High Quality
Open the downloaded document, and select print from the file menu (PDF reader required).
zuCHARD
LHOLCOMB
(HI
Bar
No.
9177)Holcomb Law,
A
Limited
Liability
Law
Corporation
677 AlaMoana
Blvd.,
Suite
#614
Honolulu,
HI
96813
Telephone:
(808)
545-4040
Facsimile:(808)356-1954
Email:
rholdomblaw@live.com
ALAN
BECK
(HI
Bar
No.
9145)
Attornev
atLaw
4780
G6vernor
Drive
San
Dieso. Californi
a
92122Teleohofiei
rsogt
297
-6533
Emall:
ngoraZO0O@yahoo.com
KEVINO'GRADY(HI
Bar
No.
8817)The
LawOfficeof Kevin
O'Grady,
LLC
I136Union
Ma[l,
Suite
#704
Honolulu,
HI
96813
Teleohone:(808)
521-3367
Facsimile:
fSOgt'SZ
l-3369
Emai
I
:
Kevin@'criminal
andmilitarydefensehawaii.com
Attorneys
for
Plaintiff
Christopher
Baker
u
N
tr
EB,EffiEB
&ffi$&t
"'
*'
RLP
CHRISTOPHER
BAKER,
vs.
Plaintiff,
LOUIS
KEALOHA.
as
an
individual
and
in
his
official
capacity
as
Honolulu
Chief
of
Police;
STATE
OF
HAWAII;
CITYAND
COLINTY
OF
HONOLULU;HONOLULU
POLICEDEPARTMENT;
NEILABERCROMBIE,
inhis
official
capacity
as
Hawaii
Governor,
Plaintiff
AtiG
2
3
2011
^t
/
o'clocit.n,;fl$''in
L"
-'a-
sr:r
geffiA,
cl-ER'K
IN
THEUNITED
STATES
DISTRICT
COURT
F'OR
THE
DISTRICT
OF
HAWAII.AS$NBI
I
oall',3
SOM
COMPLAINT
FOR
DEPRTVATION
OF
CIVIL
RIGHTS,
DECLARATORYANDINJUNCTIVE
RELIEF.
Defendants.
‐
1
‐
COMPLAINT FOR DEPRIVATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS
COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Christopher Baker (“Mr. Baker”), by andthrough the undersigned counsel, and complains of the Defendants as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1.
Plaintiff Mr. Baker is a natural person and a citizen of the UnitedStates, State of Hawai’i and a resident of Honolulu County. Mr. Baker has beendeprived of liberty and property in violation of the Second, Fifth and FourteenthAmendments of the United States Constitution.
2.
This action arises from Hawai‘i’s ban on transporting and bearingfirearms as a license to carry is the only means by which Mr. Baker could bear afirearm and/or ammunition, whether openly or concealed, even within his ownhome, for the purpose of self-defense, proficiency training, or other protectedpurposes. Mr. Baker is a law-abiding citizen who is fit and qualified to bear arms.Mr. Baker applied for a license to carry a firearm, pursuant to Section 134-9 of theHawai‘i Revised Statutes (“HRS”). However, the application was denied by theDefendant, Chief of Police Louis Kealoha (“Defendant Kealoha”), withoutproviding Mr. Baker with a meaningful opportunity to be heard, a reason orexplanation for the denial, or any opportunity for further review.3.
The right to bear operational firearms and ammunition, and otherweapons in common use for lawful purposes is a fundamental constitutional right
‐
2
‐
guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, madeapplicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United StatesConstitution. Should Mr. Baker bear or transport a firearm outside of an enclosedcontainer in Hawai‘i, Mr. Baker would face criminal prosecution because suchbearing and/or transporting constitutes a Class B or C felony pursuant to Hawai‘istate law. The core of the Second Amendment is the right for law-abiding citizensto protect themselves. Yet, the law of Hawai‘i prohibits the carrying and evenpossession of less-than-lethal weapons commonly used in the militia or by thepeople for lawful purposes, such as extendable batons and electric guns, as well asoperational and loaded firearms. Thus, the denial of Mr. Baker’s application for alicense to carry violated and continues to deprive Mr. Baker of the fundamentalconstitutional rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment and made applicable tothe states by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution as Mr.Baker is deprived of any means to protect himself.4.
Furthermore, Mr. Baker was deprived of the minimal protection of Due Process of law, guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to theUnited States Constitution, in addition to the rights described above. Hawai‘i lawvests absolute discretion in Defendant Kealoha, a Defendant in this action, todetermine whether a law-abiding citizen may exercise his or her SecondAmendment rights incorporated to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment to the
Sections
« prev | next »- 1. Plaintiff Mr. Baker is a natural person and a citizen of the United
- 2. This action arises from Hawai‘i’s ban on transporting and bearing
- 3. The right to bear operational firearms and ammunition, and other
- 4. Furthermore, Mr. Baker was deprived of the minimal protection of
- 5. Additionally, the law of Hawai‘i pertaining to the right to bear arms is
- 6. Again, the core of the rights protected by the Second Amendment and
- 7. Thus, Mr. Baker continues to be deprived of his Second and
- 9. Plaintiff Mr. Baker is a natural person and a citizen of the United
- 10. Defendant State of Hawai‘i is a state entity organized under the U.S
- 11. Defendant City and County of Honolulu is a governmental entity
- 12. Defendant Honolulu Police Department is a government entity
- 13. Defendant Neil Abercrombie is the Governor of the State of Hawai‘i
- 14. Defendant Louis M. Kealoha is the Chief of Police for the Honolulu
- 15. As these claims relate to the invidious laws of the State of Hawai‘i,
- 17. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 1343, 2201 and 2202 the district court
- 18. Venue lies in this District court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391
- 19. The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides:
- 20. States retain the ability to regulate the manner of carrying handguns,
- 21. States may not completely ban the carrying of handguns for self-
- 22. Pursuant to Hawai‘i law, Mr. Baker is prohibited from bearing or
- 23. Unless the bearer or transporter is either exempt or obtains a license to
- 24. The limited exemptions to these criminal statutes are defined in
- 25. Because none of these exemptions apply to Mr. Baker, at least outside
- 26. In fact, Mr. Baker faces severe criminal punishment if he so much as:
- 27. Each of these restrictions and prohibitions are unconstitutional in that
- 28. Each of these restrictions and prohibitions are unconstitutional in that
- 29. Mr. Baker fears arrest and prosecution should he exercise his
- 30. But for the lack of a permit to carry a firearm, Mr. Baker would carry
- 31. Section 134-9 of the Hawai‘i Revised Statutes permits, “[i]n an
- 32. HRS §134-9 also permits, “where the urgency or the need has been
- 33. Section 134-9 vests absolute discretion with the Chief of Police to
- 34. Other than completing a basic form application, the applicant has no
- 35. There is no guidance in Chapter 134 to assist the Chief of Police in
- 36. Section 134-9 only requires that the Chief of Police conduct a
- 37. The sole and absolute discretion vested in the Chief of Police to
- 39. To make matters worse, if an application is denied, Hawai‘i law
- 40. Upon information and belief, the current practice of Defendant
- 41. As Mr. Baker is not a licensed guard, Section 134-9 is not only
- 42. At all material times relevant to this claim, Defendant Kealoha was
- 43. Mr. Baker is a licensed process server. In 2010, Mr. Baker served
- 44. Mr. Baker was at risk of attack, on a daily basis, by the person or
- 45. In several instances, Mr. Baker was placed in imminent danger of
- 46. In several of these imminently dangerous events, the Honolulu Police
- 47. Because Mr. Baker cannot exercise his constitutional right to bear
- 48. Accordingly, Mr. Baker is unable to continue serving court documents
- 49. Mr. Baker is a 27 year-old law-abiding citizen with no criminal
- 50. Mr. Baker has never had a restraining order issued against him
- 51. Mr. Baker has not been adjudged insane, is not mentally deranged, nor
- 52. Mr. Baker does not abuse and is not addicted to or dependent upon
- 53. Mr. Baker is qualified to safely bear and use firearms and has received
- 54. Mr. Baker is qualified to operate and maintain firearms as he was
- 55. Mr. Baker has been certified as a pistol instructor for the National
- 56. Mr. Baker also holds a service medal for Expert Pistol Marksmanship
- 57. Mr. Baker possesses a license to carry a concealed firearm from the
- 58. Mr. Baker wrote the Honolulu Police Department requesting a license
- 59. Mr. Baker was subsequently contacted by a representative of the
- 60. On August 31, 2010, Mr. Baker complied with this request. This was
- 61. On September 18, 2010, Mr. Baker received a letter dated September
- 62. The letter did not express concern over Mr. Baker’s qualifications,
- 63. Depriving a law-abiding citizen of their fundamental constitutional rights
- 64. Similarly, simply denying each application unless the applicant is a
- 66. At the very least, the statutes, cited in Paragraph 65 above,
- 67. The only means for a law-abiding citizen, such as Mr. Baker, to avoid
- 68. In this case, the procedure, employed to purportedly evaluate Mr
- 69. The denial of Mr. Baker’s application, made pursuant to Section 134-
- 70. Mr. Baker was deprived of the minimal due process protections
- 71. All Hawai‘i citizens, including Mr. Baker, are prohibited by Sections
- 72. Furthermore, Mr. Baker is not only prohibited from lawfully carrying
- 73. In fact, Hawai’i law requires that a person, who wishes to purchase a
- 74. Thus, Hawai‘i’s prohibitions on training and target practice with a
- 75. Despite all of these obvious unconstitutional prohibitions and
- 76. Paragraphs 1 through 75 are expressly incorporated as though fully
- 77. Pursuant to the Second and Fourteenth Amendments of the United
- 79. Mr. Baker has been damaged by this unlawful prohibition, and has
- 80. Mr. Baker is therefore entitled to declaratory relief, declaring the
- 81. Mr. Baker is entitled to an award of monetary damages, attorneys’
- 82. Mr. Baker is also entitled to permanent injunctive relief, enjoining
- 83. By maintaining and enforcing a set of customs, practices, and policies
- 84. Paragraphs 1 through 75 are expressly incorporated as though fully
- 85. Mr. Baker has been damaged by this unlawful prohibition as Mr
- 86. Mr. Baker is therefore entitled to declaratory relief, declaring the
- 87. Mr. Baker is entitled to an award of monetary damages, attorneys’
- 88. Mr. Baker is also entitled to permanent injunctive relief, enjoining
- 89. By maintaining and enforcing a set of customs, practices, and policies
- 90. Paragraphs 1 through 75 are expressly incorporated as though fully
- 91. Pursuant to the Second and Fourteenth Amendments of the United
- 93. Mr. Baker has been damaged by this unlawful prohibition as Mr
- 94. Mr. Baker is therefore entitled to declaratory relief declaring the
- 95. Mr. Baker is entitled to an award of monetary damages, attorneys’
- 96. Mr. Baker is also entitled to permanent injunctive relief, enjoining
- 97. By maintaining and enforcing a set of customs, practices, and policies
- 98. Paragraphs 1 through 75 and 90 through 97 are expressly incorporated
- 99. Mr. Baker has been damaged by this unlawful prohibition as Mr
- 100. Mr. Baker is therefore entitled to declaratory relief declaring the
- 101. Mr. Baker is entitled to an award of monetary damages, attorneys’
- 102. Mr. Baker is also entitled to permanent injunctive relief, enjoining
- 103. By maintaining and enforcing a set of customs, practices, and policies
- 104. Paragraphs 1 through 75 are expressly incorporated as though fully
- 105. Pursuant to the Second and Fourteenth Amendments of the United
- 106. Section 134-9 of the Hawai‘i Revised Statutes, both facially and as
- 107. Mr. Baker has been damaged by this unlawful prohibition as Mr
- 108. Mr. Baker is therefore entitled to declaratory relief declaring: the
- 109. Mr. Baker is entitled to an award of monetary damages, attorneys’
- 110. Mr. Baker is also entitled to permanent injunctive relief, enjoining
- 111. By maintaining and enforcing a set of customs, practices, and policies
- 112. Paragraphs 1 through 72 and 104 through 111 are expressly
- 113. Mr. Baker has been damaged by this unlawful prohibition as Mr
- 114. Mr. Baker is therefore entitled to declaratory relief, declaring: the
- 115. Mr. Baker is entitled to an award of monetary damages, attorneys’
- 116. Mr. Baker is also entitled to permanent injunctive relief, enjoining
- 117. By maintaining and enforcing a set of customs, practices, and policies
- 118. Paragraphs 1 through 75 are expressly incorporated as though fully
- 119. Before depriving a citizen of a fundamental constitutional right, such
- 120. The only means for a law-abiding citizen who is not statutorily
- 121. This procedure fails to afford citizens minimal due process
- 122. The Chief of Police is vested with sole and absolute discretion to
- 123. Mr. Baker has been damaged by this unlawful procedure as Mr. Baker
- 124. Mr. Baker is therefore entitled to declaratory relief declaring Section
- 125. Mr. Baker is entitled to an award of monetary damages, attorneys’
- 126. Mr. Baker is also entitled to permanent injunctive relief, enjoining
- 127. By maintaining and enforcing a set of customs, practices, and policies
- 128. Paragraphs 1 through 75 and 118 through 127 are expressly
- 129. Mr. Baker has been damaged by this unlawful prohibition as Mr
- 130. Mr. Baker is therefore entitled to declaratory relief, declaring Section
- 131. Mr. Baker is entitled to an award of monetary damages, attorneys’
- 132. Mr. Baker is also entitled to permanent injunctive relief, enjoining
- 133. By maintaining and enforcing a set of customs, practices, and policies
- 134. Paragraphs 1 through 75 are expressly incorporated as though fully
- 135. Before depriving a citizen of a fundamental constitutional right, such
- 136. The only means for Mr. Baker, who is not statutorily exempt from the
- 137. Mr. Baker is fit and qualified to bear a firearm and ammunition for the
- 138. Mr. Baker has been damaged by this unlawful denial as Mr. Baker has
- 139. Mr. Baker is therefore entitled to declaratory relief, declaring that Mr
- 140. Mr. Baker is entitled to an award of monetary damages, attorneys’
- 141. Mr. Baker is also entitled to permanent injunctive relief, compelling
- 142. By maintaining and enforcing a set of customs, practices, and policies
- 143. Paragraphs 1 through 75 and 128 through 133 are expressly
- 144. Mr. Baker has been damaged by this unlawful prohibition as Mr
- 145. Mr. Baker is therefore entitled to declaratory relief, declaring that Mr
- 146. Mr. Baker is entitled to an award of monetary damages, attorneys’
- 147. Mr. Baker is also entitled to permanent injunctive relief, compelling
- 148. By maintaining and enforcing a set of customs, practices, and policies
- 149. Paragraphs 1 through 75 are expressly incorporated as though fully
- 150. All Hawai‘i citizens, including Mr. Baker, are prohibited by Sections
- 151. Mr. Baker has been damaged by this unlawful denial as Mr. Baker has
- 152. Mr. Baker is therefore entitled to declaratory relief, specifically
- 153. Mr. Baker is entitled to an award of monetary damages, attorneys’
- 154. Mr. Baker is also entitled to permanent injunctive relief, enjoining
- 155. By maintaining and enforcing a set of customs, practices, and policies
- 156. Paragraphs 1 through 75 and 149 are expressly incorporated as though
- 157. Mr. Baker has been damaged by this unlawful prohibition as Mr
- 158. Mr. Baker is therefore entitled to declaratory relief, specifically
- 159. Mr. Baker is entitled to an award of monetary damages, attorneys’
- 160. Mr. Baker is also entitled to permanent injunctive relief, enjoining
- 161. By maintaining and enforcing a set of customs, practices, and policies
Add a Comment