Carr yi ng Laws are

unconst i t ut i onal .

HRS 134- 9 empowers a count y pol i ce chi ef t o gr ant a permi t

t o car r y a conceal ed pi st ol or r evol ver and ammuni t i on i n an

except i onal case, when an appl i cant shows r eason t o f ear i nj ur y to



27/40

27

t he appl i cant s per son or pr oper t y. Haw. Rev. St at . 134- 9( a) .

The chi ef of pol i ce may grant a l i cense t o car r y an unconceal ed

f i r earm [ w] her e t he ur gency or t he need has been suf f i ci ent l y

i ndi cat ed. I d.

The Pl aces t o Keep St at ut es r equi r e t hat f i r earms be conf i ned

t o t he possessor s pl ace of busi ness, r esi dence or soj our n but

al l ow l awf ul t r anspor t bet ween t hose pl aces and repai r shops,

t ar get r anges, l i censed deal er shi ps, f i r ear ms shows, f i r ear ms

t r ai ni ng, and pol i ce st at i ons. Haw. Rev. St at . 134- 23, 134- 24,

134- 25, and 134- 27. Sect i on 134- 26 pr ohi bi t s carr yi ng or possessi ng

a l oaded f i r ear m on a publ i c hi ghway. Peopl e wi t h a l i cense t o

car r y, pur suant t o Sect i on 134- 9, ar e exempt f r om t he pr ovi si ons.

Hawai i s Fi r ear m Car r yi ng Laws do not vi ol at e Pl ai nt i f f ' s

Second Amendment r i ght s. The Car r yi ng Laws do not r est r i ct t he core

prot ect i on af f orded by t he Second Amendment . See Kachal sky, 817

F. Supp. 2d at 264. They onl y appl y to carr yi ng a weapon i n publ i c.

They do not operat e as a ban on al l f i r earms. The chal l enged

l i censi ng scheme i n HRS 134- 9 onl y appl i es t o pi st ol s and

r evol ver s. See St ate v. Modi ca, 567 P. 2d 420 (Haw. 1977) .

Unl i ke t he l aw hel d unconst i t ut i onal i n McDonal d, 130 S. Ct .

3020, whi ch operat ed as a compl ete ban, or Ezel l , 651 F. 3d 684,

whi ch bur dened gun owner shi p f or sel f - def ense i n t he home, Hawai i s

Fi r ear m Car r yi ng Laws al l ow f i rearms t o be car r i ed i n publ i c

bet ween speci f i ed l ocat i ons or wi t h a showi ng of speci al need.

Pl ai nt i f f does not al l ege a const i t ut i onal vi ol at i on because t he



28/40

28

r i ght t o bear arms does not i ncl ude t he r i ght t o carr y any weapon

what soever i n any manner what soever and f or what ever pur pose.

Hel l er , 554 U. S. at 626. HRS Chapt er 134' s l i mi t at i ons on car r yi ng

weapons i n publ i c does not i mpl i cat e act i vi t y pr ot ect ed by t he

Second Amendment .

b. Hawai i s Car r yi ng Rest r i ct i ons PassConst i t ut i onal Scrut i ny

I n t he wake of Hel l er and McDonal d, f eder al appel l at e cour t s

have advi sed l ower cour t s t o awai t di r ect i on f r omt he Supr eme Cour t

r egar di ng t he Second Amendment s scope out si de t he home

envi r onment . See e. g. Masci andaro, 638 F. 3d at 475. Even i f t he

Second Amendment ext ended a r i ght t o car r y handguns outsi de t he

home, i t woul d st i l l be per mi ssi bl e t o r egul at e t he conduct , so

l ong as i t di d not unconst i t ut i onal l y bur den i t .

The Ni nt h Ci r cui t Cour t of Appeal s has not i ssued a bi ndi ng

deci si on as t o t he appr opr i at e l evel of scr ut i ny. Many cour t s have

appl i ed i nt er medi at e scrut i ny t o l aws bur deni ng pr ot ect ed conduct

t hat f al l s out si de the cor e Second Amendment r i ght of a l aw- abi di ng

ci t i zen to possess weapons f or sel f def ense i n the home. See

Masci andaro, 538 F. 3d at 470- 71; Pi szczat oski , 840 F. Supp. 2d at 834

( i mpor t i ng t he i nt er medi at e scr ut i ny st andar d used i n Fi r st

Amendment speech cases) .

Feder al di st r i ct cour t s i n t he Ni nt h Ci r cui t have appl i ed t he

i nt ermedi at e scr ut i ny st andard f or t he Second Amendment cont ext

cr af t ed by t he Thi r d Ci r cui t Cour t of Appeal s. See Per ut a v. Cnt y.

of San Di ego, 758 F. Supp. 2d 1106, 1117 ( S. D. Cal . 2010) . Under t he



29/40

29

st andar d set f or t h by t he Thi r d Ci r cui t Cour t of Appeal s,

i nt er medi at e scr ut i ny requi r es t hat t he gover nment al i nt er est be

si gni f i cant , subst ant i al , or i mpor t ant . Mar zzar el l a, 614 F. 3d at

98. The chal l enged r egul at i on must r easonabl y f i t t he asser t ed

obj ect i ve. I d.

Hawai i s l i censi ng scheme i n HRS 134- 9 r equi r es t hat a

pl ai nt i f f pr ovi de a suf f i ci ent showi ng of ur gency or need or f ear

of i nj ur y to r ecei ve a l i cense to car r y a conceal ed or unconceal ed

pi st ol or r evol ver i n publ i c. Haw. Rev. St at . 134- 9. The ot her

Fi r ear m Car r yi ng l aws, HRS 134- 23 t hr ough 134- 27, l i mi t t he

si t uat i ons i n whi ch a per son may carr y a weapon i n publ i c wi t hout

a l i cense. I n enact i ng and enf or ci ng t he Fi r ear mCar r yi ng Laws, t he

gover nment pr ot ect s an i mpor t ant and subst ant i al i nt er est i n

saf eguar di ng t he publ i c f r omt he i nher ent danger s of f i r ear ms. See

Masci andar o, 638 F. 3d at 473 ( subst ant i al i nt er est i n r egul at i ng

l oaded f i r ear ms) ( ci t i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Sal er no, 481 U. S. 739,

745 ( 1987) ) ; Kachal sky, 817 F. Supp. 2d at 270 ( subst ant i al i nt er est

i n r egul at ed conceal ed and open car r y) . The pol i cy behi nd t he

st at ut or y l i mi t at i ons r easonabl y r el at es t o t he gover nment s

i nt er est by enabl i ng of f i ci al s t o ef f ecti vel y di f f er ent i at e bet ween

i ndi vi dual s who need t o car r y a gun f or sel f - def ense and t hose who

do not . See Per ut a, 758 F. Supp. 2d at 1117. The Fi r earm Car r yi ng

Laws do not oper at e as an out r i ght ban on f i r ear ms. Addi t i onal l y,

HRS 134- 9 r egul at es onl y pi st ol s and r evol ver s.



30/40

30

Ot her f eder al di st r i ct cour t s have hel d t hat compar abl e

l i censi ng schemes survi ve i nt er medi at e scr ut i ny, i n t he event t hat

t he Second Amendment r i ght t o car r y a weapon f or sel f - def ense

ext ends out si de t he home. See Kachal sky, 817 F. Supp. 2d at 27071

( uphol di ng l i censi ng l aw r equi r i ng a showi ng of art i cul abl e need

f or sel f - def ense t o openl y car r y and compl et el y pr ohi bi t i ng

conceal ed car r y) ; Per ut a, 758 F. Supp. 2d at 1110, 1117 (uphol di ng

conceal ed car r y l i censi ng scheme requi r i ng a showi ng of good cause

based on per sonal ci r cumst ances and not gener al i zed f ear f or one' s

saf et y) ; Pi szczat oski , 840 F. Supp. 2d at 836- 37 ( uphol di ng

l i censi ng scheme f or open and conceal ed carr y) .

Hawai i s Fi r ear m Car r yi ng Laws do not unconst i t ut i onal l y

bur den r i ght s prot ect ed by the Second Amendment .

c. Pl ai nt i f f s Faci al Chal l enge Fai l s

The pr i or r est r ai nt doct r i ne al l ows a pl ai nt i f f t o r ai se a

f aci al chal l enge t o a l i cenci ng st at ut e t hat al l egedl y vest s

unbr i dl ed di scr et i on i n a gover nment of f i ci al over whet her t o

per mi t or deny expr essi ve act i vi t y. Ci t y of Lakewood v. Pl ai n

Deal er Publ g Co. , 486 U. S. 750, 755- 56 ( 1988) ; Wor l d Wi de Rush,

LLC v. Ci t y of Los Angel es, 606 F. 3d 676, 687 ( 9t h Ci r . 2010) .

The pr i or r est r ai nt doct r i ne i s appl i cabl e onl y i n t he Fi r st

Amendment cont ext . I t s r at i onal e i s r oot ed i n pr event i ng r i sks

speci f i c t o t he Fi r st Amendment : sel f - censor shi p and t he di f f i cul t y

of det ect i ng, r evi ewi ng, or cor r ect i ng cont ent - based censor shi p on

an as- appl i ed chal l enge. These r at i onal es do not appl y i n t he



31/40

31

Second Amendment cont ext . See e. g. Hi ght ower v. Ci t y of Bost on, 693

F. 3d 61, 80 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) ( The pr i or r est r ai nt doct r i ne i s not a

l abel t hat may be at t ached t o al l ow any f aci al chal l enge, what ever

t he const i t ut i onal gr ound. ) ; Pi sczct oski , 840 F. Supp. 2d at 831- 32;

Kachal sky, 817 F. Supp. 2d at 267 n. 32 (al t hough some Second

Amendment cases bor r ow an anal yt i cal f r amewor k f r om t he Fi r st

Amendment , t hey do not appl y subst ant i ve Fi r st Amendment r ul es) .

Pl ai nt i f f s at t empt t o i mpor t t he pr i or r est r ai nt doctr i ne f r omt he

Fi r st Amendment of t he Uni t ed St at es Const i t ut i on t o Hawai i s

Car r yi ng Law f ai l s. ( Compl ai nt at pgs. 17- 20. )

Pl ai nt i f f s cl ai ms al l egi ng a vi ol at i on of t he Second

Amendment t o t he Uni t ed St at es Const i t ut i on, i n Count Thr ee, f ai l

t o st at e a cause of act i on. The Second Amendment cause of act i on i s

DI SMI SSED WI TH PREJ UDI CE.

3. Pl ai nt i f f Lacks St andi ng To Chal l enge HRS Chapt er134 On The Basi s Of An Al l eged Depr i vat i on Of Ni nt h

Amendment Ri ght s

The Ni nt h Amendment t o t he Uni t ed St at es Const i t ut i on pr ovi des

that:

The enumer at i on i n t he Const i t ut i on of cer t ai n r i ght sshal l not be const r ued t o deny or di spar age ot her sr et ai ned by the peopl e.

U. S. Const . amend. I X.

The Ni nth Amendment does not i ndependent l y secur [ e] any

const i t ut i onal r i ght s f or pur poses of maki ng out a const i t ut i onal

vi ol at i on. San Di ego Cnt y. Gun Ri ghts Comm. v. Reno, 98 F. 3d 1121,

1125 ( 9t h Ci r . 1996) ( i nt er nal ci t at i ons omi t t ed) . The Ni nt h



32/40

32

Amendment does not guarant ee an i ndi vi dual r i ght t o bear arms. See

i d. ; Young I , 548 F. Supp. 2d at 1168; Ross v. Fed. Bureau of

Al cohol , Tobacco, & Fi r ear ms, 807 F. Supp. 2d 362, 372 ( D. Md. 2011) .

Pl ai nt i f f does not have st andi ng t o chal l enge HRS Chapt er 134

on t he basi s of an al l eged depr i vat i on of Ni nt h Amendment r i ght s.

Pl ai nt i f f s cl ai ms al l egi ng a vi ol at i on of hi s Ni nt h Amendment

r i ght s, Count Four , ar e DI SMI SSED WI TH PREJ UDI CE.

4. HRS Chapt er 134 Does Not Vi ol at e t he Pr i vi l eges orI mmuni t i es Cl ause of t he Fourt eent h Amendment

I n Count Fi ve of t he Compl ai nt Pl ai nt i f f asser t s t he cl ai m

t hat t he enf orcement of HRS Chapt er 134 vi ol ates t he Pr i vi l eges and

I mmuni t i es cl ause of t he Four t eent h Amendment t o t he Uni t ed St at es

Const i t ut i on.

The Pr i vi l eges and I mmuni t i es Cl ause of t he Four t eent h

Amendment provi des t hat No St at e shal l make or enf orce any l aw

whi ch shal l abr i dge t he pr i vi l eges or i mmuni t i es of ci t i zens of t he

Uni t ed St at es. The Pr i vi l eges and I mmuni t i es Cl ause pr ot ect s

f undament al r i ght s, but even t hat pr ot ect i on i s ext r emel y l i mi t ed,

ext endi ng onl y t o t he r i ght t o t r avel or r i ght t o pr i vacy. See

Saenz v. Roe, 526 U. S. 489 ( 1999) . I n McDonal d v. Ci t y of Chi cago,

t he pl ur al i t y of J ust i ces of t he Supr eme Cour t r ej ect ed usi ng t he

Pr i vi l eges and I mmuni t i es Cl ause t o appl y the Second Amendment t o

t he St at es. 130 S. Ct . at 3031.

There i s no basi s f or Pl ai nt i f f s asser t i on t hat t he l i censi ng

scheme i n HRS Chapt er 134 i nt er f er es wi t h hi s f undament al r i ght t o

bear ar ms. The cause of act i on f or a vi ol at i on of t he Pr i vi l eges



33/40

1 Pl ai nt i f f al so ci t es t he Due Pr ocess Cl ause of t heFi f t h Amendment on one page of t he Compl ai nt . ( Compl ai nt at pg.24) . Pl ai nt i f f s due pr ocess chal l enge t o a st at e l aw i s pr oper l ybrought pur suant t o the Fourt eent h Amendment Due Pr ocess Cl ause.See Cast i l l o v. McFadden, 399 F. 3d 933, 1002 n. 5 ( 9t h Ci r . 2005) .

33

and I mmuni t i es Cl ause of t he Four t eenth Amendment t o Uni t ed Stat es

Const i t ut i on i n Count V i s DI SMI SSED WI TH PREJ UDI CE.

5. The Compl ai nt Fai l s To St at e A Cl ai m For Vi ol at i onof t he Four t eent h Amendment Due Pr ocess Cl ause

Pl ai nt i f f cont ends t hat t he enf or cement of Hawai i s l i censi ng

scheme i n HRS Chapt er 134 vi ol at es t he Due Pr ocess Cl ause of t he

Four t eent h Amendment of t he Uni t ed St at es Const i t ut i on. 1

The Four t eent h Amendment prot ect s agai nst t he depr i vat i on of

pr oper t y or l i ber t y wi t hout due pr ocess. See Car ey v. Pi phus, 435

U. S. 247, 259 ( 1978) ; Br ady v. Gebbi e, 859 F. 2d 1543, 1547 ( 9t h

Ci r . 1988) . Cour t s empl oy a t wo- st ep t est t o det er mi ne whet her

due pr ocess r i ght s have been vi ol at ed by t he act i ons of a

gover nment of f i ci al . Fi r st , a cour t must det er mi ne whet her a

l i ber t y or pr oper t y i nt er est exi sts ent i t l i ng a pl ai nt i f f t o due

pr ocess pr ot ecti ons. I f a const i t ut i onal l y pr ot ected i nt er est i s

est abl i shed, cour t s empl oy a t hr ee- par t bal anci ng t est t o det er mi ne

what pr ocess i s due. Hewi t t v. Gr abi cki , 794 F. 2d 1373, 1380 ( 9t h

Ci r . 1986) . The t hr ee- par t bal anci ng t est set f or t h i n Mat hews v.

El dr i dge exami nes ( 1) t he pr i vat e i nt er est t hat wi l l be af f ect ed by

t he of f i ci al act i on; ( 2) t he r i sk of an er r oneous depr i vat i on of

such i nt er est t hr ough t he pr ocedur es used, and t he pr obabl e val ue,

i f any, of addi t i onal or subst i t ut e pr ocedur al saf eguar ds; and



34/40

34

( 3) t he Gover nment ' s i nt er est , i ncl udi ng t he f unct i on i nvol ved and

t he f i scal and admi ni st r at i ve bur dens t hat t he addi t i onal or

subst i t ut e pr ocedur al r equi r ement woul d ent ai l . Mathews v.

El dr i dge, 424 U. S. 319, 335 ( 1976) .

I f a l i ber t y or pr oper t y i nt er est does not exi st , no pr ocess

i s due. Pl ai nt i f f must pr ove t hat Hawai i s Fi r ear m Car r yi ng Laws

adver sel y af f ect a pr ot ect ed i nt er est t o car r y a weapon i n publ i c

under t he f act s of t he case. I n Er del yi v. O Br i en, 680 F. 2d 61, 63

( 9t h Ci r . 1982) , t he Ni nt h Ci r cui t Cour t of Appeal s hel d t hat

Cal i f or ni a s compar abl e l i censi ng scheme di d not cr eat e a pr oper t y

i nt er est or l i ber t y i nt er est i n obt ai ni ng a conceal ed weapon. Post -

Hel l er f eder al di str i ct cour t deci si ons conf i r m t he hol di ng t hat

t her e i s no unl i mi t ed r i ght t o car r y a gun i n publ i c. See Per ut a,

758 F. Supp. 2d 1106, 1121 ( S. D. Cal . 2010) ( conceal ed car r y) ; cf .

Fi sher v. Keal oha, No. 11- 00589, 2012 WL 2526923, at *11 ( D. Haw.

J une 29, 2012) ( due process r i ght s at t ach t o r equi r i ng a l i cense f or

car r yi ng a f i r ear m at home, as opposed t o car r yi ng a weapon i n

publ i c) .

The Compl ai nt al l eges Pl ai nt i f f was t wi ce deni ed a l i cense t o

car r y a pi st ol or r evol ver . HRS Chapt er 134 does not i mpl i cat e

Pl ai nt i f f s l i ber t y or pr oper t y i nt er est s because t her e i s no r i ght

t o car r y weapons i n publ i c. Havi ng no f undament al i nt er est i n

car r yi ng a weapon, Pl ai nt i f f i s not ent i t l ed t o due pr ocess.

The Compl ai nt f ai l s t o st at e a cl ai m on whi ch r el i ef may be

gr ant ed f or vi ol at i on of Pl ai nt i f f s due pr ocess r i ght s guar ant eed



35/40

35

by the Four t eent h Amendment t o t he Uni t ed St at es Const i t ut i on. The

cause of act i on f or vi ol at i on of t he Pr ocedur al Due Pr ocess Cl ause

of t he Four t eent h Amendment i s DI SMI SSED WI TH PREJ UDI CE.

6. HRS Chapt er 134 Does Not Const i t ut e a Bi l l of

At t ai nder i n Vi ol at i on of Ar t i cl e I , Secti on 10 Oft he Uni t ed St at es Const i t ut i on

Pl ai nt i f f asser t s t hat HRS Chapt er 134 const i t ut es an

unconst i t ut i onal bi l l of at t ai nder under Ar t i cl e I , secti on 10,

cl ause 1 of t he Uni t ed St at es Const i t ut i on: No St at e shal l . . .

pass any Bi l l of At t ai nder . . . .

A st at ut e i s an unconst i t ut i onal bi l l of at t ai nder when i t

l egi sl at i vel y det er mi nes gui l t and i nf l i ct s puni shment upon an

i dent i f i abl e i ndi vi dual wi t hout pr ovi si on of t he pr ot ecti ons of a

j udi ci al t r i al . Ni xon v. Admi ni st r at or of Gen. Servs. , 433 U. S.

425, 468 ( 1977) . Bur densome consequences t o l egi sl at i on do not

creat e a bi l l of at t ai nder , so l ong as t hey do not r i se t o t he

l evel of i nf l i ct i ng puni shment . See i d. at 472 ( quot i ng Uni t ed

St at es v. Lovet t , 328 U. S. 303, 315 ( 1946) ) .

A l egi sl at i ve act i s not a bi l l of at t ai nder mer el y because i t

bur dens some per sons or gr oups, but not ot her s. I d. at 471. I f a

st at ut e set s f or t h a r ul e t hat i s gener al l y appl i cabl e t o al l

per sons wi t h a cer t ai n char act er i st i c and i s r easonabl y cal cul at ed

t o achi eve a non- puni t i ve pur pose, t he l aw i s not an

unconst i t ut i onal bi l l of at t ai nder . See Uni t ed St at es v.

Munst erman, 177 F. 3d 1139, 1142 ( 9t h Ci r . 1999) .

HRS Chapt er 134 appl i es t o al l appl i cant s f or a per mi t t o



36/40

36

car r y a r evol ver or f i r ear m. I t f ur t her s t he non- puni t i ve

l egi sl at i ve pur pose of cont r ol l i ng when and wher e cer t ai n t ypes of

weapons ar e car r i ed i n the communi t y t o ensure publ i c saf et y.

HRS Chapt er 134 i s not an i mper mi ssi bl e bi l l of at t ai nder .

Young I , 548 F. Supp. 2d at 1172- 73.

The cl ai mt hat HRS Chapt er 134 const i t ut es an unconst i t ut i onal

bi l l of at t ai nder i s DI SMI SSED WI TH PREJ UDI CE.

7. The Compl ai nt Fai l s To St at e a Cl ai m of I mpai r mentof t he Obl i gat i on Of Cont r act s

Count Two of t he Compl ai nt asser t s t hat HRS Chapt er 134

vi ol at es t he Cont r act Cl ause of t he Uni t ed St at es Const i t ut i on

The Cont r act Cl ause of t he Uni t ed St at es Const i t ut i on

pr ohi bi t s any st at e f r ompassi ng a l aw i mpai r i ng t he Obl i gat i on of

Cont r acts. U. S. Const . Ar t . I , 10. To br i ng a cl ai m for a

vi ol at i on of t he Cont r act Cl ause, a pl ai nt i f f must al l ege f act s

demonst r at i ng t hat he possesses cont r act ual r i ght s t hat have been

subst ant i al l y i mpai r ed by t he chal l enged l aw. Nat l R. R. Passenger

Cor p. v. At chi son, Topeka & Sant a Fe Ry. Co. , 470 U. S. 451 ( 1985) .

I f t he t hr eshol d i nqui r y i s met , t he cour t must det er mi ne i f t he

st at e has a si gni f i cant or l egi t i mat e pur pose behi nd t he

r egul at i on. RUI One Cor p. v. Ci t y of Ber kel ey, 371 F. 3d 1137, 1147

( 9t h Ci r . 2004) .

I t i s not possi bl e t o det er mi ne what cont r act Pl ai nt i f f i s

r ef er r i ng t o i n hi s chal l enge t o HRS Chapt er 134. A stat ut e i t sel f

may be t r eat ed as a cont r act when i t s l anguage and ci r cumst ances

evi nce a l egi sl at i ve i nt ent t o creat e pr i vat e r i ght s of a



37/40

37

cont r act ual nat ur e enf or ceabl e agai nst t he St at e. U. S. Tr ust Co.

of NewYor k v. NewJ er sey, 431 U. S. 1, 17 n. 14 ( 1977) . HRS Chapt er

134 does not evi nce such an i nt ent . I t does not best ow any

cont r act ual r i ght s upon Pl ai nt i f f . See Young I , 548 F. Supp. 2d at

1174; see al so Mar t i nkovi ch v. Or . Legi s. Body, CI V. 11- 3065- CL,

2011 WL 7693036, at *5 ( D. Or . Aug. 24, 2011) r epor t and

r ecommendat i on adopt ed, 2012 WL 1245663 ( D. Or . Apr . 12,

2012) ( r ej ect i ng a Cont r act Cl ause chal l enge t o Or egon s conceal ed

gun l i censi ng l aw) .

Pl ai nt i f f s cl ai mf or t he vi ol at i on of t he Ar t i cl e I , Sect i on

10 pr ohi bi t i on of t he i mpai r ment of t he obl i gat i on of cont r act s, i n

Count Two of t he Compl ai nt , i s DI SMI SSED WI TH PREJ UDI CE.

D. Pl ai nt i f f s 1985 and 1986 Cl ai ms Ar e Pr ecl uded ByPl ai nt i f f s Fai l ur e To Al l ege a 1983 Vi ol at i on

Pl ai nt i f f sues pur suant t o 42 U. S. C. 1985 and 1986, as wel l

as 1983.

Under 1985, cl ai ms may be br ought f or conspi r acy t o vi ol ate

a ci t i zen s 1983 ci vi l r i ght s. Sect i on 1986 al l ows cl ai ms f or

negl ect i ng t o pr event conspi r at or i al act s set f or t h i n 1985.

I f a pl ai nt i f f f ai l s to establ i sh a const i t ut i onal depr i vat i on

t o suppor t a 1983 cl ai m, t he same al l egat i ons necessar i l y cannot

est abl i sh cl ai ms br ought pur suant t o 1985 and 1986. Cassettari

v. Nevada Cnt y. , Cal . , 824 F. 2d 735, 739 ( 9t h Ci r . 1987) ; Whi t e v.

Pac. Medi a Gr p. , I nc. , 322 F. Supp. 2d 1101, 1112 ( D. Haw.

2004) ( i nsuf f i ci ency of a 1985 cause of act i on pr ecl udes an

act i onabl e 1986 cl ai m) .



38/40

38

Pl ai nt i f f s 1985 conspi r acy cl ai m i s based sol el y upon

al l egat i ons whi ch f ai l t o st at e a cl ai m f or depr i vat i on of a

f eder al r i ght under 1983.

Pl ai nt i f f s 1985 and 1986 causes of act i on ar e DI SMI SSED

WI TH PREJ UDI CE.

E. Pl ai nt i f f s Cl ai ms Agai nst Def endant s Count y of Hawai iand Hi l o County Pol i ce Depar t ment

Pl ai nt i f f st i l l has not ser ved Def endant s Count y of Hawai i and

Hi l o Count y Pol i ce Depar t ment . Pur suant t o Feder al Rul e of Ci vi l

Pr ocedur e 4( m) , t he 120- day t i me l i mi t f or ser vi ce of t he

Compl ai nt , whi ch was f i l ed on J une 20, 2012, expi r ed over one mont h

ago.

Pur suant t o Feder al Rul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 12( b) ( 6) , a cour t

may pr oper l y di smi ss an act i on sua spont e, wi t hout gi vi ng a

pl ai nt i f f not i ce of i t s i nt ent i on t o di smi ss and an oppor t uni t y t o

r espond i f a pl ai nt i f f cannot possi bl y wi n r el i ef . See Spar l i ng

v. Hof f man Const r uct i on Co. , 8654 F. 2d 635, 638 ( 9t h Ci r . 1981) ;

Omar v. Sea- Land Ser v. , I nc. , 813 F. 2d 986, 991 ( 9t h Ci r . 1987) . I f

a pl ai nt i f f cannot possi bl y wi n r el i ef , t he cour t may di smi ss an

act i on sua spont e wi t hout not i ce i n f avor of a par t y t hat has not

been served, answered, or appear ed. Col umbi a St eel Fabr i cat or s,

I nc. V. Ahi str om Recover y, 44 F. 3d 800, 802 ( 9t h Ci r . 1995) ;

Ar r eol a v. Wel l s Fargo Home Mor t g. , No. 10- 3272, 2011 WL 1205249

( E. D. Cal . Mar . 29, 2011) . I t i s appr opr i at e t o do so when t he

par t y t hat has not appear ed i s i n a posi t i on si mi l ar t o the movi ng



39/40

39

def endant s. Abagni n v. AMVAC Chemi cal Cor p. , 545 F. 3d 733, 742- 43

( 9t h Ci r . 2008) .

The Hi l o Count y Pol i ce Depart ment and Count y of Hawai i , whi ch

have not been served or appeared, ar e i n posi t i ons si mi l ar t o t he

Count y Of f i ci al s who moved t o di smi ss. Hi l o Count y Pol i ce

Depart ment i s consi der ed the same l egal ent i t y as t he Count y of

Hawai i . See Pour ny v. Maui Pol i ce Depar t ment , 127 F. Supp. 2d 1129,

1143 ( D. Haw. 2000) ( t r eat i ng t he Maui Pol i ce Depar t ment and t he

Count y of Maui as one par t y) ; see al so Headwat ers For est Def ense v.

Count y of Humbol dt , 276 F. 3d 1125, 1127 ( 9t h Ci r . 2002) ( t r eat i ng

pol i ce depar t ment s as par t of t hei r r espect i ve count y or ci t y) .

Pl ai nt i f f s cl ai ms agai nst t he Count y of Hawai i and t he Hi l o Count y

Pol i ce Depar t ment are anal yzed under t he same st andard used f or t he

cl ai ms agai nst t he Count y Of f i ci al s sued i n t hei r of f i ci al

capaci t i es. See Wong v. Ci t y & Count y of Honol ul u, 333 F. Supp. 2d

942, 947 ( D. Haw. 2004) ( ci t i ng Kent ucky v. Gr aham, 473 U. S. 159,

166- 67 n. 14 ( 1985) ) .

For t he r easons set f or t h f or di smi ssal of t he cl ai ms agai nst

t he Count y Of f i ci al s, Pl ai nt i f f cannot possi bl y wi n r el i ef

agai nst t he Count y of Hawai i or t he Hi l o Count y Pol i ce Depar t ment .

The causes of act i on agai nst Def endant s Count y of Hawai i and

Hi l o Count y Pol i ce Depart ment are DI SMI SSED WI TH PREJ UDI CE.

CONCLUSI ON

The Compl ai nt f ai l s t o st at e a cl ai m f or depr i vat i on of a

f eder al r i ght , whi ch i s a necessar y pr er equi si t e f or act i ons



40/40

br ought pur suant t o 42 U. S. C. 1983, 1985, and 1986.

Addi t i onal l y, t he St at e Def endant s are pr ot ect ed by sover ei gn

i mmuni t y.

St ate Def endant s Mot i on t o Di smi ss ( Doc. 25) i s GRANTED. Al l

causes of act i on agai nst St at e Def endant s are DI SMI SSED WI TH

PREJ UDI CE.

Count y Of f i ci al s Def endant s Mot i on t o Di smi ss ( Doc. 23) i s

GRANTED. The Cour t di smi sses t he causes of act i on agai nst t he

Count y and t he Count y Pol i ce Depar t ment . Al l causes of act i on

agai nst t he Count y Of f i ci al s, t he Count y, and t he Count y Pol i ce

Depar t ment ar e DI SMI SSED WI TH PREJ UDI CE.

The Cl er k of Cour t i s di r ect ed t o cl ose t he case.

I T I S SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 28, 2012, Honol ul u, Hawai i .

GEORGE K. YOUNG, J R. vs. STATE OF HAWAI I and NEI L ABERCROMBI E i nhi s capaci t y as Gover nor of t he St at e of Hawai i ; DAVI D M. LOUI E i nhi s capaci t y as St ate At t orney Gener al ; COUNTY OF HAWAI I , as a sub-agency of t he St at e of Hawai i and WI LLI AM P. KENOI i n hi s capaci t yas Mayor of t he Count y of Hawai i ; and t he HI LO COUNTY POLI CE

DEPARTMENT, as a sub- agency of t he Count y of Hawai i and HARRY S.KUBOJ I RI i n hi s capaci t y as Chi ef of Pol i ce; J OHN DOES 1- 25; J ANEDOES 1- 25; CORPORATI ONS 1- 5, and DOE ENTI TI ES 1- 5, Ci v. No. 12-00336 HG BMK; ORDER GRANTI NG COUNTY OF HAWAI I OFFI CI AL DEFENDANTSMOTI ON TO DI SMI SS PLAI NTI FF S COMPLAI NT ( DOC. 23) AND STATE OFHAWAI I DEFENDANTS MOTI ON TO DI SMI SS PLAI NTI FF S COMPLAI NT ( Doc.25) .

/s/ Helen GillmorHelen GillmorSenior United States District Judge


Documents

Young District Court Decision