So I took over a pro se case coming out of Hawaii awhile back. I filed the opening brief today. It has not been approved by the Court yet. It is with a bit of trepidation that I post this. I spent a lot of time on this and I figured I'd post this and give anyone that needs notice of this notice.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/125758371/Opening-Brief-George-Young
I am hoping to establish 3 basic things in this case that was not covered in our appeal in Baker.
1) a rifle is a protected class of arms
2) a shotgun is a protected class of arms
3) a knife is a protected class of arms.
All three were mentioned as protected arms Heller but in dicta. Heller II ruled long arms in general are protected but did not establish rifles and shotguns are two separate class of arms.
In Hawaii there is no means to carry a long arm for lawful self defense outside the home. I argue that there must be one for both rifles and shotguns.
In Hawaii there is a complete ban on switchblades and butterfly knives even inside the home. I argue strict scrutiny should apply to a prohibition on a type of protected arm inside the home. Switchblades are a form of knife. There is no compelling reason to ban them inside the home. If this works there is a bit of a broader implication to the notion a complete ban inside the home on a type of arm gets strict scrutiny.
Much of it is like the Baker appeal. I also challenge the CCW law and Taser ban as well.
My client while acting as a pro se plaintiff was dismissed on a motion to dismiss due to there being no right to carry outside the home.
He asked in his complaint for a injunction of the entire Hawaii weapons chapter and a 3 year weapons permit which he defined as any weapon of offense including any firearm, taser, switchblade etc. He brought this suit under 1983, 1331, 1343 and sued both the State and Count. The lower court decision can be found here.
http://ia701500.us.archive.org/23/items/gov.uscourts.hid.104146/gov.uscourts.hid.104146.42.0.pdf
Anyway I hope its okay. Answering Brief is due on April 25th. I have 14 days to file a reply. I spent a lot of time on it so I am excited and nervous about it at the same time.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/125758371/Opening-Brief-George-Young
I am hoping to establish 3 basic things in this case that was not covered in our appeal in Baker.
1) a rifle is a protected class of arms
2) a shotgun is a protected class of arms
3) a knife is a protected class of arms.
All three were mentioned as protected arms Heller but in dicta. Heller II ruled long arms in general are protected but did not establish rifles and shotguns are two separate class of arms.
In Hawaii there is no means to carry a long arm for lawful self defense outside the home. I argue that there must be one for both rifles and shotguns.
In Hawaii there is a complete ban on switchblades and butterfly knives even inside the home. I argue strict scrutiny should apply to a prohibition on a type of protected arm inside the home. Switchblades are a form of knife. There is no compelling reason to ban them inside the home. If this works there is a bit of a broader implication to the notion a complete ban inside the home on a type of arm gets strict scrutiny.
Much of it is like the Baker appeal. I also challenge the CCW law and Taser ban as well.
My client while acting as a pro se plaintiff was dismissed on a motion to dismiss due to there being no right to carry outside the home.
He asked in his complaint for a injunction of the entire Hawaii weapons chapter and a 3 year weapons permit which he defined as any weapon of offense including any firearm, taser, switchblade etc. He brought this suit under 1983, 1331, 1343 and sued both the State and Count. The lower court decision can be found here.
http://ia701500.us.archive.org/23/items/gov.uscourts.hid.104146/gov.uscourts.hid.104146.42.0.pdf
Anyway I hope its okay. Answering Brief is due on April 25th. I have 14 days to file a reply. I spent a lot of time on it so I am excited and nervous about it at the same time.
Last edited: