2nd Amend not Individual Right

[rabywk]

http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story....8-0bf47fbcf8d5
-------------------------------------------------------
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:Yorozuyo@aol.com

[lukem]

Thanks for the story. I posted it in our Hawaii news section.

[Wynder]

Originally Posted by rabywk

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]

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]

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.

[rabywk]

Originally Posted by EdMaxx

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.

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]

Originally Posted by rabywk

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]

Originally Posted by EdMaxx

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]

Two Words.... Very Interesting

[doublenutz]

Originally Posted by Wynder

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?