2nd Amend not Individual Right


rabywk

New member
Link Removed
-------------------------------------------------------
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]
 

Last edited:

Wynder

New member
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.

The US v. Emerson decision in 2001 held that the Second Amendment guarantees individuals the right to bear arms. The court stated:

"We find that the history of the Second Amendment reinforces the plain meaning of its text, namely that it protects individual Americans in their right to keep and bear arms whether or not they are a member of a select militia or performing active military service or training."

"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."

I am not a lawyer, but this doesn't make sense. It's not a 'State Militia', it's a militia for the security of a free state. Thus, you can be a militia of one -- as it's been pointed out many times, at the time of the writing of the Bill of Rights 'Well-Regulated' meant well-trained, not fraught with regulations or maintained by a state or municipality.
 

tattedupboy

Thank God I'm alive!
Well folks, this is the PRHI, after all. Since the state passed its may issue law, only one permit has ever been granted. Furthermore, anyone going to or coming from the range carrying an unloaded and inaccessible gun in the trunk who decides to stop for a burger is in a heap of trouble for not being on the most direct route between the range and their homes. Is this the kind of gestapo state you want to be living in? I think that the state with the best combination of great weather and good gun laws is Arizona. In Arizona, there is 300+ days of sunshine per year, unlicensed open carry in or out of a vehicle by adults is legal, and Class III weapons and long guns can be carried openly or concealed with a permit. Even Vermont and Alaska, which don't require a permit for the concealed carry of handguns, aren't that liberal.
 

EdMaxx

New member
Though I live in Missouri, which is a shall-issue State, and I do have my CCW permit, I will be interested to hear the outcome of this. It makes me sick to hear all of the crap that the victim disarmament...err, I mean anti-gun...folks get away with. Perhaps we should give IL and WI (and maybe now HI) to Canada. :mad:
 

rabywk

New member
Though I live in Missouri, which is a shall-issue State, and I do have my CCW permit, I will be interested to hear the outcome of this. It makes me sick to hear all of the crap that the victim disarmament...err, I mean anti-gun...folks get away with. Perhaps we should give IL and WI (and maybe now HI) to Canada. :mad:

Starting about 25 miles South of Chicago, Illinois is Pro-gun. I don't have any problems with you giving away Chicago, but let us good-old boys stay here in Southern IL. :D
 

EdMaxx

New member
Starting about 25 miles South of Chicago, Illinois is Pro-gun. I don't have any problems with you giving away Chicago, but let us good-old boys stay here in Southern IL. :D
Yeah, I'm sure there are some pro-gunnners in Chicago and anti-gunnners South of Chicago as well. I was merely referring to the fact that IL and WI are not right-to-carry States. I'm sure there are plenty of anti-gun types in here Missouri as well, even though we are right-to-carry. Tell ya what, I'll change my statement and say that maybe we should give the State legislatures and Governors of IL and WI to Canada. :)
 

rabywk

New member
Yeah, I'm sure there are some pro-gunnners in Chicago and anti-gunnners South of Chicago as well. I was merely referring to the fact that IL and WI are not right-to-carry States. I'm sure there are plenty of anti-gun types in here Missouri as well, even though we are right-to-carry. Tell ya what, I'll change my statement and say that maybe we should give the State legislatures and Governors of IL and WI to Canada. :)

The housing market went to hell in a hand basket. After the market picks back up, my house will be up for sale and I will be moving across the river to MO. I have had it with this state and can't wait to get out.
 

doublenutz

New member
What about legal help from the NRA?

The US v. Emerson decision in 2001 held that the Second Amendment guarantees individuals the right to bear arms. The court stated:

"We find that the history of the Second Amendment reinforces the plain meaning of its text, namely that it protects individual Americans in their right to keep and bear arms whether or not they are a member of a select militia or performing active military service or training."



I am not a lawyer, but this doesn't make sense. It's not a 'State Militia', it's a militia for the security of a free state. Thus, you can be a militia of one -- as it's been pointed out many times, at the time of the writing of the Bill of Rights 'Well-Regulated' meant well-trained, not fraught with regulations or maintained by a state or municipality.

By the way, what Resources can you obtain from the NRA to argue this case? Have you sought any help from the NRA?
 

doublenutz

New member
The Second Amendment Foundation

Here is another source where you may obtain legal support
The Second Amendment Foundation
http://www.saf.org/

I think FAQ answers to questions 9 and 10 are what you are looking for.

Frequently Asked Questions

  • 1. What is the Second Amendment Foundation?

    The Second Amendment Foundation, founded in 1974 by Alan Gottlieb, is a tax-exempt Washington-state non-profit corporation organized under §501 (c) (3) of the IRS code. It has been a pioneer in innovative defense of the right to keep and bear arms, through its publications, public education programs and legal action. To fulfill its purpose, the Foundation maintains a headquarters office in Bellevue, WA, and a publishing office in Buffalo, NY.

    2. How is SAF organized?

    The Foundation is governed by a seven-member Board of Trustees which includes: Joseph P. Tartaro, president; Alan M. Gottlieb, founder and vice president; John M. Snyder, treasurer; Sam Slom, secretary; Massad Ayoob, Kirby Wilbur, and Robert M. Wiest. Gottlieb, Tartaro and Wiest form the current executive committee of the Board. A copy of the Foundation's audited annual financial statement is available on request.

    3. Does SAF sponsor any publications?

    The Foundation publishes The New Gun Week three times a month. In continuous publication since 1966, Gun Week is widely recognized as the source newspaper for the national firearms community and gun industry. The Foundation also published the world’s only women’s firearms magazine, the bi-monthly Women & Guns; as well as the quarterly magazine, Gun New Digest; the monthly newsletter, The Gottlieb-Tartaro Report, and the quarterly member/supporter newsletter SAF Reporter. In addition, The Foundation publishes the premier annual reference book of key gun-issue articles, the Journal of Firearms and Public Policy and reprints a number of monographs by leading Constitutional and firearms issue scholars.

    4. What websites is the Second Amendment Foundation affiliated with?

    The Foundation maintains an Internet website for firearms activists, attorneys, scholars and individuals with an interest in guns, gunowners and the right to keep and bear arms. The Foundation’s primary website—www.saf.org— contains timely news bulletins on important federal, state and local firearms legal issues, gun legislation and regulation, and informative articles on Second Amendment issues. Sample articles from SAF publications are also on the website, which has convenient links to other pro-gun Internet resources. In addition, two of the Foundation’s publications maintain separate websites: www.womenandguns.com and www.gunweek.com.

    5. Does SAF promote discourse at the university level?

    The Foundation takes pride in having stimulated many of the thoughtful firearms policy articles now seeing publication through its sponsorship of writers, scholars and attorneys conferences, which it started in 1976. The Foundation also sponsors or co-sponsors many legal conferences and debates at the law school and university level.

    6. What resources and training does SAF provide for grassroots activists?

    In addition to the scholars conferences, the Foundation hosts or co-sponsors with other groups a number of free grassroots seminars and meetings. These include the annual national pro-gun unity Gun Rights Policy Conferences (GRPC), starting in 1986, at which legislative and judicial actions of the previous year are reviewed and strategies discussed for the coming year by leaders of national, state and local pro-gun organizations. Each year, the Foundation also sponsors—in cooperation with the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and other organizations—state and regional Leadership Training Conferences (LTC) for grassroots activists. Over 30 such LTCs designed to help instruct grassroots activists in proven methods of organization, fund-raising, media relations and input to the political process have been held all across the nation.

    7. Does SAF provide a library of resources and information pertaining to gun rights?

    The Foundation disseminates information and reference packets to high school and college students preparing class papers on firearms-related questions and has a library resource program that places pro-gun reference books and monographs in public and school libraries. SAF further serves as a resource for authors of books, newspaper and magazine articles and television and radio programs dealing with various aspects of the right to keep and bear arms.

    8. What media presence does SAF have?

    The Foundation regularly distributes position papers, research reports and commentaries to the general media, and SAF staff participate annually in over 500 radio, television, newspaper and magazine appearances on behalf of the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms. Mr. Gottlieb alone appears on over 350 radio and television shows each year, including network programs, and his opinion articles have appeared frequently in USA Today and many other publications. The Foundation also makes investments in media properties as an extension of a resolution adopted at the 1989 Gun Rights Policy Conference.


    9. Does SAF involve itself in legal action?

    The Foundation has a noteworthy track record in supporting legal actions, or amicus briefs, in cases affecting the right to keep and bear arms. Successful court actions have been brought in many states—from overturning the San Francisco handgun ban to blocking a ban on the sale of handguns in New Haven, CT. The Foundation also has sponsored challenges to unfair concealed carry license practices in several states, including Ohio’s prohibition on concealed carry. One Foundation suit helped end 19 years of Los Angeles police denial of California CCWs, paving the way for issuance to average citizens. The Foundation has helped fund lawsuits against the 1994 federal gun ban, the California ban, and countersued cities that sued the gun industry.


    10. I need a referral to an attorney who can help me maintain my rights; can SAF help?

    Since it is impossible for any organization to fund every legal challenge it is asked to support, the Foundation maintains an attorney referral service with a network of attorneys who specialize in firearms cases. This makes it possible for people who seek legal counsel to have access to attorneys in their state who are able and willing to handle firearms-related cases.
 

Bersa

New member
Hawaii's 2nd amendment confusion

Hawaii is a wonderful vacation spot for mainlanders, and I've always been disturbed that they won't accept reciprocity with any other state, let alone they won't issue any permits to their own residents, even though they are considered to be "may issue".
Maybe if government of Hawaii was to recognize some damage to their economy through tourism, based on their weapons laws, they may reconsider? What if all of us in the mainland who enjoy CCW were to write a letter to "Hawaii" stating that we may change our minds about vacationing their because of their anti-gun and anti 2nd amendment stance, they might take notice. I would imagine that if thousands of such letters started coming in, they would pay attention.
Of course, we would have to make sure our letters were polite and neatly written, so as not to sound fanatical. I believe tourism is the largest income producer in Hawaii. Anyone know an address we could send such letters?
Bersa
 

doublenutz

New member
Hawaii is a wonderful vacation spot for mainlanders, and I've always been disturbed that they won't accept reciprocity with any other state, let alone they won't issue any permits to their own residents, even though they are considered to be "may issue".
Maybe if government of Hawaii was to recognize some damage to their economy through tourism, based on their weapons laws, they may reconsider? What if all of us in the mainland who enjoy CCW were to write a letter to "Hawaii" stating that we may change our minds about vacationing their because of their anti-gun and anti 2nd amendment stance, they might take notice. I would imagine that if thousands of such letters started coming in, they would pay attention.
Of course, we would have to make sure our letters were polite and neatly written, so as not to sound fanatical. I believe tourism is the largest income producer in Hawaii. Anyone know an address we could send such letters?
Bersa

I will be there this weekend (purchasing two condo properties there on Oahu) so I will look into it and post some answers here when I return next week.
 

Bersa

New member
Thanks doublenutz;
I too will be there in a few weeks, on Maui. I'll also look into this matter and report my findings. It really urks me that I'm unable to take my protection with me, and if it wasn't for my wife's insistance on going I'd be looking elsewhere for my vacation!
Bersa
 

ishi

New member
Hopefully the DC supreme court ruling will be broad enough to smack down Hawaii's unconstitutional position.
 

ishi

New member
Hawaii is a wonderful vacation spot for mainlanders, and I've always been disturbed that they won't accept reciprocity with any other state, let alone they won't issue any permits to their own residents, even though they are considered to be "may issue".
Maybe if government of Hawaii was to recognize some damage to their economy through tourism, based on their weapons laws, they may reconsider? What if all of us in the mainland who enjoy CCW were to write a letter to "Hawaii" stating that we may change our minds about vacationing their because of their anti-gun and anti 2nd amendment stance, they might take notice. I would imagine that if thousands of such letters started coming in, they would pay attention.
Of course, we would have to make sure our letters were polite and neatly written, so as not to sound fanatical. I believe tourism is the largest income producer in Hawaii. Anyone know an address we could send such letters?
Bersa

If they have a Board of Tourism, or something like it, a copy should be given to them as well. Nothing kicks politicians into action like complaints from the business lobby.
 

Ektarr

Dedicated Infidel
Thanks for this article and Good Luck to him! I'll be watching this with interest...it appears Hawaii's laws parallel New Jersey's, and success there could spell potential success here. Although I'm planning to leave, I still have an interest in seeing that the dignity of the Constitution is restored nationwide.
 

kwo51

New member
The lines are being drawn,we as free men must stand for our rights or lose them. Prayer and vigalance are required for our government to retain it's moral perspective.
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,434
Messages
623,592
Members
74,268
Latest member
zyvaaprilia
Top