By Ken Kobayashi

A federal judge has rejected the latest challenge to Hawaii gun control laws by dismissing a lawsuit filed by a Hawaii island man who claimed the statutes violate his rights under the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment.

The ruling by Senior U.S. District Judge Helen Gillmor follows a line of Hawaii federal court decisions rejecting similar challenges to state gun laws.

Jonathan Lowy, Brady Center Legal Action Project director, hailed the ruling Friday and said the decision is also the latest nationwide upholding state restrictions on carrying guns in public.

George K. Young Jr., 62, a nonlawyer representing himself, filed his lawsuit in June claiming that state laws violate his constitutional right to bear arms under the Second Amendment.

He contended his rights were violated when Hawaii County police denied him a license to carry a concealed or unconcealed gun in public.

Young earlier filed two similar federal lawsuits that were thrown out by the federal court.

"Hawaii's firearm carrying laws do not violate the plaintiff's Second Amendment rights," Gillmor said in a 40-page decision filed Nov. 29.

"The carrying laws do not restrict the core protection afforded by the Second Amendment."

Lowy said they were pleased that Gillmor went out of her way to issue the "well-thought" ruling for a lawsuit filed by a nonlawyer.

Two decisions in 2008 and 2010 by the U.S. Supreme Court opened the way for a flood of challenges to state gun control laws across the country.

The rulings held the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm and that the amendment applies to states.

But Lowy said courts have been upholding "reasonable restrictions on carrying guns in public in New York, New Jersey, California and elsewhere."

He said Gillmor found that the "weight of legal authority" view of the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions establish "only a narrow individual right to keep an operable handgun at home for self-defense."

Young said Gillmor is "totally wrong" in ruling that state officials are immune from the lawsuit, but said he does not plan to appeal.

Young's suit asked for a permit to carry a concealed or unconcealed gun and at least $2 million in damages.

A similar challenge to the state gun control laws is now before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The case involves Christopher Baker, who sought a court order permitting him to carry a handgun in public.

Senior U.S. District Judge Alan Kay denied Baker's request earlier this year.

The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence is named after White House press secretary James Brady, who was shot in a 1981 assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan.

Make sure you guys don't get this confused with Chris Baker's case, which is still pending a decision.

I haven't payed attention to the George K. Young, Jr. case, but it didn't get much publicity and probably wasn't going to win representing himself.

Chris is waaaaay more organized than try and represent himself.
Nobody ever does win thenm that way, but they keep on trying,

I'm crossing fingers for Chris...

As Mr.Young's case what was his grounds on taking it up to court?




-- fixed end bracket on quote (it was missing)  - funtimes.

Interesting all these anti gun judges.

Did nobody else read that he was asking for a permit to carry and $2 million in damages?? How did he try and justify that!? Typical American greed. No wonder this case got thrown out. I shouldn't be ranting as I don't know the whole truth to this case but it just sounded stupid from what info I just read. I better hurry up and sue mcdonalds because I choked on my chicken nuggets due to the packaging not telling me to chew my food before swallowing.

Did nobody else read that he was asking for a permit to carry and $2 million in damages?? How did he try and justify that!? Typical American greed. No wonder this case got thrown out. I shouldn't be ranting as I don't know the whole truth to this case but it just sounded stupid from what info I just read. I better hurry up and sue mcdonalds because I choked on my chicken nuggets due to the packaging not telling me to chew my food before swallowing.

I'd have been happy to see him awarded massive punitive damages.  It might make his case less popular, but state and city governments who wipe their asses with the Constitution deserve to be punished.  Having your rights violated by the organs of state is significantly different than choking on a fast food chain's product. 

So, punish the government financially? And where do government dollars come from? With one million folks in Hawaii, thats two dollars each. Why should I pay Mr Young two dollars in restitution for a right I didnt deprive him of?

So, punish the government financially? And where do government dollars come from? With one million folks in Hawaii, thats two dollars each. Why should I pay Mr Young two dollars in restitution for a right I didnt deprive him of?

So, punish the government financially? And where do government dollars come from? With one million folks in Hawaii, thats two dollars each. Why should I pay Mr Young two dollars in restitution for a right I didnt deprive him of?

Well, when people start getting hit for money (agencies), the rest of the city is going to look at them to clean up their act.  If HPD starts costing people millions of dollars, then they would think twice about screwing things up.

Where it gets even better is when you start hitting people and voiding their qualified immunity.

  I see your point but not entirely true. LAPD gets sued all the time yet not much has changed in their doings. I might be mistaken but their budget still  a good sum of money on the side for lawsuits. I'm pretty sure HPD doesn't include that. One thing that changed with LAPD it's that there are no rodney king incidents anymore... Well not as much now. Lawsuits like Mr Youngs help pave the road to protecting or creating civil rights, like your miranda rights... not money.