While browsing the internet for articles regarding concealed carry in Hawaii, I came across an interesting article on the Hawaii Reporter website written by George K. Young Jr. He had apparently filed a civil suit with the United States Federal District Court for the District of Hawaii for denying his Second Amendment rights. What is so interesting about this suit is that it was denied based on the fact that the Second Amendment was a collective right rather than an individual right.

Well, according to the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, the court found that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.

Does the D.C. v. Heller decision change the way that this lawsuit would turn out?

Do we need to wait for actual incorporation of the Second Amendment before challenging this decision?

http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?2327500b-7aa5-4453-95a8-0bf47fbcf8d5

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 Yorozuyo@aol.com

Do we need to wait for actual incorporation of the Second Amendment before challenging this decision?

I think so, because SCOTUS case 08-1521 McDonald v Chicago, which will probably be scheduled for oral arguments early in 2010, has the incorporation issue as the heart of the case, and it is extremely likely that the ruling will be in favor of incorporation.  Since the case is already in progress, the wait won't be very long anyway.

Mr. Young, as well intentioned and "correct" as he might have been, was a fool to bring this suit in the first place. First, let me say, just in case someone here doesn't already know my position on concealed carry: I am for it. I think we should have Vermont-style gun laws, and if not that, at the very least a "may-issue" law.

Why was Mr. Young a fool? Well, first, he filed the case "pro se," meaning he represented himself in the action. As has been said, anyone who represents himslf in court has a fool for a client. Granted Mr. Young said he couldn't find a lawyer to represent him, which is probably true, but that should have been a clue that there was a problem with the merits of the suit.

Second, many people advised Mr. Young to wait to file his suit. The Heller case was percolating in the background, and as many thought, a favorable ruling was likely, Mr. Young would be in a better position to argue the merits of his claims in light of this favorable ruling. He was advised that, based on prior rulings, both locally and up to the nineth (and other) circuits, he had virtually no chance of winning, and that it was also likely that when he lost, it would build further precedent for the "collective rights" theory. This had the potential to make subsequent legal challenges to various gun laws much more difficult if Heller was ruled on unfavorably.

So, now we need to wait for the McDonald case, which may not be as much as a slam dunk as many think, to be decided. Then, the Cowpalace diecision, which is "on hold" from an en banc review by the ninth circuit, can be upheld and then someone here in Hawaii can challenge the findings of the court in the Young decision.

Just my opinion.....