Upholding Hawaii’s disarmament edict “fails every aspect of the analytical framework established by Bruen,” Beck and Petitioner Co-Counsel Mark W. Pennack argue. [More]
It’s difficult to conceive how the same court that gave us Bruen could agree that the Founders would have been cool with ubiquitous infringements.
Hawaii Sensitive Places Defense Fund… The fact the State of Hawaii hired these big shots is proof they are scared we can win. Please donate what you can. [More]
I trust readers here need no introduction to Alan Beck…?
On Friday we celebrated DOJ Civil Rights filing an amicus brief with SCOTUS on Wolford v Lopez, the case out of Hawaii where there is a circuit split on “whether private property no carry default violates the Second Amendment.”
That’s the case where Alan Beck is one of the attorneys for petitioners.
Stephen Stamboulieh, who has worked with Alan on numerous efforts, as well as represented me, shares his thoughts:
Stephen Stamboulieh brings us some good news about Pam Bondi and DOJ doing something necessary and good by filing a brief in support of the Second Amendment, noting Hawaii trying to ban guns on private property without specific owner permnission effectively equates to a gun ban practically everywhere. This is a hopeful sign and we need to see more like this.
The challenge is another example of great legal navigation and piloting by Alan Beck.
As an aside, this is how “guntubing” ought to be, a subject matter authority articuately sharing knowledge and guidance, as opposed to mansplaining the work of others for clicks.
And pay attention to this, @ 7:15 in:
The Ninth Circuit needs to be broken up as a court. It’s too big, it’s way too powerful, and it does some really stupid things that we’re going to talk about in my 7 o’clock live tonight where I just lost $400,000 in that case.
On January 16, 2025, Honolulu US District Judge Micah W.J. Smith “permanently enjoined” the Hawaii Attorney General from “enforcing (a gun ownership ban) against … COFA migrants.”The ruling in Peter v Lopez comes in response to a November 27, 2024 lawsuit filed by Second Amendment attorneys Alan Beck and Kevin O’Grady. This is the latest in a long string of Hawaii Second Amendment victories scored by the duo. [More]
We are delighted to announce another victory for Second Amendment rights in Hawaii.
At the close of last year, we shared the story of HIFICO member, Blake Day, who was unjustly denied a concealed carry permit by the County of Hawaii after he used a pepper ball gun for… pic.twitter.com/9R4iGIVnVj
Ninth Circuit to rehear Hawaii butterfly knife ban… In its en banc petition, the state only briefly touched on historical arms regulations in its pre-territorial days. However, the state Supreme Court recently harkened back to the Kingdom of Hawaii — which historically levied heavy regulations on weapons — while pushing back on the Second Amendment. [More]
Judge ReTodd Eddins thinks “the spirit of Aloha” is the supreme law of the land there? I know they had history and tradition– did they have text? And does that spirit mean they’re bringing back Kapu?
It should be a straightforward enough process and you’d think the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Department of Justice would be on the same page, instead of pointing fingers, abdicating responsibilities, and just plain getting things wrong, especially considering how they increasingly hold Federal Firearms Licensees to “zero tolerance standards” over paperwork glitches. [More]
It took fear of getting spanked by the court, but they finally, grudgingly agreed to an appeals process.
US Court of Appeal for Ninth Circuit declared Hawaii’s butterfly knife ban to be unconstitutional under the 2nd Amendment. Hawaii hires $2400 per hour attorney to try to save the BAN but 2nd Amendment briefs are terrific and should prevail. [Watch]
I notice Adam Winkler whining about Bruen creating an “impossible position.” Why they ever invited this guy to GRPC is beyond me– it’s not like he’s a pal.
Can you imagine if we started challenging other tyrannical edicts and programs based on historical understanding at the time of ratification? It could change everything.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that judgment be entered in their favor and against Defendants as follows: 1. An order preliminarily and permanently enjoining Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the injunction, from enforcing 720 ILCS 5/24-1(a)(6) and any other applicable law which prohibits Plaintiffs from owning and banning the acquisition, possession, carrying or use of suppressors; 2. An order declaring that 720 ILCS 5/24-1(a)(6) and any other applicable law which prohibits Plaintiffs from owning suppressors is unconstitutional and violates the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution; 3. An order declaring 720 ILCS 5/24-1(a)(6) and any other applicable law which prohibits plaintiffs from owning suppressors unenforceable… [More]