PA Bill Number: SB945
Title: Consolidating the act of August 9, 1955 (P.L.323, No.130), known as The County Code; and making repeals.
Description: Consolidating the act of August 9, 1955 (P.L.323, No.130), known as The County Code; and making repeals. ...
Last Action: Third consideration and final passage (199-0)
Last Action Date: Apr 17, 2024
Amicus Brief Filed In Hawaii Handgun Permit Law Challenge - Yakutake v. Hawaii :: 05/03/2022
BELLEVUE, WA – -(Ammoland.com)- The Second Amendment Foundation has filed an amicus brief with the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Yakutake v. Hawaii, challenging two cumbersome state laws they say are “undermining” Second Amendment rights.
Joining SAF in this important brief is the Madison Society Foundation. The brief was prepared by veteran civil rights attorney Donald Kilmer.
“This is a case,” the 13-page brief begins, “where a state-actor purports to comply with the Constitution’s text and Supreme Court case law, while intentionally undermining the fundamental right at issue. In fact, Hawaii is only engaged in a kind of malicious compliance.”
To buy a gun, a person must first go to the police station to apply for a purchase permit. Then the applicant must wait 14 days for a background check. Next, the person must go back to the seller, show the permit—which is only good for ten days for a handgun and one year for a long gun—complete the transaction and within five days bring the firearm back to the police station for inspection.
“Hawaii has erected nonsensical hoops for gun-buyers to jump through to exercise a fundamental right,” the brief continues. “The passive-aggressive regulations at issue in this case are mirrored by remarkably similar barriers to voting that were struck down by the Supreme Court more than 50 years ago.”
“If law-abiding citizens were subjected to similar laws while attempting to exercise any other constitutionally-enumerated right, it would be an outrage,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The requirements to merely buy a handgun are solely designed to discourage Hawaii citizens of doing so. The two Hawaii requirements are disgustingly obvious in their intent, which is why the District Court found for plaintiffs Todd Yakutake and David Kikukawa.”
He noted the District Court “found that Hawaii had failed to produce any evidence to justify its scheme under any standard of review.”
“It is alarming,” Gottlieb observed, “that such statutory requirements to impede and discourage gun ownership exist anywhere in the country. Hawaii’s gun control scheme is deliberately complicated, and ultimately frustrating. It cannot be allowed to stand.”
