IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
KIRK C. FISHER,
Plaintiff,
vs.
LOUIS KEALOHA, as an individual
and in his official capacity as
Honolulu Chief of Police, PAUL
PUTZULU, as an individual and in
his official capacity as former
acting Honolulu Chief of Police,
and CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civ. No. 11-00589 ACK-BMK
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE
ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On Sept ember 28, 2011, Pl ai nt i f f Ki r k Fi sher f i l ed a
Compl ai nt agai nst Def endant s Loui s Keal oha, Paul Put zul u, t he
Ci t y and Count y of Honol ul u ( “Ci t y”) , and t he Honol ul u Pol i ce
Depar t ment ( “HPD”) . ( Doc. No. 1. ) Pl ai nt i f f asser t ed t wo cl ai ms
agai nst Def endant s f or al l eged vi ol at i ons of hi s Second, Fi f t h,
and Four t eent h Amendment r i ght s r egar di ng hi s f i r ear ms and
at t empt t o obt ai n a f i r ear ms per mi t . ( Compl . ¶¶ 47- 57. )
On December 9, 2011, and J anuar y 24, 2012,
r espect i vel y, t he Ci t y and Keal oha f i l ed mot i ons f or “par t i al ”
di smi ssal of t he Compl ai nt . ( Doc. Nos. 6 & 16. ) On Apr i l 19,
- 1-
Case 1:11-cv-00589-ACK-BMK Document 137 Filed 07/18/14 Page 1 of 53 PageID #:
2004
2012, t he Cour t i ssued an or der t hat ( 1) di smi ssed t he cl ai ms
agai nst t he Ci t y wi t hout pr ej udi ce; ( 2) di smi ssed par t of
Pl ai nt i f f ’ s cl ai ms agai nst Keal oha wi t hout pr ej udi ce; ( 3)
di smi ssed al l cl ai ms agai nst HPD wi t h pr ej udi ce; and ( 4)
di smi ssed Pl ai nt i f f ’ s Fi f t h Amendment cl ai ms wi t h pr ej udi ce.
( Doc. No. 25. )
On J une 14, 2012, Pl ai nt i f f f i l ed t he oper at i ve Amended
Compl ai nt agai nst Keal oha as an i ndi vi dual and i n hi s of f i ci al
capaci t y, Put zul u as an i ndi vi dual and i n hi s of f i ci al capaci t y,
and t he Ci t y.
1/
( Doc. No. 31. ) The Amended Compl ai nt cont ai ns t he
f ol l owi ng t wo count s: “Count I - The Second and Four t eent h
Amendment s t o t he Uni t ed St at es Const i t ut i on and 42 U. S. C. § 1983
Agai nst Al l Def endant s, ” and “Count I I - The Four t eent h
Amendment [ ] t o t he Uni t ed St at es Const i t ut i on and 42 U. S. C. §
1983 Agai nst Al l Def endant s. ” ( I d. )
On Mar ch 19, 2012, Pl ai nt i f f f i l ed a Mot i on f or
Pr el i mi nar y I nj unct i on. ( Doc. No. 18. ) On J une 29, 2012, t he
Cour t i ssued an or der gr ant i ng Pl ai nt i f f ’ s Mot i on f or Pr el i mi nar y
I nj unct i on ( “2012 Pr el i mi nar y I nj unct i on Or der ”) . ( Doc. No. 35. )
1/
Def endant Put zul u has not been ser ved wi t h t he Amended
Compl ai nt or appear ed i n t hi s act i on. ( See Doc. No. 31- 2 and Doc.
Nos. 31- 135. ) At t he Sept ember 17, 2013 hear i ng f or Pl ai nt i f f ’ s
Mot i on f or Summar y J udgment and Mot i on f or Per manent I nj unct i on,
Pl ai nt i f f ’ s counsel vol unt ar i l y di smi ssed Put zul u f r omt hi s sui t .
The Cour t not es, however , t hat Pl ai nt i f f has not f i l ed a Not i ce
of Di smi ssal . Accor di ngl y, t he Cour t di r ect s Pl ai nt i f f t o f i l e a
Not i ce of Di smi ssal , di smi ssi ng Put zul u f r omt hi s act i on.
- 2-
Case 1:11-cv-00589-ACK-BMK Document 137 Filed 07/18/14 Page 2 of 53 PageID #:
2005
The Cour t ’ s i nj unct i on di r ect ed Keal oha t o “r esci nd t he pr i or
deni al of Pl ai nt i f f ’ s per mi t t o acqui r e f i r ear ms and t o i ssue a
per mi t aut hor i zi ng Pl ai nt i f f t o acqui r e f i r ear ms. ” 2012
Pr el i mi nar y I nj unct i on Or der at 36. Keal oha and t he Ci t y
( col l ect i vel y, “Def endant s”) f i l ed a Mot i on f or Reconsi der at i on,
whi ch t he Cour t subsequent l y deni ed. ( Doc. Nos. 39 & 50. )
On Febr uar y 25, 2013, Pl ai nt i f f f i l ed a Mot i on f or
Summar y J udgment and a Mot i on f or Per manent I nj unct i on. ( Doc.
Nos. 75 & 77. ) On Sept ember 30, 2013, t he Cour t i ssued an “Or der
Gr ant i ng i n Par t and Denyi ng i n Par t Pl ai nt i f f ’ s Mot i on f or
Summar y J udgment and Denyi ng Pl ai nt i f f ’ s Mot i on f or Per manent
I nj unct i on. ” ( Doc. No. 111 ( “Sept . 30 Or der ”) . ) I n t he Sept . 30
Or der , t he Cour t gr ant ed i n par t Pl ai nt i f f ’ s Mot i on f or Summar y
J udgment r egar di ng whet her Pl ai nt i f f ’ s pr i or har assment
convi ct i ons pr ohi bi t hi mf r omacqui r i ng a f i r ear ms per mi t
pur suant t o 18 U. S. C. § 922( g) ( 9) , Haw. Rev. St at . § 134- 7( a) ,
and Haw. Rev. St at . § 134- 7( b) ; deni ed i n par t Pl ai nt i f f ’ s Mot i on
f or Summar y J udgment r egar di ng whet her Pl ai nt i f f i s pr ohi bi t ed
f r omacqui r i ng a f i r ear ms per mi t pur suant t o Haw. Rev. St at . §
134- 7( c) ; and deni ed Pl ai nt i f f ’ s Mot i on f or Per manent I nj unct i on.
Sept . 30 Or der at 62- 63.
On Apr i l 2, 2014, Def endant s f i l ed t he i nst ant Mot i on
f or Summar y J udgment or , i n t he Al t er nat i ve, Mot i on f or
Reconsi der at i on ( “Mot i on” or “Def s. ’ s Mot . ”) , al ong wi t h a
- 3-
Case 1:11-cv-00589-ACK-BMK Document 137 Filed 07/18/14 Page 3 of 53 PageID #:
2006
conci se st at ement of f act s. ( Doc. Nos. 115 & 116. ) On May 23,
2014, Pl ai nt i f f f i l ed an Opposi t i on t o Def endant s’ Mot i on
( “Opposi t i on” or “Pl . ’ s Opp. ”) , al ong wi t h a conci se st at ement of
f act s. ( Doc. Nos. 124 & 125. ) On J une 2, 2014, Def endant s f i l ed a
Repl y ( “Repl y” or “Def s. ’ s Repl y”) , al ong wi t h a Separ at e and
Conci se St at ement of Fact s i n Suppor t of Repl y and Obj ect i ons t o
Pl ai nt i f f ’ s Conci se St at ement of Fact s. ( Doc. Nos. 127- 128. ) On
J une 14, 2014, Pl ai nt i f f f i l ed a Mot i on f or Leave t o Fi l e
Addi t i onal Exhi bi t s t o Suppl ement Pl ai nt i f f ’ s Conci se St at ement
of Fact s. ( Doc. No. 130. ) Pl ai nt i f f at t ached t wo exhi bi t s t o hi s
Mot i on f or Leave t o Fi l e. ( Doc. Nos. 130- 2 & 130- 3. )
2/

Ami cus cur i ae Hawai i Def ense Foundat i on ( “HDF”)
r equest ed t o f i l e a br i ef r egar di ng Def endant s’ Mot i on. On Apr i l
6, 2014, HDF f i l ed a Mot i on t o Fi l e Suppl ement al Ami cus Br i ef .
( Doc. No. 119. ) HDF at t ached a t wel ve- page suppl ement al ami cus
br i ef t o i t s Mot i on t o Fi l e. ( Doc. No. 119- 1. ) On Apr i l 7, 2014,
HDF f i l ed an Er r at a i n or der t o at t ach a copy of an academi c
st udy t o i t s suppl ement al ami cus br i ef . ( Doc. No. 120. ) On Apr i l
10, 2014, t he Cour t i ssued a mi nut e or der gr ant i ng t he Mot i on t o
Fi l e a suppl ement al ami cus br i ef . ( Doc. No. 121. ) On Apr i l 10,
2014, af t er t he Cour t i ssued i t s mi nut e or der , HDF f i l ed a
second, si xt een- page suppl ement al ami cus br i ef ( “HDF’ s Apr i l 10
2/
The Cour t GRANTS t hi s mot i on and wi l l consi der t he exhi bi t s
at t ached t her et o, not wi t hst andi ng t he f act t hat t he mot i on was
unt i mel y f i l ed.
- 4-
Case 1:11-cv-00589-ACK-BMK Document 137 Filed 07/18/14 Page 4 of 53 PageID #:
2007
Supp. Br i ef ”) . ( Doc. No. 122. ) On Apr i l 23, 2014, HDF f i l ed a
Not i ce of Suppl ement al Aut hor i t y. ( Doc. No. 123. )
The Cour t hel d a hear i ng r egar di ng Def endant s’ Mot i on
on J une 16, 2014. At t he hear i ng Pl ai nt i f f acknowl edged t hat HDF
r ai sed i ssues i n i t s suppl ement al ami cus br i ef , whi ch Pl ai nt i f f
had not r ai sed i n hi s Amended Compl ai nt , Opposi t i on, or by way of
ar gument at t he hear i ng. Sever al hour s af t er t he hear i ng
Pl ai nt i f f f i l ed a Mot i on t o I ncor por at e and Ref er ence i n i t s
Ent i r et y HDF’ s suppl ement al ami cus br i ef . ( Doc. No. 132. ) At t he
hear i ng Def endant s r equest ed t hat , i f t he Cour t wer e t o consi der
ar gument s r ai sed onl y by HDF, Def endant s be gi ven an oppor t uni t y
t o f i l e a br i ef i n r esponse. Def endant s not ed i n t hei r Repl y t hat
i t was i nappr opr i at e f or an ami cus cur i ae t o r ai se i ssues t hat
had not been r ai sed by t he par t i es. ( Repl y at 10 ( ci t i ng
Ar t i choke J oe’ s Cal . Gr and Casi no v. Nor t on, 353 F. 3d 712, 719
( 9t h Ci r . 2003) ) ; see al so Swan v. Pet er son, 6 F. 3d 1373, 1383
( 9t h Ci r . 1993) ) .
I n l i ght of t hese ci r cumst ances, t he Cour t det er mi ned
t hat i t wi l l sua spont e i n i t s di scr et i on consi der i ssues r ai sed
by HDF, and wi l l al l ow Def endant s t o f i l e a br i ef i n r esponse.
( Doc. No. 134 ( “J une 20, 2014 Mi nut e Or der ”) . ) On t he ot her hand,
t he Cour t di d not al l ow HDF and Pl ai nt i f f t o f i l e f ur t her
br i ef i ng si nce t hey had al r eady t aken t he oppor t uni t y t o r ai se
and addr ess t he subj ect i ssues. ( I d. )
- 5-
Case 1:11-cv-00589-ACK-BMK Document 137 Filed 07/18/14 Page 5 of 53 PageID #:
2008
On J ul y 7, 2014, Def endant s f i l ed a suppl ement al br i ef
( “Def s. ’ s Supp. Br i ef ”) . ( Doc. No. 136. )
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On November 5, 1997, Pl ai nt i f f was ar r est ed f or t wo
count s of har assment i n vi ol at i on of H. R. S. § 711- 1106( 1) ( a) .
( Def s. ’ s CSF Ex. A. ) That st at ut e pr ovi des, i n r el evant par t :
§ 711-1106 Harassment.
( 1) A per son commi t s t he of f ense of har assment i f , wi t h
i nt ent t o har ass, annoy, or al ar many ot her per son,
t hat per son:
( a) St r i kes, shoves, ki cks, or ot her wi se
t ouches anot her per son i n an of f ensi ve manner
or subj ect s t he ot her per son t o of f ensi ve
physi cal cont act . . .
The st at e cour t compl ai nt agai nst Pl ai nt i f f al l eges
t hat , on or about November 5, 1997, “[ Pl ai nt i f f ] , wi t h i nt ent t o
har ass, annoy, or al ar mCol et t e Fi sher , di d st r i ke, shove, ki ck,
or ot her wi se t ouch Col et t e Fi sher i n an of f ensi ve manner , or
subj ect her t o of f ensi ve physi cal cont act , t her eby commi t t i ng t he
pet t y mi sdemeanor of f ense of Har assment i n vi ol at i on of Sect i on
711- 1106( 1) ( a) of t he Hawai i Revi sed St at ut es. ” ( Doc. 39- 4
( “St at e of Hawai i v. Ki r k C. Fi sher , FC- CR No. 97- 3233" ) at 1. )
3/

At t he t i me of t he 1997 i nci dent t o t he pr esent , Col et t e Fi sher
has been Pl ai nt i f f ’ s wi f e. ( Am. Compl . ¶ 24; Doc. 99- 2
3/
Bot h par t i es r ef er ence exhi bi t s f i l ed wi t h pr evi ous mot i ons
t hat ar e par t of t he r ecor d i n t hi s case. The Cour t l i kewi se
r ef er s t o pr i or exhi bi t s submi t t ed by t he par t i es.
- 6-
Case 1:11-cv-00589-ACK-BMK Document 137 Filed 07/18/14 Page 6 of 53 PageID #:
2009
( “Deposi t i on of Ki r k C. Fi sher ”) at 9- 10. ) A second count i n t he
st at e cour t compl ai nt cont ai ns t he same al l egat i ons wi t h r espect
t o Ni col e Fi sher , Pl ai nt i f f ’ s daught er . ( Doc. 39- 4 at 1- 2. )
On December 3, 1997, Pl ai nt i f f pl ed gui l t y t o t wo
count s of har assment i n t he Fami l y Cour t of t he Fi r st Ci r cui t ,
St at e of Hawai i , and was sent enced t o si x mont hs of pr obat i on.
( Def s. ’ s CSF at 2, ¶ 2. ) As par t of t he t er ms of hi s pr obat i on,
t he j udge or der ed Pl ai nt i f f “t o at t end subst ance abuse assessment
and. . . par t i ci pat e i n counsel i ng and/ or t r eat ment unt i l
cl i ni cal l y di schar ged or as di r ect ed by t he pr obat i on of f i cer . ”
( I d. Ex. C. ) Ar ound Febr uar y 1998, Pl ai nt i f f compl et ed a “Twel ve
Hour Dr ug and Al cohol Educat i on Cour se” pr esent ed by t he “Hawai i
Al cohol and Dr ug Saf et y Act i on Pr ogr am. ” ( I d. Ex. F. ) Whi l e t he
r ecor d does not i ndi cat e t he subst ance under l yi ng Pl ai nt i f f ’ s
pr obat i on r equi r ement t o at t end t he Dr ug and Al cohol Educat i on
Cour se; t hi s Cour t not ed i n i t s Sept . 30 Or der t hat Pl ai nt i f f
admi t t ed i n hi s deposi t i on t hat he had been dr i nki ng al cohol
( speci f i cal l y a si x- pack of beer ) on t he day of t he al l eged
domest i c vi ol ence i nci dent . Sept . 30 Or der at 8 n. 8.
I n connect i on wi t h hi s convi ct i ons, Pl ai nt i f f was
or der ed t o sur r ender al l f i r ear ms, ammuni t i on, per mi t s, and
l i censes t o HPD. ( Def s. ’ s CSF Ex. D. ) On November 4, 1998, st at e
j udge Dan Kochi i ssued an “Or der Per mi t t i ng Ret ur n of Fi r ear ms,
Ammuni t i on, Per mi t s and Li censes, Wi t h Condi t i ons. ” ( I d. Ex. E. )
- 7-
Case 1:11-cv-00589-ACK-BMK Document 137 Filed 07/18/14 Page 7 of 53 PageID #:
2010
The or der st at ed t hat HPD shoul d r et ur n Pl ai nt i f f ’ s f i r ear ms and
ammuni t i on “pr ovi ded t hat t he pr ovi si ons of H. R. S. Chapt er 134
ar e sat i sf i ed and t her e ar e no. . . pr ohi bi t i ons under H. R. S.
Sect i on 134- 7 . . . or a convi ct i on of a mi sdemeanor cr i me of
[ domest i c] vi ol ence under 18 U. S. C. sect i on 922( g) ( 9) . ” ( I d. ) HPD
pr ompt l y r et ur ned Pl ai nt i f f ’ s f i r ear ms as a r esul t of t hi s or der .
( Def s. ’ s CSF at 3, ¶ 6. )
I n t he f al l of 2009, Pl ai nt i f f submi t t ed an appl i cat i on
t o HPD seeki ng t o obt ai n a per mi t f or addi t i onal f i r ear ms. ( I d.
at 3- 4, ¶ 11. ) On Oct ober 1, 2009, HPD deni ed Pl ai nt i f f ’ s
appl i cat i on vi a l et t er on t he gr ounds t hat Pl ai nt i f f was
di squal i f i ed under H. R. S. § 134- 7. ( Doc. No. 78- 5. )
4/
HPD t hen
or der ed Pl ai nt i f f t o sur r ender t he f i r ear ms he possessed t o t he
pol i ce or ot her wi se l awf ul l y di spose of hi s f i r ear ms and
ammuni t i on wi t hi n 30 days of Oct ober 1, 2009. ( I d. ) Pl ai nt i f f
subsequent l y t r ansf er r ed owner shi p and possessi on of al l of hi s
f i r ear ms t o hi s wi f e af t er she obt ai ned t he pr oper per mi t s. ( Am.
Compl . ¶ 24. )
Pl ai nt i f f asser t s t hat HPD t ol d hi mhe was di squal i f i ed
f r omowni ng f i r ear ms under H. R. S. § 134- 7( b) . ( Doc. No. 78- 1
4/
The Oct ober 1, 2009 l et t er di d not st at e whi ch subsect i on
of H. R. S. § 134- 7 f or med t he basi s f or t he deni al of Pl ai nt i f f ’ s
f i r ear ms per mi t . ( See Doc. No. 78- 5. ) I n hi s August 31, 2010
l et t er t o Keal oha, Wi l ker son ( Pl ai nt i f f ’ s counsel ) i ndi cat ed t hat
HPD of f i cer s st at ed t hat t he appl i cat i on was deni ed because
Pl ai nt i f f had been “convi ct ed of a cr i me of vi ol ence, ” whi ch
woul d f al l under H. R. S. § 134- 7( b) . ( Pl . ’ s CSF Ex. 1. )
- 8-
Case 1:11-cv-00589-ACK-BMK Document 137 Filed 07/18/14 Page 8 of 53 PageID #:
2011
( “Decl ar at i on of Ki r k C. Fi sher ”) ¶ 12. ) Def endant s di sput e t hi s
f act and ar gue t hat HPD, as i ndi cat ed i n t he Oct ober 1, 2009
l et t er , never st at ed whi ch subsect i on of H. R. S. § 134- 7 f or med
t he basi s f or t he deni al of Pl ai nt i f f ’ s f i r ear ms per mi t . ( Def s. ’ s
Obj s. t o Pl . ’ s CSF at 3, ¶ 19. )
Accor di ng t o Def endant s, HPD r uns a backgr ound check on
i ndi vi dual s who appl y f or a f i r ear ms per mi t . ( Def s. ’ s CSF Ex. H
( “Ni t t a Decl . ”) ¶ 9. ) I f t he appl i cant has been convi ct ed of
har assment , HPD wi l l at t empt t o det er mi ne i f t he par t i cul ar
convi ct i on i nvol ved vi ol ent behavi or , speci f i cal l y t he use of
physi cal f or ce, and whet her such vi ol ence occur r ed wi t hi n a
domest i c r el at i onshi p. ( I d. ) I f HPD det er mi nes t hat an
appl i cant ’ s convi ct i on f or har assment i ncl udes physi cal f or ce
agai nst t he vi ct i m, HPD wi l l deny t he appl i cat i on. ( I d. ¶ 10. )
Regar di ng t he speci f i c pr ocedur e used t o eval uat e
Pl ai nt i f f ’ s appl i cat i on, HPD r an a backgr ound check and r evi ewed
pol i ce r epor t s r el at i ng t o t he har assment convi ct i ons. ( I d. ¶
11. ) Based upon t he pol i ce r epor t s, HPD concl uded t hat Pl ai nt i f f
“engaged i n conduct whi ch i ncl uded vi ol ent behavi or i nvol vi ng t he
use of physi cal f or ce agai nst hi s wi f e and daught er . ” ( I d. ) As a
r esul t , HPD deni ed Pl ai nt i f f ’ s appl i cat i on. ( I d. ¶ 12. )
On August 31, 2010, Pl ai nt i f f t hr ough hi s counsel sent
a l et t er t o Keal oha r equest i ng t hat ( 1) HPD gr ant hi s appl i cat i on
f or a per mi t t o acqui r e f i r ear ms and ( 2) HPD r esci nd t he pr i or
- 9-
Case 1:11-cv-00589-ACK-BMK Document 137 Filed 07/18/14 Page 9 of 53 PageID #:
2012
or der i nst r uct i ng Pl ai nt i f f t o sur r ender or di spose of hi s
f i r ear ms. ( Pl . ’ s CSF Ex. 1. ) Keal oha r esponded t o Pl ai nt i f f ’ s
r equest on Sept ember 29, 2010, and af f i r med HPD’ s pr i or deni al of
Pl ai nt i f f ’ s f i r ear ms per mi t appl i cat i on. ( Doc. No. 78- 7. )
[ Sent ence del et ed. ]
On J une 29, 2012, as di scussed her ei nbef or e, t he Cour t
i ssued an i nj unct i on di r ect i ng Keal oha t o i ssue a per mi t
aut hor i zi ng Pl ai nt i f f t o acqui r e f i r ear ms.
5/
I n hi s decl ar at i on,
Pl ai nt i f f st at es t hat somet i me f ol l owi ng t he Cour t ’ s i ssuance of
t he i nj unct i on, he submi t t ed an appl i cat i on f or a f i r ear ms per mi t
t o HPD. ( Pl . ’ s CSF Ex. 1 ( “Fi sher Decl . ”) ¶ 3. ) Pl ai nt i f f f ur t her
st at es t hat , as par t of t he appl i cat i on pr ocess, HPD cont act ed
hi s physi ci an, Dr . J oseph Tsai , i n or der t o “document
[ Pl ai nt i f f ’ s] medi cal cl ear ance. ” ( I d. ¶ 6. ) Accor di ng t o
Pl ai nt i f f , Dr . Tsai pr ovi ded medi cal document at i on t hat he was
“not adver sel y af f ect ed by an addi ct i on t o, abuse of , or
dependence on any al cohol or dr ug” and t hat he di d “not suf f er
any ment al di sease, di sor der , or def ect . ” ( I d. ) Pl ai nt i f f asser t s
t hat he r ecei ved a f i r ear ms per mi t because he sat i sf i ed al l of
t he condi t i ons of H. R. S. § 134- 7, i ncl udi ng t he “medi cal
cl ear ance document at i on” r equi r ement of H. R. S. § 134- 7( c) . ” ( I d.
5/
I n i t s 2012 Pr el i mi nar y I nj unct i on Or der , t he Cour t not ed
t hat H. R. S. § 134- 7( c) may pr ecl ude Pl ai nt i f f f r ompossessi ng
f i r ear ms, and t hat nei t her par t y addr essed § 134- 7( c) . See 2012
Pr el i mi nar y I nj unct i on Or der at 18 n. 14.
- 10-
Case 1:11-cv-00589-ACK-BMK Document 137 Filed 07/18/14 Page 10 of 53 PageID #:
2013
¶ 7. )
6/

Def endant s acknowl edge t hat Pl ai nt i f f submi t t ed an
appl i cat i on f or a f i r ear ms per mi t af t er t he Cour t ’ s 2012
Pr el i mi nar y I nj unct i on Or der ; however , t hey ar gue t hat he f ai l ed
t o abi de by HPD’ s appl i cat i on pr ocedur es. ( Def s. ’ s CSF i n Suppor t
of Repl y at 2, ¶¶ 1- 3. ) Speci f i cal l y, Def endant s asser t t hat once
a compl et e appl i cat i on i s submi t t ed, HPD r equi r es a t wo- week
wai t i ng per i od dur i ng whi ch HPD r evi ews t he appl i cat i on and
suppor t i ng document s. ( I d. ¶ 2. ) Accor di ng t o Def endant s, af t er
t he expi r at i on of t he t wo- week wai t i ng per i od, t her e i s a si x- day
per i od wi t hi n whi ch t he appl i cant may r et r i eve hi s appl i cat i on.
( I d. ) Def endant s asser t t hat Pl ai nt i f f di d not pi ck up hi s
appl i cat i on wi t hi n t he al l ot t ed per i od and, t her ef or e, HPD voi ded
hi s appl i cat i on on August 1, 2012. ( I d. ¶ 3. )
7/
Def endant s
f ur t her asser t t hat HPD di d not cont act Dr . Tsai , and t hat
nei t her Pl ai nt i f f nor Dr . Tsai pr ovi ded HPD wi t h “medi cal
cl ear ance document at i on. ” ( I d. ¶ 4. )
At t he hear i ng on J une 16, 2014, Pl ai nt i f f submi t t ed a
decl ar at i on f r omDr . Tsai , dat ed J une 14, 2014. ( Doc. No. 130- 2. )
Dr . Tsai st at es i n hi s decl ar at i on t hat Pl ai nt i f f “i s not
6/
Pl ai nt i f f has not pr ovi ded t he Cour t wi t h any document at i on
i ndi cat i ng t hat he r ecei ved a f i r ear ms per mi t f r omHPD.
7/
The Cour t i s t r oubl ed by HPD’ s appl i cat i on pr ocedur es.
Af t er t he t wo- week r evi ew per i od, HPD shoul d ei t her appr ove or
deny t he f i r ear ms per mi t appl i cat i on and t hen not i f y t he
appl i cant as such.
- 11-
Case 1:11-cv-00589-ACK-BMK Document 137 Filed 07/18/14 Page 11 of 53 PageID #:
2014
adver sel y af f ect ed by [ ] an addi ct i on t o, abuse of , or dependence
upon any danger ous dr ug, har mf ul dr ug, det r i ment al dr ug,
i nt oxi cat i ng compound, or i nt oxi cat i ng l i quor . ” ( Dr . Tsai Decl . ¶
4. )
STANDARD
A. Motion for Summary Judgment
A par t y may move f or summar y j udgment on any cl ai mor
def ense - or par t of a cl ai mor def ense - under Feder al Rul e of
Ci vi l Pr ocedur e ( “Rul e”) 56. Summar y j udgment “shoul d be gr ant ed
‘ i f t he movant shows t hat t her e i s no genui ne di sput e as t o any
mat er i al f act and t he movant i s ent i t l ed t o j udgment as a mat t er
of l aw. ’ ” Maxwel l v. Cnt y. of San Di ego, 697 F. 3d 941, 947 ( 9t h
Ci r . 2012) ( quot i ng Fed. R. Ci v. P. 56( a) ) . Under Rul e 56, a
“par t y asser t i ng t hat a f act cannot be or i s genui nel y di sput ed
must suppor t t he asser t i on, ” ei t her by “ci t i ng t o par t i cul ar
par t s of mat er i al s i n t he r ecor d” or by “showi ng t hat t he
mat er i al s ci t ed do not est abl i sh t he absence or pr esence of a
genui ne di sput e, or t hat an adver se par t y cannot pr oduce
admi ssi bl e evi dence t o suppor t t he f act . ” Fed. R. Ci v. P.
56( c) ( 1) .
The subst ant i ve l aw det er mi nes whi ch f act s ar e
mat er i al ; “[ o] nl y di sput es over f act s t hat mi ght af f ect t he
out come of t he sui t under t he gover ni ng l aw wi l l pr oper l y
pr ecl ude t he ent r y of summar y j udgment . ” Ander son v. Li ber t y
- 12-
Case 1:11-cv-00589-ACK-BMK Document 137 Filed 07/18/14 Page 12 of 53 PageID #:
2015
Lobby, I nc. , 477 U. S. 242, 248 ( 1986) . “The mer e exi st ence of
some al l eged f act ual di sput e bet ween t he par t i es wi l l not def eat
an ot her wi se pr oper l y suppor t ed mot i on f or summar y j udgment ; t he
r equi r ement i s t hat t her e be no genui ne i ssue of mat er i al f act . ”
Scot t v. Har r i s, 550 U. S. 372, 380 ( 2007) ( ci t at i on omi t t ed)
( emphasi s i n or i gi nal ) .
A genui ne i ssue of mat er i al f act exi st s i f “a
r easonabl e j ur y coul d r et ur n a ver di ct f or t he nonmovi ng par t y. ”
Uni t ed St at es v. Ar ango, 670 F. 3d 988, 992 ( 9t h Ci r . 2012)
( quot i ng Ander son, 477 U. S. at 247) . Conver sel y, “[ w] her e t he
r ecor d t aken as a whol e coul d not l ead a r at i onal t r i er of f act
t o f i nd f or t he nonmovi ng par t y, t her e i s no genui ne i ssue f or
t r i al . ” Scot t , 550 U. S. at 380.
The movi ng par t y has t he bur den of per suadi ng t he cour t
as t o t he absence of a genui ne i ssue of mat er i al f act . Aval os v.
Baca, 596 F. 3d 583, 587 ( 9t h Ci r . 2010) .
8/
I f t he movi ng par t y
sat i sf i es i t s bur den, t he nonmovi ng par t y “must do mor e t han
si mpl y show t hat t her e i s some met aphysi cal doubt as t o t he
mat er i al f act s. ” Sl ui mer v. Ver i t y, I nc. , 606 F. 3d 584, 587 ( 9t h
8/
When t he par t y movi ng f or summar y j udgment woul d bear t he
bur den of pr oof at t r i al , t he movant must pr esent evi dence whi ch
woul d ent i t l e i t t o a di r ect ed ver di ct i f t he evi dence wer e t o go
uncont r over t ed at t r i al . Mi l l er v. Gl enn Mi l l er Pr ods. , 454 F. 3d
975, 987 ( 9t h Ci r . 2006) ( ci t at i on omi t t ed) . I n cont r ast , when
t he nonmovi ng par t y woul d bear t he bur den of pr oof at t r i al , t he
par t y movi ng f or summar y j udgment may meet i t s bur den by poi nt i ng
out t he absence of evi dence f r omt he nonmovi ng par t y. I d.
( ci t at i on omi t t ed) .
- 13-
Case 1:11-cv-00589-ACK-BMK Document 137 Filed 07/18/14 Page 13 of 53 PageID #:
2016
Ci r . 2010) . The nonmovi ng par t y must pr esent evi dence of a
“genui ne i ssue f or t r i al , ” Fed. R. Ci v. P. 56( e) , t hat i s
“si gni f i cant l y pr obat i ve or mor e t han mer el y col or abl e. ” LVRC
Hol di ngs LLC v. Br ekka, 581 F. 3d 1127, 1137 ( 9t h Ci r . 2009)
( ci t at i on omi t t ed) . Summar y j udgment wi l l be gr ant ed agai nst a
par t y who f ai l s t o demonst r at e f act s suf f i ci ent t o est abl i sh “an
el ement essent i al t o t hat par t y’ s case and on whi ch t hat par t y
wi l l bear t he bur den of pr oof at t r i al . ” Par t h v. Pomona Val l ey
Hosp. Med. Ct r . , 630 F. 3d 794, 798- 99 ( 9t h Ci r . 2010) ( ci t at i on
omi t t ed) .
When eval uat i ng a mot i on f or summar y j udgment , t he
cour t must “vi ew t he f act s and dr aw r easonabl e i nf er ences i n t he
l i ght most f avor abl e t o t he par t y opposi ng t he summar y j udgment
mot i on. ” Scot t v. Har r i s, 550 U. S. 372, 378 ( 2007) . The cour t may
not , however , wei gh conf l i ct i ng evi dence or assess cr edi bi l i t y.
I n r e Bar boza, 545 F. 3d 702, 707 ( 9t h Ci r . 2008) .
9/
Accor di ngl y,
i f “r easonabl e mi nds coul d di f f er as t o t he i mpor t of t he
9/
Nonet hel ess, a “concl usor y, sel f - ser vi ng af f i davi t ” t hat
l acks det ai l ed f act s and suppor t i ng evi dence may not cr eat e a
genui ne i ssue of mat er i al f act . F. T. C. v. Neovi , I nc. , 604 F. 3d
1150, 1159 ( 9t h Ci r . 2010) . Mor eover , “[ w] hen opposi ng par t i es
t el l t wo di f f er ent st or i es, one of whi ch i s bl at ant l y
cont r adi ct ed by t he r ecor d, so t hat no r easonabl e j ur y coul d
bel i eve i t , a cour t shoul d not adopt t hat ver si on of t he f act s
f or pur poses of r ul i ng on a mot i on f or summar y j udgment . ” Scot t ,
550 U. S. at 380. “The gener al r ul e i n t he Ni nt h Ci r cui t i s t hat a
par t y cannot cr eat e an i ssue of f act by an af f i davi t
cont r adi ct i ng hi s pr i or deposi t i on t est i mony. ” Yeager v. Bowl i n,
693 F. 3d 1076, 1080 ( 9t h Ci r . 2012) .
- 14-
Case 1:11-cv-00589-ACK-BMK Document 137 Filed 07/18/14 Page 14 of 53 PageID #:
2017
evi dence, ” summar y j udgment wi l l be deni ed. Ander son, 477 U. S. at
250–51.
B. Motion for Reconsideration
A mot i on f or r econsi der at i on must ( 1) “demonst r at e
r easons why t he cour t shoul d r econsi der i t s pr i or deci si on” and
( 2) “must set f or t h f act s or l aw of a st r ongl y convi nci ng nat ur e
t o i nduce t he cour t t o r ever se i t s pr i or deci si on. ” Hel e Ku KB,
LLC v. BAC Home Loans Ser vi ci ng, LP, 873 F. Supp. 2d 1268, 1289
( D. Haw. 2012) . The Ni nt h Ci r cui t has hel d t hat r econsi der at i on
i s appr opr i at e i f ( 1) t he di st r i ct cour t i s pr esent ed wi t h “newl y
di scover ed evi dence, ” ( 2) t he di st r i ct cour t “commi t t ed cl ear
er r or or t he i ni t i al deci si on was mani f est l y unj ust , ” or ( 3) “i f
t her e i s an i nt er veni ng change i n cont r ol l i ng l aw. ” Nunes v.
Ashcr of t , 375 F. 3d 805, 807 ( 9t h Ci r . 2004) .
Mer e di sagr eement wi t h a pr evi ous or der i s an
i nsuf f i ci ent basi s f or r econsi der at i on. See Leong v. Hi l t on
Hot el s Cor p. , 689 F. Supp. 1572 ( D. Haw. 1988) . “Whet her or not
t o gr ant r econsi der at i on i s commi t t ed t o t he sound di scr et i on of
t he cour t . ” Navaj o Nat i on v. Conf eder at ed Tr i bes and Bands of t he
Yakama I ndi an Nat i on, 331 F. 3d 1041, 1046 ( 9t h Ci r . 2003)
( ci t at i on omi t t ed) .
DISCUSSION
I. Whether Plaintiff Has Standing
Def endant s ar gue t hat t he Cour t shoul d di smi ss
- 15-
Case 1:11-cv-00589-ACK-BMK Document 137 Filed 07/18/14 Page 15 of 53 PageID #:
2018
Pl ai nt i f f ’ s Amended Compl ai nt i n i t s ent i r et y because Pl ai nt i f f
l acks st andi ng t o br i ng t hi s l awsui t . Because st andi ng i s a
t hr eshol d r equi r ement , wi t hout whi ch a di st r i ct cour t l acks
j ur i sdi ct i on, t he Cour t addr esses t hi s i ssue f i r st . Car denas v.
Anzai , 311 F. 3d 929, 933 ( 9t h Ci r . 2002) .
“To sat i sf y Ar t i cl e I I I st andi ng, a pl ai nt i f f must
show: ( 1) [ he] has suf f er ed an ‘ i nj ur y i n f act ’ t hat i s ‘ concr et e
and par t i cul ar i zed’ and ‘ act ual or i mmi nent , not conj ect ur al or
hypot het i cal ’ ; ( 2) a ‘ causal connect i on bet ween t he i nj ur y’ and
t he chal l enged act i on of t he def endant ; and ( 3) t hat i t i s
‘ l i kel y, as opposed t o mer el y specul at i ve, t hat t he i nj ur y wi l l
be r edr essed by a f avor abl e deci si on. ’ ” Mul t i st ar I ndust r i es,
I nc. v. U. S. Dep’ t of Tr ansp. , 707 F. 3d 1045, 1054 ( 9t h Ci r .
2013) ( quot i ng Luj an v. Def ender s of Wi l dl i f e, 504 U. S. 555, 560-
61 ( 1992) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks and al t er at i on omi t t ed) ) .
Def endant s asser t t hat Pl ai nt i f f l acks st andi ng t o
br i ng t hi s sui t because he i s pr ecl uded f r omobt ai ni ng f i r ear ms
under H. R. S. § 134- 7 and, t her ef or e, cannot est abl i sh a vi ol at i on
of hi s Second Amendment r i ght s. However , Def endant s pr ovi de no
aut hor i t y f or t he pr oposi t i on t hat a pl ai nt i f f l acks Ar t i cl e I I I
st andi ng i f he cannot succeed on t he mer i t s of hi s cl ai ms.
Rat her , cases f r omt he Supr eme Cour t , Ni nt h Ci r cui t , and ot her
f eder al ci r cui t cour t s of appeal suggest t he opposi t e. See Davi s
v. Passman, 442 U. S. 228, 239 n. 18 ( 1979) ( not i ng t hat t he
- 16-
Case 1:11-cv-00589-ACK-BMK Document 137 Filed 07/18/14 Page 16 of 53 PageID #:
2019
quest i on of whet her a pl ai nt i f f has st andi ng t o br i ng sui t , and
t hus whet her t he cour t has j ur i sdi ct i on t o hear t he cont r over sy,
i s separ at e f r omt he quest i on of whet her a pl ai nt i f f has a
mer i t or i ous cause of act i on) ; Car denas v. Anzai , 311 F. 3d 929,
933- 34 ( 9t h Ci r . 2002) ( f i ndi ng t hat medi cai d r eci pi ent s who
cl ai med t hat t he st at e was obl i gat ed t o di st r i but e f unds t o t hem
f r omt he set t l ement of cl ai ms agai nst t obacco compani es had
st andi ng, even t hough t hei r cl ai ms wer e def eat ed on t he mer i t s by
a f eder al st at ut e) ; Hi ght ower v. Ci t y of Bost on, 693 F. 3d 61, 65
& 70 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) ( f i ndi ng t hat f or mer pol i ce of f i cer had
st andi ng even t hough her Second Amendment as- appl i ed and f aci al
at t ack cl ai ms f ai l ed) .
10/

Her e, i t i s cl ear t hat HPD’ s deni al of Pl ai nt i f f ’ s
appl i cat i on f or a f i r ear ms per mi t i n 2009, subsequent or der t o
sur r ender t he f i r ear ms he possessed, and Sept ember 29, 2010
l et t er af f i r mi ng t he deni al of Pl ai nt i f f ’ s appl i cat i on,
const i t ut e an “i nj ur y- i n- f act ” suf f i ci ent t o meet t he mi ni mum
10/
Def endant s f ur t her ar gue t hat because Pl ai nt i f f seeks
decl ar at or y and i nj unct i ve r el i ef , he i s r equi r ed t o show a “ver y
si gni f i cant possi bi l i t y of f ut ur e har m” i n or der t o have
st andi ng. ( Def s. ’ s Mot . at 28 ( ci t i ng Br as v. Cal i f or ni a Pub.
Ut i l . Comm’ n, 59 F. 3d 869, 873 ( 9t h Ci r . 1995) ) . ) I n t hi s case,
Pl ai nt i f f can show “f ut ur e har m” i n t he f or mof HPD’ s cont i nued
deni al of hi s f i r ear ms per mi t appl i cat i on. I n any event , as
expl ai ned i n t he Cour t ’ s 2012 Pr el i mi nar y I nj unct i on Or der ,
Def endant s’ al l eged vi ol at i on of t he Second Amendment per se
const i t ut es i r r epar abl e har m. See 2012 Pr el i mi nar y I nj unct i on
Or der at 29- 31.
- 17-
Case 1:11-cv-00589-ACK-BMK Document 137 Filed 07/18/14 Page 17 of 53 PageID #:
2020
r equi r ement s of Ar t i cl e I I I st andi ng.
11/
See Hi ght ower , 693 F. 3d
at 70 ( f i ndi ng t hat t he Bost on Pol i ce Depar t ment ’ s r evocat i on of
f or mer pol i ce of f i cer ’ s f i r ear ms l i cense sat i sf i ed t he
r equi r ement s of Ar t i cl e I I I st andi ng) ( ci t i ng Par ker v. Di st r i ct
of Col umbi a, 478 F. 3d 370, 376 ( D. C. Ci r . 2007) ( “We have
consi st ent l y t r eat ed a l i cense or per mi t deni al pur suant t o a
st at e or f eder al admi ni st r at i ve scheme as an Ar t i cl e I I I
i nj ur y. ”) , af f ’ d sub nom. Di st r i ct of Col umbi a v. Hel l er , 554
U. S. 570 ( 2008) .
Accor di ngl y, Pl ai nt i f f has st andi ng.
II. Whether Federal or Hawaii Law Precludes Plaintiff From
Obtaining a Firearms Permit
The cr ux of t he Amended Compl ai nt i s Pl ai nt i f f ’ s
cont ent i on t hat he i s st at ut or i l y qual i f i ed under bot h f eder al
and Hawai i l aw t o r ecei ve a f i r ear ms per mi t and Def endant s’
f ai l ur e t o compl y wi t h f eder al and Hawai i l aw const i t ut es a
deni al of hi s Second Amendment r i ght s. See Sept . 30 Or der at 18-
19; Am. Compl . 16- 17.
I n i t s Sept . 30 Or der , t he Cour t f ound t hat f eder al l aw
di d not pr ecl ude Pl ai nt i f f f r omobt ai ni ng a f i r ear ms per mi t
because hi s har assment convi ct i ons under H. R. S. § 711- 1106( 1) ( a)
di d not qual i f y as “mi sdemeanor cr i me[ s] of domest i c vi ol ence”
under t he Laut enber g Amendment , 18 U. S. C. § 922( g) ( 9) . Sept . 30
11/
Def endant s admi t t hat Pl ai nt i f f has sat i sf i ed t he ot her
el ement s of Ar t i cl e I I I st andi ng. ( See Def s. ’ s Mot . at 28. )
- 18-
Case 1:11-cv-00589-ACK-BMK Document 137 Filed 07/18/14 Page 18 of 53 PageID #:
2021
Or der at 22. Because t he Cour t concl uded t hat f eder al l aw di d not
bar Pl ai nt i f f f r omobt ai ni ng a f i r ear ms per mi t , t he Cour t di d not
deci de whet her H. R. S. § 134- 7( a) pr ecl uded Pl ai nt i f f f r om
acqui r i ng a f i r ear ms per mi t . I d. at 20 n. 15. I n addi t i on, t he
Cour t concl uded t hat H. R. S. § 134- 7( b) di d not di squal i f y
Pl ai nt i f f f r omexer ci si ng hi s Second Amendment r i ght s because hi s
har assment convi ct i ons di d not const i t ut e “cr i me[ s] of vi ol ence. ”
I d. at 54. Fi nal l y, t he Cour t f ound t hat Pl ai nt i f f di d not
est abl i sh t hat he was qual i f i ed under H. R. S. § 134- 7( c) t o
possess f i r ear ms. I d. at 61.
I n t he i nst ant Mot i on, Def endant s r equest t hat t he
Cour t r econsi der i t s Sept . 30 or der i n i t s ent i r et y due t o an
i nt er veni ng change i n l aw or , i n t he al t er nat i ve, gr ant summar y
j udgment i n t hei r f avor as t o al l cl ai ms because Pl ai nt i f f i s
st at ut or i l y di squal i f i ed under bot h f eder al and Hawai i l aw f r om
acqui r i ng a f i r ear ms per mi t . ( Def s. ’ s Mot . at 1- 2. ) Def endant s’
Mot i on i s essent i al l y based on t he U. S. Supr eme Cour t ’ s r ecent
2014 deci si on i n U. S. v. Cast l eman, 134 S. Ct . 1405 ( 2014) .
The Cour t wi l l f i r st addr ess whet her f eder al l aw
pr ecl udes Pl ai nt i f f f r omobt ai ni ng a f i r ear ms per mi t . The Cour t
wi l l t hen addr ess whet her Hawai i l aw pr ecl udes Pl ai nt i f f f r om
obt ai ni ng a f i r ear ms per mi t .
A. Federal Law
The Laut enber g Amendment , 18 U. S. C. § 922( g) ( 9) ,
- 19-
Case 1:11-cv-00589-ACK-BMK Document 137 Filed 07/18/14 Page 19 of 53 PageID #:
2022
pr ovi des t hat any per son “who has been convi ct ed i n any cour t of
a mi sdemeanor cr i me of domest i c vi ol ence” may not “possess i n or
af f ect i ng commer ce any f i r ear mor ammuni t i on. ” The st at ut e
def i nes a “mi sdemeanor cr i me of domest i c vi ol ence” as “an of f ense
t hat . . . ( i ) i s a mi sdemeanor under Feder al , St at e, or Tr i bal
l aw; and ( i i ) has, as an el ement , t he use or at t empt ed use of
physi cal f or ce . . . commi t t ed by a cur r ent or f or mer spouse [ or ]
par ent . ” I d. § 921( a) ( 33) ( A) .
Pl ai nt i f f was convi ct ed of vi ol at i ng H. R. S. § 711-
1106( 1) ( a) , whi ch pr ovi des t hat a per son “commi t s t he of f ense of
har assment i f , wi t h i nt ent t o har ass, annoy, or al ar many ot her
per son, t hat per son . . . [ s] t r i kes, shoves, ki cks, or ot her wi se
t ouches anot her per son i n an of f ensi ve manner or subj ect s t he
ot her per son t o of f ensi ve physi cal cont act . ” The Comment ar y on
t hi s st at ut e st at es t hat Subsect i on 1( a) “i s a r est at ement of t he
common- l aw cr i me of bat t er y, whi ch was commi t t ed by any sl i ght
t ouchi ng of anot her per son i n a manner whi ch i s known t o be
of f ensi ve t o t hat per son. ”
As expl ai ned i n t he Sept . 30 Or der , cour t s use t he
“cat egor i cal appr oach” t o det er mi ne whet her a convi ct i on f or a
st at e cr i me f al l s wi t hi n t he f eder al def i ni t i on of a par t i cul ar
act or cr i me. Sept . 30 Or der at 22 ( ci t i ng Descamps v. U. S. , 133
S. Ct . 2276, 2281 ( 2013) ) . Under t he cat egor i cal appr oach,
f eder al l aw bar s Pl ai nt i f f f r ompossessi ng f i r ear ms i f t he st at e
- 20-
Case 1:11-cv-00589-ACK-BMK Document 137 Filed 07/18/14 Page 20 of 53 PageID #:
2023
cr i me of har assment pr oscr i bes t he same conduct as t he
mi sdemeanor cr i me of domest i c vi ol ence def i ned i n t he Laut enber g
Amendment . I d. However , i f H. R. S. § 711- 1106( 1) ( a) pr ohi bi t s mor e
conduct t han 18 U. S. C. § 922( g) ( 9) , t hen Pl ai nt i f f ’ s har assment
convi ct i ons do not qual i f y as mi sdemeanor cr i mes of domest i c
vi ol ence under f eder al l aw. I d.
Thi s Cour t f ur t her expl ai ned i n t he Sept . 30 Or der t hat
t he Supr eme Cour t has appr oved a var i ant of t he cat egor i cal
appr oach: t he so- cal l ed “modi f i ed cat egor i cal appr oach. ” Sept . 30
Or der at 25. The modi f i ed cat egor i cal appr oach “hel ps ef f ect uat e
t he cat egor i cal anal ysi s when a di vi si bl e st at ut e, l i st i ng
pot ent i al of f ense el ement s i n t he al t er nat i ve, r ender s opaque
whi ch el ement pl ayed a par t i n t he of f ender ’ s convi ct i on. ” I d.
( quot i ng Descamps, 133 S. Ct . at 2283) . Accor di ng t o t he Supr eme
Cour t , “t he key . . . i s el ement s, not f act s. ” I d. at 26. Thus,
t o det er mi ne t he el ement s under l yi ng t he convi ct i on, t he Supr eme
Cour t has hel d t hat cour t s coul d exami ne “r el i abl e” document s
such as an i ndi ct ment or i nf or mat i on, j ur y i nst r uct i ons, a
t r anscr i pt of t he pl ea col l oquy or wr i t t en pl ea agr eement , or a
r ecor d of f i ndi ngs of f act adopt ed by t he of f ender upon ent er i ng
t he pl ea. I d. ( ci t i ng Tayl or v. U. S. , 495 U. S. 575, 602 ( 1990) ;
Shepar d v. U. S. , 544 U. S. 13, 16 ( 2005) ) .
I n i t s Sept . 30 Or der , t hi s Cour t concl uded t hat , under
bot h t he cat egor i cal and modi f i ed cat egor i cal appr oaches,
- 21-
Case 1:11-cv-00589-ACK-BMK Document 137 Filed 07/18/14 Page 21 of 53 PageID #:
2024
Pl ai nt i f f ’ s har assment convi ct i ons di d not di squal i f y hi munder
Sect i on 922( g) ( 9) f r ompossessi ng f i r ear ms. I d. at 32- 33.
Speci f i cal l y, t he Cour t , r el yi ng on t he Ni nt h Ci r cui t ’ s
i nt er pr et at i on of t he Laut enber g Amendment i n U. S. v. Bel l ess,
338 F. 3d 1063 ( 9t h Ci r . 2003) , concl uded t hat H. R. S. § 711-
1106( 1) ( a) pr ohi bi t ed mor e conduct t han 18 U. S. C. § 922( g) ( 9) .
Sept . 30 Or der at 24. I n Bel l ess, t he Ni nt h Ci r cui t hel d t hat t he
phr ase “physi cal f or ce” i n t he Laut enber g Amendment means “t he
vi ol ent use of f or ce agai nst t he body of anot her i ndi vi dual , ”
and, t her ef or e, does not i ncl ude “de mi ni mi s” t ouchi ng. Bel l ess,
338 F. 3d at 1068. Because H. R. S. § 711- 1106( 1) ( a) pr ohi bi t ed “de
mi ni mi s” or “sl i ght ” t ouchi ng and t he Laut enber g Amendment ( as
def i ned by Bel l ess) di d not pr ohi bi t such conduct , t hi s Cour t
hel d t hat a convi ct i on under t he Hawai i st at ut e di d not
cat egor i cal l y qual i f y as a “mi sdemeanor cr i me of domest i c
vi ol ence. ” Sept . 30 Or der at 24.
The Cour t f ur t her det er mi ned t hat i t may appl y t he
modi f i ed cat egor i cal appr oach because t he el ement s of H. R. S. §
711- 1106( 1) ( a) ar e l i st ed i n t he di sj unct i ve. I d. at 27. Because
t he char gi ng document and t he j udgment ( t he onl y document s deemed
r el i abl e by t he Cour t ) i ncl ude t he el ement s of har assment t hat
al l ow f or convi ct i on on t he basi s of of f ensi ve or de mi ni mi s
t ouchi ng, t he Cour t f ound t hat Pl ai nt i f f ’ s convi ct i ons wer e not
cover ed by t he Laut enber g Amendment under t he modi f i ed
- 22-
Case 1:11-cv-00589-ACK-BMK Document 137 Filed 07/18/14 Page 22 of 53 PageID #:
2025
cat egor i cal appr oach. I d. at 28.
I n t he Sept . 30 Or der , t he Cour t r ecogni zed a spl i t
bet ween t hose f eder al ci r cui t cour t s of appeal hol di ng t hat t he
“t ouchi ng” el ement of common l aw bat t er y const i t ut es “physi cal
f or ce” as cont empl at ed by t he Laut enber g Amendment and ot her s,
such as t he Ni nt h Ci r cui t i n Bel l ess, hol di ng t hat i t does not .
I d. at 23 n. 16.
I n U. S. v. Cast l eman, 134 S. Ct . 1405 ( 2014) , a
deci si on i ssued af t er t hi s Cour t ’ s Sept . 30 Or der , t he Supr eme
Cour t over r ul ed Bel l ess and sever al ot her Ci r cui t Cour t s of
Appeal by hol di ng t hat § 922( g) ( 9) ’ s “physi cal f or ce” r equi r ement
i s sat i sf i ed by t he degr ee of f or ce t hat suppor t s a common- l aw
bat t er y convi ct i on - namel y, of f ensi ve t ouchi ng. Cast l eman, 134
S. Ct . at 1410.
Cast l eman di st i ngui shed J ohnson v. U. S. , 559 U. S. 133
( 2010) , wher e t he Cour t consi der ed whet her a bat t er y convi ct i on
was a “vi ol ent f el ony” under t he Ar med Car eer Cr i mi nal Act
( “ACCA”) , 18 U. S. C. § 924( e) ( 1) . Si mi l ar t o t he Laut enber g
Amendment , ACCA def i nes a “vi ol ent f el ony” as one t hat “has as an
el ement t he use. . . of physi cal f or ce. ” I d. 924( e) ( 2) ( B) ( i ) .
J ohnson decl i ned t o r ead t he common- l aw meani ng of “f or ce, ” whi ch
i ncl udes sl i ght of f ensi ve t ouchi ng, i nt o ACCA’ s def i ni t i on of
“vi ol ent f el ony” because i t woul d be a “comi cal mi sf i t wi t h t he
def i ned t er m. ” J ohnson, 599 U. S. at 145. I n def i ni ng a “vi ol ent
- 23-
Case 1:11-cv-00589-ACK-BMK Document 137 Filed 07/18/14 Page 23 of 53 PageID #:
2026
f el ony” f or pur poses of ACCA, t he J ohnson Cour t hel d t hat t he
phr ase “physi cal f or ce” must “mea[ n] vi ol ent f or ce. ” I d. at 140
( emphasi s i n or i gi nal ) .
I n cont r ast , Cast l eman hel d t hat t he common- l aw
meani ng of f or ce “f i t s per f ect l y” wi t hi n § 922( g) ( 9) ’ s def i ni t i on
of a mi sdemeanor cr i me of domest i c vi ol ence. Cast l eman, 134 S.
Ct . 1410. Speci f i cal l y, t he Cour t f ound t hat “because
per pet r at or s of domest i c vi ol ence ar e r out i nel y pr osecut ed under
gener al l y appl i cabl e assaul t or bat t er y l aws, i t makes sense f or
Congr ess t o have cl assi f i ed as a mi sdemeanor cr i me of domest i c
vi ol ence t he t ype of conduct t hat suppor t s a common- l aw bat t er y
convi ct i on. ” I d. at 1411 ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks and ci t at i on
omi t t ed) . The Cour t al so f ound t hat t he t er m“domest i c vi ol ence”
i s a “t er mof ar t encompassi ng act s t hat one mi ght not
char act er i ze as ‘ vi ol ent ’ i n a nondomest i c cont ext . ” I d. The
Cour t ’ s hol di ng was f ur t her bol st er ed by t he st at us of st at e l aws
when Congr ess enact ed § 922( g) ( 9) : i f of f ensi ve t ouchi ng di d not
const i t ut e “f or ce, ” § 922( g) ( 9) woul d not have appl i ed i n t en
st at es whi ch make up t hi r t y per cent of t he nat i on’ s popul at i on.
I d. at 1413. As such, t he Supr eme Cour t i n Cast l eman concl uded
t hat “Congr ess i ncor por at ed t he common- l aw meani ng of ‘ f or ce’ -
namel y, of f ensi ve t ouchi ng - i n § 921( a) ( 33) ( A) ’ s def i ni t i on of a
‘ mi sdemeanor cr i me of domest i c vi ol ence. ’ ” I d. at 1410.
Pur suant t o Cast l eman, t hi s Cour t f i nds t hat , under
- 24-
Case 1:11-cv-00589-ACK-BMK Document 137 Filed 07/18/14 Page 24 of 53 PageID #:
2027
t he cat egor i cal appr oach, Pl ai nt i f f ’ s har assment convi ct i ons
qual i f y as mi sdemeanor cr i mes of domest i c vi ol ence under f eder al
l aw. As i ndi cat ed above, H. R. S. § 711- 1106( 1) ( a) pr ohi bi t s
“of f ensi ve t ouchi ng” or “of f ensi ve physi cal cont act ” as wel l as
“st r i ki ng, shovi ng, and ki cki ng. ” The Comment ar y on t hi s st at ut e
pr ovi des t hat Subsect i on 1( a) “i s a r est at ement of t he common- l aw
cr i me of bat t er y, whi ch was commi t t ed by any sl i ght t ouchi ng of
anot her per son i n a manner whi ch i s known t o be of f ensi ve t o t hat
per son. ” Accor di ngl y, t he f eder al “mi sdemeanor cr i me of domest i c
vi ol ence, ” as def i ned by t he Supr eme Cour t i n Cast l eman,
pr oscr i bes t he same conduct as H. R. S. § 711- 1106( 1) ( a) . That i s,
ever y el ement of t he Hawai i of f ense sat i sf i es t he Supr eme Cour t ’ s
def i ni t i on of “physi cal f or ce” under § 922( g) ( 9) . Thi s Cour t
t her ef or e hol ds t hat Pl ai nt i f f i s pr ohi bi t ed under f eder al l aw
f r ompossessi ng f i r ear ms.
12/
Pl ai nt i f f ar gues “t hat Cast l eman must be nar r owl y
const r ued t o appl y onl y t o mi sdemeanor cr i mes of domest i c
vi ol ence. ” ( Pl . ’ s Opp. at 8) ( emphasi s i n or i gi nal . ) Accor di ng t o
Pl ai nt i f f , hi s H. R. S. § 711- 1106( 1) ( a) har assment convi ct i ons ar e
12/
As di scussed above, t he Cour t i n i t s Sept . 30 Or der
empl oyed t he modi f i ed cat egor i cal appr oach and f ound t hat ,
because t he char gi ng document and t he j udgment i ncl ude t he
el ement s of har assment t hat al l ow f or convi ct i on on t he basi s of
de mi ni mi s t ouchi ng, Pl ai nt i f f ’ s convi ct i ons wer e not cover ed by
Sect i on 922( g) ( 9) . Now, i n l i ght of Cast l eman, a convi ct i on on
t he basi s of of f ensi ve t ouchi ng i s cover ed by t he Laut enber g
Amendment . Consequent l y, f eder al l aw di squal i f i es Pl ai nt i f f f r om
obt ai ni ng f i r ear ms even under t he modi f i ed cat egor i cal appr oach.
- 25-
Case 1:11-cv-00589-ACK-BMK Document 137 Filed 07/18/14 Page 25 of 53 PageID #:
2028
not “mi sdemeanor cr i me[ s] of domest i c vi ol ence” because a
domest i c r el at i onshi p i s not a r equi r ed el ement of t he Hawai i
of f ense. ( I d. at 9. )
As expl ai ned i n t he Sept . 30 Or der , st at e cr i mes do not
need t o i ncl ude t he el ement of a “domest i c r el at i onshi p” i n or der
t o f al l wi t hi n Laut enber g’ s f i r ear ms pr ohi bi t i on, pur suant t o t he
Supr eme Cour t ’ s deci si on i n U. S. v. Hayes, 555 U. S. 415 ( 2009) .
Sept . 30 Or der at 21. I n Hayes, t he Supr eme Cour t st at ed t hat a
“mi sdemeanor cr i me of domest i c vi ol ence” must have “as an
el ement , t he use or at t empt ed use of physi cal f or ce, or t he
t hr eat ened use of a deadl y weapon, ” and must be “commi t t ed by a
per son who has a speci f i ed domest i c r el at i onshi p wi t h t he
vi ct i m. ” Hayes, 555 U. S. at 421.
Thus, whi l e Cast l eman f ocused on i t s r ul i ng t hat
“Congr ess i ncor por at ed t he common- l aw meani ng of ‘ f or ce’ -
namel y, of f ensi ve t ouchi ng - i n § 921( a) ( 33) ( A) ’ s def i ni t i on of a
‘ mi sdemeanor cr i me of domest i c vi ol ence’ ”; Hayes ( whi ch Pl ai nt i f f
does not even ment i on i n hi s Opposi t i on) addr essed t he i ssue of
domest i c r el at i onshi p and hel d t hat t he Laut enber g Amendment does
not r equi r e t hat t he pr edi cat e st at e of f ense i ncl ude, as a
di scr et e el ement , t he exi st ence of a domest i c r el at i onshi p
bet ween t he of f ender and vi ct i m. I d. at 421. Rat her , i t suf f i ces
t hat “a pr i or convi ct i on [ ] was, i n f act , f or ‘ an of f ense . . .
commi t t ed by’ t he def endant agai nst a spouse or ot her domest i c
- 26-
Case 1:11-cv-00589-ACK-BMK Document 137 Filed 07/18/14 Page 26 of 53 PageID #:
2029
vi ct i m. ” I d. Her e, Pl ai nt i f f admi t s i n hi s Amended Compl ai nt and
deposi t i on t hat Col et t e Fi sher i s cur r ent l y hi s wi f e and t hat
t hey wer e mar r i ed at t he t i me of t he 1997 i nci dent . ( Am. Compl . ¶
24; Doc. No. 99- 2 ( “Deposi t i on of Ki r k C. Fi sher ”) at 9- 10. )
13/ 14/
Havi ng empl oyed t he cat egor i cal appr oach and concl uded
t hat Pl ai nt i f f ’ s har assment convi ct i ons qual i f y as “mi sdemeanor
cr i me[ s] of domest i c vi ol ence” pur suant t o Cast l eman, t hi s Cour t
need not appl y t he modi f i ed cat egor i cal appr oach. Never t hel ess,
i n an abundance of caut i on, t hi s Cour t wi l l addr ess t he f ol l owi ng
asser t i on by Pl ai nt i f f .
Pl ai nt i f f asser t s t hat , under t he modi f i ed cat egor i cal
appr oach, t he Cour t cannot consi der Pl ai nt i f f ’ s admi ssi on i n hi s
Amended Compl ai nt and deposi t i on t hat he was mar r i ed t o Col et t e
13/
Thi s Cour t al so pr evi ousl y addr essed Pl ai nt i f f ’ s ar gument
i n i t s 2012 Pr el i mi nar y I nj unct i on Or der . I n t hat Or der , t hi s
Cour t , i n di scussi ng U. S. v. Hayes, 555 U. S. 415 ( 2009) , f ound
t hat Laut enber g’ s “domest i c r el at i onshi p” r equi r ement was
sat i sf i ed because “t he Compl ai nt est abl i she[ d] t hat Pl ai nt i f f ’ s
cr i me was commi t t ed agai nst f ami l y member s. ” 2012 Pr el i mi nar y
I nj unct i on Or der at 20- 21 n. 17 ( ci t i ng or i gi nal Compl . ¶ 16) .
14/
The di ssent i n Hayes ar gued t hat “[ u] nder t he maj or i t y’ s
appr oach . . . i t wi l l of t en be necessar y t o go beyond t he f act
of convi ct i on and ‘ engage i n an el abor at e f act f i ndi ng pr ocess
r egar di ng t he def endant ’ s pr i or of f ens[ e] , ’ Tayl or v. U. S. , 495
U. S. 575, 601 ( 1990) , t o det er mi ne whet her i t happened t o i nvol ve
domest i c vi ol ence. ” Hayes, 555 U. S. at 436. Accor di ng t o t he
Hayes di ssent , such an appr oach r uns cont r ar y t o i t s pr i or
deci si on i n Tayl or wher e t he Cour t adopt ed a cat egor i cal appr oach
t o pr edi cat e of f enses under t he Ar med Car eer Cr i mi nal Act , 18
U. S. C. § 924( e) ( 1) , “l ooki ng onl y t o t he st at ut or y def i ni t i ons of
t he pr i or of f enses, and not t o t he par t i cul ar f act s under l yi ng
t hose convi ct i ons. ” I d. ( quot i ng Tayl or , 495 U. S. at 600) .
- 27-
Case 1:11-cv-00589-ACK-BMK Document 137 Filed 07/18/14 Page 27 of 53 PageID #:
2030
Fi sher at t he t i me of t he 1997 i nci dent . ( Pl . ’ s Opp. at 9- 10. )
As di scussed above, t he modi f i ed cat egor i cal appr oach
per mi t s cour t s t o exami ne a l i mi t ed set of r el i abl e document s,
such as an i ndi ct ment or pl ea agr eement , t o ascer t ai n t he
speci f i c el ement t hat a def endant was convi ct ed of vi ol at i ng when
a st at ut e cont ai ns mul t i pl e, al t er nat i ve el ement s. Descamps, 133
S. Ct . at 2285. The Ni nt h Ci r cui t has hel d t hat st at ement s or
admi ssi ons by an of f ender may not be used under t he modi f i ed
cat egor i cal appr oach i f t hey mer el y pr ovi de “bar e f act s” i nst ead
of demonst r at i ng t hat an of f ender ’ s gui l t y pl ea was based on t hat
conduct . Huer t a- Guevar a v. Ashcr of t , 321 F. 3d 883, 888 ( 9t h Ci r .
2003) . I t t her ef or e appear s t hat t hi s Cour t cannot consi der
Pl ai nt i f f ’ s admi ssi on i n hi s Amended Compl ai nt and deposi t i on
t hat he was mar r i ed t o Col et t e Fi sher at t he t i me of t he 1997
i nci dent under t he modi f i ed cat egor i cal appr oach.
Hayes i ndi cat es, however , t hat i t i s unnecessar y t o
exami ne t he el ement s of t he pr edi cat e of f ense when anal yzi ng
whet her t hat of f ense was “commi t t ed by a per son who has a
speci f i ed domest i c r el at i onshi p wi t h t he vi ct i m. ” Rat her , cour t s
may l ook at t he f act s under l yi ng t he convi ct i on t o det er mi ne
whet her t he “domest i c r el at i onshi p” r equi r ement i s sat i sf i ed. See
Hayes, 555 U. S. at 421 ( hol di ng t hat i t suf f i ces t hat “a pr i or
convi ct i on [ ] was, i n f act , f or ‘ an of f ense . . . commi t t ed by’
t he def endant agai nst a spouse or ot her domest i c vi ct i m”)
- 28-
Case 1:11-cv-00589-ACK-BMK Document 137 Filed 07/18/14 Page 28 of 53 PageID #:
2031
( emphasi s added) . Under Hayes, t he quest i on of “whet her a cr i me
i s one of ‘ domest i c vi ol ence’ depends on t he i dent i t y of t he
vi ct i mr at her t han t he el ement s of t he of f ense. ” U. S. v. Skoi en,
614 F. 3d 638, 642 ( 7t h Ci r . 2010) ; see al so U. S. v. Whi t e, 593
F. 3d 1199, 1204- 05 ( 11t h Ci r . 2010) ( hol di ng t hat a domest i c
r el at i onshi p must exi st as par t of t he f act s gi vi ng r i se t o t he
pr edi cat e of f ense, but i t need not be an el ement of t he pr i or
of f ense) ; U. S. v. Gr i f f i t h, 455 F. 3d 1339, 1346 ( 11t h Ci r . 2006)
( same) .
The Hayes di ssent and Skoi en, a subsequent Sevent h
Ci r cui t deci si on i nt er pr et i ng Hayes, conf i r mt hat t he Supr eme
Cour t i nt ended a f act - based i nqui r y i nt o whet her t he pr edi cat e
st at e of f ense was commi t t ed by a per son who has a “speci f i ed
domest i c r el at i onshi p” wi t h t he vi ct i mi nst ead of an i nqui r y
based on t he el ement s of t he of f ense. See Hayes, 555 U. S. at 436
( “Under t he maj or i t y’ s appr oach . . . i t wi l l of t en be necessar y
t o go beyond t he f act of convi ct i on and engage i n an el abor at e
f act f i ndi ng pr ocess r egar di ng t he def endant ’ s pr i or of f ense t o
det er mi ne whet her i t happened t o i nvol ve domest i c vi ol ence. ”)
( Rober t s, C. J . , di ssent i ng) ( i nt er nal ci t at i on and al t er at i on
omi t t ed) ; Skoi en, 614 F. 3d at 642 ( f i ndi ng t hat , under Hayes, t he
domest i c nat ur e of t he r el at i onshi p depends on t he i dent i t y of
t he vi ct i mr at her t han t he el ement s of t he pr edi cat e of f ense) .
Pur suant t o Hayes, t hi s Cour t can exami ne t he f act s
- 29-
Case 1:11-cv-00589-ACK-BMK Document 137 Filed 07/18/14 Page 29 of 53 PageID #:
2032
under l yi ng Pl ai nt i f f ’ s har assment convi ct i ons t o see i f t her e
exi st ed a “speci f i ed domest i c r el at i onshi p” bet ween Pl ai nt i f f and
t he vi ct i m. As not ed above, Pl ai nt i f f admi t s i n hi s Amended
Compl ai nt and deposi t i on t hat Col et t e Fi sher i s cur r ent l y hi s
wi f e and t hat t hey wer e mar r i ed at t he t i me of t he 1997 i nci dent .
Accor di ngl y, Pl ai nt i f f ’ s r el at i onshi p wi t h Col et t e Fi sher
sat i sf i es Laut enber g’ s domest i c r el at i onshi p r equi r ement .
Because Pl ai nt i f f was convi ct ed under H. R. S. § 711-
1106( 1) ( a) whi ch has “as an el ement , t he use . . . of physi cal
f or ce” and commi t t ed t hi s of f ense agai nst hi s wi f e, Pl ai nt i f f ’ s
convi ct i ons qual i f y as “mi sdemeanor cr i me[ s] of domest i c
vi ol ence” and, t her ef or e, he i s pr ecl uded f r ompossessi ng
f i r ear ms under f eder al l aw. As a r esul t , t he Cour t must concl ude
t hat Pl ai nt i f f ’ s Amended Compl ai nt must be di smi ssed i n i t s
ent i r et y.
As not ed her ei nbef or e, t he f ocus of t he Amended
Compl ai nt i s Pl ai nt i f f ’ s asser t i on t hat he i s qual i f i ed t o obt ai n
a f i r ear ms per mi t under f eder al and Hawai i st at ut or y l aw and
Def endant s’ f ai l ur e t o pr ovi de hi mwi t h such a per mi t const i t ut es
a deni al of hi s Second Amendment r i ght t o keep and bear ar ms.
Sept . 30 Or der at 18- 19. Am. Compl . 10- 17. Pl ai nt i f f al so asser t s
t hat hi s Four t eent h Amendment due pr ocess r i ght s wer e vi ol at ed i n
connect i on wi t h hi s al l eged Second Amendment r i ght s. I d. at 15-
17. I n addi t i on, Pl ai nt i f f asser t s cl ai ms under 42 U. S. C. § 1983,
- 30-
Case 1:11-cv-00589-ACK-BMK Document 137 Filed 07/18/14 Page 30 of 53 PageID #:
2033
whi ch ar e pr edi cat ed upon t he al l eged Second and Four t eent h
Amendment vi ol at i ons. I d.
I n i t s Sept . 30 Or der , t he Cour t r ej ect ed Def endant s’
cont ent i on t hat Pl ai nt i f f was pr ohi bi t ed f r ompossessi ng f i r ear ms
under 18 U. S. C. § 922( g) ( 9) because hi s har assment convi ct i ons
di d not cat egor i cal l y qual i f y as mi sdemeanor cr i mes of domest i c
vi ol ence. Now, i n l i ght of Cast l eman, t he Laut enber g Amendment
st at ut or i l y di squal i f i es Pl ai nt i f f f r omobt ai ni ng a f i r ear ms
per mi t . Accor di ngl y, Pl ai nt i f f cannot est abl i sh t hat hi s Second
Amendment r i ght s wer e vi ol at ed.
Ami cus cur i ae HDF, ci t i ng U. S. v. Chovan, 735 F. 3d
1127, 1129- 30 ( 9t h Ci r . 2013) , r ai ses t he ar gument t hat §
922( g) ( 9) i s unconst i t ut i onal as appl i ed t o Pl ai nt i f f because
Hawai i l aw of f er s hi ml i mi t ed means t o r est or e hi s Second
Amendment r i ght s. ( HDF’ s Apr i l 10 Supp. Br i ef at 3. )
15/
Accor di ng
t o HDF, “[ t ] he pl ai n l anguage of t he Laut enber g Amendment
cont empl at es some mechani smf or r ei nst at i ng Second Amendment
15/
To t he ext ent t hat HDF al so asser t s a f aci al chal l enge t o
§ 922( g) ( 9) , t he anal ysi s t o be appl i ed i s t he same. See Br ookl yn
Legal Ser vs. Cor p v. Legal Ser vs. Cor p. , 462 F. 3d 219, 228 ( 2d
Ci r . 2006) ( “Faci al and as- appl i ed chal l enges di f f er i n t he
ext ent t o whi ch t he i nval i di t y of a st at ut e need be demonst r at ed
. . . . I nvar i ant , however , i s t he subst ant i ve r ul e of l aw t o be
used. I n ot her wor ds, how one must demonst r at e t he st at ut e’ s
i nval i di t y r emai ns t he same f or bot h t ypes of chal l enges, namel y,
by showi ng t hat a speci f i c r ul e of l aw, usual l y a const i t ut i onal
r ul e of l aw, i nval i dat es t he st at ut e, whet her i n a per sonal
appl i cat i on or t o al l . ”) ( emphasi s i n or i gi nal ) ; see al so U. S. v.
Sal er no, 481 U. S. 739, 745 ( 1987) ( descr i bi ng t he f aci al
chal l enge st andar d) .
- 31-
Case 1:11-cv-00589-ACK-BMK Document 137 Filed 07/18/14 Page 31 of 53 PageID #:
2034
r i ght s af t er a mi sdemeanor convi ct i on f or domest i c vi ol ence, ” and
Hawai i does not pr ovi de such mechani sm. ( I d. at 3- 4. )
I n Chovan, t he Ni nt h Ci r cui t , appl yi ng i nt er medi at e
scr ut i ny, hel d t hat 18 U. S. C. § 922( g) ( 9) may pr ohi bi t an
i ndi vi dual who commi t s a mi sdemeanor cr i me of domest i c vi ol ence
f r ompossessi ng f i r ear ms wi t hout vi ol at i ng t he Second Amendment .
735 F. 3d at 1129- 30; see al so U. S. v. Whi t e, 593 F. 3d 1199, 1205
( 11t h Ci r . 2010) ( consi der i ng t he const i t ut i onal i t y of §
922( g) ( 9) and uphol di ng i t as a “pr esumpt i vel y l awf ul
l ongst andi ng pr ohi bi t i on”) ; Skoi en, 614 F. 3d at 641- 42 ( 7t h Ci r .
2010) ( uphol di ng § 922( g) ( 9) agai nst Second Amendment chal l enge) ;
U. S. v. Booker , 644 F. 3d 12, 25 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) ( same) ; U. S. v.
St at en, 666 F. 3d 154, 167 ( 4t h Ci r . 2011) ( same) .
Chovan adopt ed t he f ol l owi ng t wo- st ep i nqui r y t o be
appl i ed t o Second Amendment chal l enges: ( 1) “whet her t he
chal l enged l aw bur dens conduct pr ot ect ed by t he Second Amendment
and ( 2) i f so, di r ect s cour t s t o appl y an appr opr i at e l evel of
scr ut i ny. ” Chovan, 735 F. 3d at 1136. The l evel of scr ut i ny
depends on ( 1) “how cl ose t he l aw comes t o t he cor e of t he Second
Amendment r i ght , ” and ( 2) “t he sever i t y of t he l aw’ s bur den on
t he r i ght . ” I d. at 1138 ( quot i ng Ezel l v. Ci t y of Chi cago, 651
F. 3d 684, 703 ( 7t h Ci r . 2011) ) .
At t he f i r st st ep of t he i nqui r y, t he Chovan cour t
concl uded t hat “by pr ohi bi t i ng domest i c vi ol ence mi sdemeanant s
- 32-
Case 1:11-cv-00589-ACK-BMK Document 137 Filed 07/18/14 Page 32 of 53 PageID #:
2035
f r ompossessi ng f i r ear ms, § 922( g) ( 9) bur dens r i ght s pr ot ect ed by
t he Second Amendment . ” I d. at 1137.
Pr oceedi ng t o t he second st ep of t he i nqui r y, t he cour t
f ound t hat
Hel l er t el l s us t hat t he cor e of t he Second
Amendment i s “t he r i ght of l aw- abi di ng,
r esponsi bl e ci t i zens t o use ar ms i n def ense
of hear t h and home. ” 554 U. S. [ 570, 635
( 2008) ] , 128 S. Ct . 2783. Sect i on 922( g) ( 9)
does not i mpl i cat e t hi s cor e Second Amendment
r i ght because i t r egul at es f i r ear mpossessi on
f or i ndi vi dual s wi t h cr i mi nal convi ct i ons.
“Al t hough [ Chovan] asser t s hi s r i ght t o
possess a f i r ear mi n hi s home f or t he pur pose
of sel f - def ense, we bel i eve hi s cl ai mi s not
wi t hi n t he cor e r i ght i dent i f i ed i n Hel l er -
t he r i ght of a l aw- abi di ng, r esponsi bl e
ci t i zen t o possess and car r y a weapon f or
sel f - def ense - by vi r t ue of [ Chovan’ s]
cr i mi nal hi st or y as a domest i c vi ol ence
mi sdemeanant . ” [ U. S. v. Chest er , 628 F. 3d
673, 682- 83 ( 4t h Ci r . 2010) ; ] cf . [ Ezel l v.
Ci t y of Chi cago, 651 F. 3d 684, 708 ( 7t h Ci r .
2011] ( f i ndi ng t hat a chal l enged st at ut e
i mpl i cat ed t he cor e Second Amendment r i ght
because “t he pl ai nt i f f s ar e t he ‘ l aw- abi di ng,
r esponsi bl e ci t i zens’ whose Second Amendment
r i ght s ar e ent i t l ed t o f ul l sol i ci t ude under
Hel l er ”) .
I d. at 1138 ( emphasi s i n or i gi nal ) . However , t he cour t hel d t hat
t he bur den § 922( g) ( 9) pl aces on domest i c vi ol ence mi sdemeanant s
i s “qui t e subst ant i al ” and amount s t o a near - t ot al pr ohi bi t i on on
f i r ear mpossessi on. I d. Never t hel ess, t he cour t det er mi ned t hat
. . . Chovan goes t oo f ar when he ar gues t hat
§ 922( g) ( 9) i s t oo br oad because i t “cont ai ns
no pr ovi si on l i mi t i ng i t s appl i cabi l i t y. ” As
expl ai ned above, § 922( g) ( 9) exempt s t hose
wi t h expunged, par doned, or set - asi de
convi ct i ons, or t hose who have had t hei r
- 33-
Case 1:11-cv-00589-ACK-BMK Document 137 Filed 07/18/14 Page 33 of 53 PageID #:
2036
ci vi l r i ght s r est or ed. Ther ef or e, whi l e we
r ecogni ze t hat § 922( g) ( 9) subst ant i al l y
bur dens Second Amendment r i ght s, t he bur den
i s l i ght ened by t hese except i ons.
I d.
I n sum, t he Chovan cour t concl uded t hat t he Laut enber g
Amendment “does not i mpl i cat e t he cor e Second Amendment r i ght ,
but i t does pl ace a subst ant i al bur den on t he r i ght . ” I d. As
such, t he Cour t det er mi ned t hat i nt er medi at e r at her t han st r i ct
scr ut i ny was t he appr opr i at e st andar d t o appl y when addr essi ng §
922( g) ( 9) ’ s const i t ut i onal i t y. I d.
Chovan def i ned t he i nt er medi at e scr ut i ny st andar d as
r equi r i ng t hat “( 1) t he gover nment ’ s st at ed obj ect i ve [ ] be
si gni f i cant , subst ant i al , or i mpor t ant ; and ( 2) a r easonabl e f i t
bet ween t he chal l enged r egul at i on and t he asser t ed obj ect i ve. ”
I d. at 1139. Appl yi ng t hi s st andar d, t he cour t r easoned t hat §
922( g) ( 9) ser ved an i mpor t ant gover nment i nt er est i n pr event i ng
domest i c gun vi ol ence. Chovan, 735 F. 3d at 1139. I n par t i cul ar ,
t he cour t f ound t hat “t he 1996 passage of § 922( g) ( 9) was
mot i vat ed by t he concer n t hat guns wer e not bei ng kept away f r om
domest i c abuser s under f el on- i n- possessi on l aws because many
peopl e who engage i n ser i ous spousal or chi l d abuse ul t i mat el y
ar e not char ged wi t h or convi ct ed of f el oni es. ” I d.
The Chovan cour t concl uded t hat “[ k] eepi ng guns
f r omdomest i c vi ol ence mi sdemeanant s i s subst ant i al l y r el at ed t o
t he br oader i nt er est of pr event i ng domest i c gun vi ol ence f or f our
- 34-
Case 1:11-cv-00589-ACK-BMK Document 137 Filed 07/18/14 Page 34 of 53 PageID #:
2037
r el at ed r easons. ” I d. at 1140. Fi r st , as t he l egi sl at i ve hi st or y
i ndi cat es, Congr ess enact ed t he Laut enber g Amendment because
per pet r at or s of domest i c vi ol ence wer e not bei ng kept f r om
possessi ng f i r ear ms, as t hey wer e not usual l y convi ct ed of
f el oni es. I d. Second, accor di ng t o sever al academi c st udi es, “a
hi gh r at e of domest i c vi ol ence r eci di vi smexi st s. ” I d. Thi r d,
domest i c abuser s use f i r ear ms dur i ng i nci dent s of domest i c
vi ol ence. I d. Fi nal l y, “t he use of guns by domest i c abuser s i s
mor e l i kel y t o r esul t i n t he vi ct i m’ s deat h. ” I d.
“Put t i ng t hese f our concl usi ons t oget her , ” t he Ni nt h
Ci r cui t f ound t hat “domest i c vi ol ence mi sdemeanant s ar e l i kel y t o
commi t act s of domest i c vi ol ence agai n and t hat , i f t hey do so
wi t h a gun, t he r i sk of deat h t o t he vi ct i mi s si gni f i cant l y
i ncr eased. ” I d. at 1140- 41. Consequent l y, t he cour t hel d t hat §
922( g) ( 9) was const i t ut i onal because t he st at ut e’ s “pr ohi bi t i on
on gun possessi on by domest i c vi ol ence mi sdemeanant s i s
subst ant i al l y r el at ed t o t he i mpor t ant gover nment i nt er est of
pr event i ng domest i c gun vi ol ence. ” I d. at 1141.
Addr essi ng HDF’ s ar gument t hat § 922( g) ( 9) i s
unconst i t ut i onal as appl i ed t o Pl ai nt i f f , t he Cour t obser ves t hat
§ 922( g) ( 9) est abl i shes t hr ee except i ons under whi ch t he
pr ohi bi t i on under t he st at ut e wi l l no l onger appl y: ( 1) “i f t he
convi ct i on has been expunged or set asi de”; ( 2) i f t he of f ender
“has had ci vi l r i ght s r est or ed ( i f t he l aw of t he appl i cabl e
- 35-
Case 1:11-cv-00589-ACK-BMK Document 137 Filed 07/18/14 Page 35 of 53 PageID #:
2038
j ur i sdi ct i on pr ovi des f or t he l oss of ci vi l r i ght s under such an
of f ense) ”; or ( 3) i f t he of f ender “has been par doned. ” 18 U. S. C.
§ 921( a) ( 33) ( B) ( i i ) . Because t he except i ons ar e l i st ed i n t he
di sj unct i ve, Pl ai nt i f f onl y has t o sat i sf y one of t he t hr ee
except i ons under § 921( a) ( 33) ( B) ( i i ) i n or der t o be st at ut or i l y
qual i f i ed under f eder al l aw t o possess f i r ear ms.
Wi t h r espect t o t he f i r st except i on, H. R. S. § 831- 3. 2
( ent i t l ed “Expungement [ O] r der s”) pr ovi des, i n per t i nent par t ,
t hat “[ t ] he at t or ney gener al . . . upon wr i t t en appl i cat i on f r om
a per son ar r est ed f or , or char ged wi t h but not convi ct ed of a
cr i me, shal l i ssue an expungement or der annul l i ng, cancel l i ng,
and r esci ndi ng t he r ecor d of ar r est . ” H. R. S. § 831- 3. 2( a)
( emphasi s added) . The pl ai n l anguage of § 831- 3. 2 i ndi cat es t hat
Pl ai nt i f f cannot r ecei ve an “expungement or der ” f r omt he At t or ney
Gener al of Hawai i annul l i ng hi s har assment convi ct i ons under
H. R. S. § 711- 1106( 1) ( a) . See al so Depar t ment of t he At t or ney
Gener al of t he St at e of Hawai i , Hawai i Cr i mi nal J ust i ce Dat a
Cent er , “Expungement Fr equent l y Asked Quest i ons, ”
ht t p: / / ag. hawai i . gov/ hcj dc/ expungement - f r equent l y- asked-
quest i ons/ #convi ct i ons ( st at i ng t hat convi ct i ons never qual i f y
f or expungement ) .
As t o t he second except i on, § 921( a) ( 33) ( B) ( i i ) does
not def i ne t he t er m“ci vi l r i ght s. ” I n U. S. v. Br ai l ey, however ,
t he Ni nt h Ci r cui t addr essed how t o i nt er pr et t he t er m. 408 F. 3d
- 36-
Case 1:11-cv-00589-ACK-BMK Document 137 Filed 07/18/14 Page 36 of 53 PageID #:
2039
609, 611- 13 ( 9t h Ci r . 2005) . I n 1997, Br ai l ey was convi ct ed i n
Ut ah of a mi sdemeanor cr i me of domest i c vi ol ence and, as a
r esul t , was bar r ed f r ompossessi ng f i r ear ms under t hen- exi st i ng
Ut ah l aw. I d. at 610- 11. I n 2000, Ut ah amended i t s st at ut es such
t hat Br ai l ey and ot her mi sdemeanant s wer e al l owed t o possess
f i r ear ms. I d. Br ai l ey was subsequent l y char ged wi t h and convi ct ed
of f i r ear mpossessi on i n vi ol at i on of § 922( g) ( 9) . I d. at 610.
On appeal , Br ai l ey ar gued t hat hi s ci vi l r i ght s had
been r est or ed wi t hi n t he meani ng of § 921( a) ( 33) ( B) ( i i ) because
hi s r i ght t o possess f i r ear ms had been r est or ed under Ut ah l aw.
I d. The Ni nt h Ci r cui t r ej ect ed t hat ar gument , f i ndi ng t hat hi s
ci vi l r i ght s had never been “l ost ” because hi s mi sdemeanor
convi ct i on had not t ake away hi s “cor e ci vi l r i ght s”: t he r i ght
t o vot e, t o si t as a j ur or , or t o hol d publ i c of f i ce. I d. at 613.
Because Br ai l ey’ s ci vi l r i ght s had never been l ost , t he cour t
r easoned, t hey coul d not have been r est or ed. I d. Thus, t he Ni nt h
Ci r cui t concl uded t hat Br ai l ey f ai l ed t o meet t he ci vi l r i ght s
r est or ed except i on. I d.
Under Hawai i l aw, a mi sdemeanor convi ct i on does not
t ake away an of f ender ’ s “cor e ci vi l r i ght s. ” However , a f el ony
convi ct i on does. Speci f i cal l y, H. R. S. § 831- 2 ( ent i t l ed “Ri ght s
“[ L] ost ”) pr ovi des t hat “[ a] per son sent enced f or a f el ony, f r om
t he t i me of t he per son’ s sent ence unt i l t he per son’ s f i nal
di schar ge, may not : ( 1) Vot e i n an el ect i on . . . or ( 2) Become a
- 37-
Case 1:11-cv-00589-ACK-BMK Document 137 Filed 07/18/14 Page 37 of 53 PageID #:
2040
candi dat e f or or hol d publ i c of f i ce. ” H. R. S. § 831- 2( a) ( emphasi s
added) . I n t hi s case, Pl ai nt i f f was convi ct ed of a mi sdemeanor
and, t her ef or e, i s i nel i gi bl e t o have hi s r i ght t o vot e or r i ght
t o hol d publ i c of f i ce r est or ed under H. R. S. § 831- 2( a) .
Accor di ngl y, Pl ai nt i f f cannot sat i sf y § 921( a) ( 33) ( B) ( i i ) ’ s
“ci vi l r i ght s r est or ed” except i on.
Fi nal l y, wi t h r espect t o t he t hi r d except i on, Ar t i cl e
Fi ve, Sect i on Fi ve of The Const i t ut i on of t he St at e of Hawai i
pr ovi des i n r el evant par t :
The gover nor may gr ant r epr i eves,
commut at i ons and par dons, af t er convi ct i on,
f or al l of f enses, subj ect t o r egul at i on by
l aw as t o t he manner of appl yi ng f or t he
same. The l egi sl at ur e may, by gener al l aw,
aut hor i ze t he gover nor t o gr ant par dons
bef or e convi ct i on, t o gr ant par dons f or
i mpeachment and t o r est or e ci vi l r i ght s
deni ed by r eason of convi ct i on of of f enses by
t r i bunal s ot her t han t hose of t hi s St at e.

Al t hough t her e appear t o be no Hawai i cases di scussi ng t he
cont our s of t he gover nor ’ s r i ght t o gr ant par dons; t he pl ai n
l anguage of Ar t i cl e Fi ve, Sect i on Fi ve of t he Hawai i Const i t ut i on
i ndi cat es t hat Pl ai nt i f f coul d r ecei ve a par don f or hi s
har assment convi ct i ons under H. R. S. § 711- 1106( 1) ( a) and,
t her ef or e, st at ut or i l y qual i f y under f eder al l aw t o possess
f i r ear ms.
HDF asser t s, wi t hout ci t i ng any aut hor i t y, t hat such a
par don ( 1) “must speci f i cal l y st at e i t r est or es Second Amendment
r i ght s” and ( 2) woul d not al l ow Pl ai nt i f f “t o pur chase f i r ear ms
- 38-
Case 1:11-cv-00589-ACK-BMK Document 137 Filed 07/18/14 Page 38 of 53 PageID #:
2041
i n ot her st at es i n or der t o own i n Hawai i ”
16/
because t he par don
woul d “onl y appl y wi t hi n Hawai i . ” ( HDF’ s Apr i l 10 Supp. Br i ef at
4 n. 1. )
Regar di ng HDF’ s f i r st asser t i on, t he Cour t has
conduct ed ext ensi ve i ndependent r esear ch and f ound no aut hor i t y
f or t he pr oposi t i on t hat a par don f or a mi sdemeanor i ssued by t he
Gover nor of Hawai i r est or es an of f ender ’ s Second Amendment r i ght
t o possess f i r ear ms onl y i f t he par don speci f i cal l y pr ovi des as
such.
17/
Rat her , § 921( a) ( 33) ( B) ( i i ) i ndi cat es t hat a Hawai i
par don wi l l be gi ven f ul l ef f ect and al l ow t he i ndi vi dual t o
possess f i r ear ms “unl ess t he par don . . . expr essl y pr ovi des t hat
t he per son may not shi p, t r anspor t , possess, or r ecei ve
f i r ear ms. ”
HDF’ s second asser t i on i s al so unper suasi ve. Agai n, t he
Cour t has conduct ed ext ensi ve i ndependent r esear ch and f ound no
aut hor i t y f or t he pr oposi t i on t hat a Hawai i par don woul d not
16/
The Cour t obser ves t hat f eder al l aw bar s anyone ot her t han
a l i censed i mpor t er , manuf act ur er , deal er , or col l ect or f r om
t r anspor t i ng i nt o hi s st at e of r esi dence a f i r ear mpur chased
out si de t hat st at e. 18 U. S. C. § 922( a) ( 3) ; U. S. v. Decast r o, 682
F. 3d 160, 162 ( 2nd Ci r . 2012) .
17/
The Cour t not es t hat t he Hawai i At t or ney Gener al , i n an
opi ni on l et t er dat ed Oct ober 14, 1981, and addr essed t o HPD’ s
pol i ce chi ef , st at ed “t hat t he mer e gr ant i ng of a par don by t he
Gover nor [ does not ] r el i eve[ ] per sons wi t h past f el ony
convi ct i ons of any di sabi l i t y r el at i ng t o t he possessi on of
f i r ear ms. ” Hawai i A. G. Opi ni on No. 81- 12 ( Oct . 14, 1981) ,
avai l abl e at 1981 WL 37235 ( emphasi s added) . The Cour t f i nds t hat
t he opi ni on l et t er i s i nappl i cabl e t o t he i nst ant case because
Pl ai nt i f f was convi ct ed of a mi sdemeanor .
- 39-
Case 1:11-cv-00589-ACK-BMK Document 137 Filed 07/18/14 Page 39 of 53 PageID #:
2042
al l ow Pl ai nt i f f t o pur chase f i r ear ms i n ot her st at es because t he
par don woul d onl y be gi ven ef f ect i n Hawai i . I n f act , some
deci si ons suggest t hat a f or ei gn st at e may gi ve ef f ect t o a
Hawai i par don and al l ow Pl ai nt i f f t o acqui r e f i r ear ms i n t hat
st at e. See, e. g. , Schl ent her v. Dep’ t of St at e, Di vi si on of
Li censi ng, 743 So. 2d 536, 537 ( Fl a. Di st . Ct . App. 1998) ( f i ndi ng
t hat t he St at e of Fl or i da i mpr oper l y deni ed pl ai nt i f f ’ s
appl i cat i on f or a conceal ed- weapons per mi t because once a si st er
st at e has r est or ed a per son’ s f i r ear ms r i ght s, Fl or i da was
r equi r ed t o gi ve “f ul l f ai t h and cr edi t ” t o t he r est or at i on of
such r i ght s) ; Peopl e v. Van Heck, 252 Mi ch. App. 207, 208- 09, 214
& 217 ( Mi ch Ct . App. 2002) ( hol di ng t hat Mi chi gan must gi ve f ul l
ef f ect t o a Connect i cut par don because Connect i cut l aw r emoves
al l “l egal di sabi l i t i es t hat f l ow” f r omt he par doned convi ct i on
and, t her ef or e, a “par doned i ndi vi dual i s no l onger consi der ed by
t he l aw t o have been ‘ convi ct ed’ or ot her wi se adj udi cat ed gui l t y
of t he par doned cr i me”) .
As such, t he Cour t f i nds t hat Pl ai nt i f f coul d r ecei ve a
par don f or hi s H. R. S. § 711- 1106( 1) ( a) har assment convi ct i ons;
and t hat such a par don woul d qual i f y hi mt o possess a f i r ear m
under f eder al l aw and r est or e hi s Second Amendment r i ght s.
I n i t s suppl ement al ami cus br i ef , HDF asser t s t hat t he
Chovan cour t f ound t hat § 922( g) ( 9) as appl i ed t o t he def endant
i n t hat case was const i t ut i onal because Cal i f or ni a, unl i ke
- 40-
Case 1:11-cv-00589-ACK-BMK Document 137 Filed 07/18/14 Page 40 of 53 PageID #:
2043
Hawai i , “has an expungement pr ocess whi ch al l ows domest i c
vi ol ence of f ender s t o r egai n t hei r f i r ear m[ ] r i ght s. ” ( HDF’ s
Apr i l 10 Supp. Br i ef at 3. )
The def endant i n Chovan ar gued t hat Ҥ 922( g) ( 9) i s
unconst i t ut i onal as appl i ed t o hi mbecause hi s 1996 domest i c
vi ol ence convi ct i on occur r ed f i f t een year s bef or e hi s § 922( g) ( 9)
convi ct i on, he i s unl i kel y t o r eci di vat e, and he has i n f act been
l aw- abi di ng f or t hose f i f t een year s. ” Chovan, 735 F. 3d at 1141.
I n r ej ect i ng t he def endant ’ s as- appl i ed const i t ut i onal chal l enge,
t he Chovan maj or i t y not ed t hat § 922( g) ( 9) has sever al except i ons
under whi ch t he pr ohi bi t i on under t he st at ut e wi l l no l onger
appl y. However , cont r ar y t o HDF’ s asser t i on, t he Chovan maj or i t y
di d not r ef er t o Cal i f or ni a’ s expungement l aws when anal yzi ng
whet her § 922( g) ( 9) was const i t ut i onal as appl i ed t o t he
def endant . I d. at 1141- 42.
The concur r ence i n Chovan used st r i ct scr ut i ny t o
anal yze whet her § 922( g) ( 9) was unconst i t ut i onal l y appl i ed t o t he
def endant and addr essed Cal i f or ni a’ s expungement pr ocess. I d. at
1151 ( Bea, J . , concur r i ng) . The Chovan concur r ence ar gued t hat §
922( g) ( 9) was “nar r owl y t ai l or ed” because Cal i f or ni a, wher e t he
def endant was convi ct ed, “makes expungement of mi sdemeanor
convi ct i ons a r i ght . ” I d.
I n cont r ast , t he Chovan maj or i t y used t he i nt er medi at e
scr ut i ny st andar d t o anal yze whet her § 922( g) ( 9) was
- 41-
Case 1:11-cv-00589-ACK-BMK Document 137 Filed 07/18/14 Page 41 of 53 PageID #:
2044
unconst i t ut i onal l y appl i ed t o t he def endant and, wi t hout
di scussi ng Cal i f or ni a’ s expungement pr ovi si on, st at ed i n gener al
t hat “Congr ess per mi ssi bl y cr eat ed a br oad st at ut e t hat onl y
except s t hose i ndi vi dual s wi t h expunged, par doned, or set asi de
convi ct i ons and t hose i ndi vi dual s who have had t hei r ci vi l r i ght s
r est or ed. ” I d. at 1141- 42.
18/
The Chovan maj or i t y f ound t hat , even
assumi ng t he def endant had no hi st or y of domest i c vi ol ence si nce
hi s 1996 convi ct i on, he had nei t her “pr esent ed evi dence t o
di r ect l y cont r adi ct t he gover nment ’ s evi dence t hat t he r at e of
domest i c vi ol ence r eci di vi smi s hi gh” nor “di r ect l y pr oved t hat
i f a domest i c abuser has not commi t t ed domest i c vi ol ence f or
f i f t een year s, t hat abuser i s hi ghl y unl i kel y t o do so agai n. ”
I d. at 1142. Accor di ngl y, t he maj or i t y concl uded “t hat t he
appl i cat i on of § 922( g) ( 9) t o Chovan i s subst ant i al l y r el at ed t o
t he gover nment ’ s i mpor t ant i nt er est of pr event i ng domest i c gun
vi ol ence. ” I d.
The Chovan maj or i t y r ecogni zed t hat Congr ess cr eat ed a
br oad st at ut e whi ch i mposes a l i f et i me ban f or domest i c vi ol ence
mi sdemeanant s, subj ect t o sever al nar r ow except i ons. I d. Whi l e
18/
The Chovan maj or i t y addr essed t he def endant ’ s “non-
const i t ut i onal ar gument t hat § 922( g) ( 9) does not appl y t o hi m
because hi s ci vi l r i ght s had been r est or ed. ” Chovan, 735 F. 3d at
1131. Appl yi ng i t s pr i or deci si on i n U. S. v. Br ai l ey, 408 F. 3d
609, 611- 13 ( 9t h Ci r . 2005) , t he cour t r ej ect ed t he def endant ’ s
ar gument t hat hi s ci vi l r i ght s had been r est or ed wi t hi n t he
meani ng of § 921( a) ( 33) ( B) ( i i ) when hi s t en- year ban on owni ng
f i r ear ms under Cal i f or ni a st at e l aw expi r ed. Chovan, 735 F. 3d at
1131- 33.
- 42-
Case 1:11-cv-00589-ACK-BMK Document 137 Filed 07/18/14 Page 42 of 53 PageID #:
2045
Pl ai nt i f f ’ s har assment convi ct i ons occur r ed r oughl y f our t een
year s bef or e he f i l ed hi s or i gi nal compl ai nt ; Chovan makes cl ear
t hat
[ i ] f Congr ess had want ed § 922( g) ( 9) t o appl y
onl y t o i ndi vi dual s wi t h r ecent domest i c
vi ol ence convi ct i ons, i t coul d have easi l y
cr eat ed a l i mi t ed dur at i on r at her t han
l i f et i me ban. Or i t coul d have cr eat ed a good
behavi or cl ause under whi ch i ndi vi dual s
wi t hout new domest i c vi ol ence ar r est s or
char ges wi t hi n a cer t ai n number of year s of
convi ct i on woul d aut omat i cal l y r egai n t hei r
r i ght s t o possess f i r ear ms. But Congr ess di d
not do so. Congr ess per mi ssi bl y cr eat ed a
br oad st at ut e t hat onl y except s t hose
i ndi vi dual s wi t h expunged, par doned, or set
asi de convi ct i ons and t hose i ndi vi dual s who
have had t hei r ci vi l r i ght s r est or ed. See
Skoi en, 614 F. 3d at 641 ( “Some cat egor i cal
di squal i f i cat i ons ar e per mi ssi bl e: Congr ess
i s not l i mi t ed t o case- by- case excl usi ons of
per sons who have been shown t o be
unt r ust wor t hy wi t h weapons, nor need t hese
l i mi t s be est abl i shed by evi dence pr esent ed
i n cour t . ”)
I d. ( al t er at i on omi t t ed) .
The Chovan cour t concl uded i t s anal ysi s of §
922( g) ( 9) ’ s const i t ut i onal i t y by st at i ng t hat “[ t ] he br eadt h of
t he st at ut e and t he nar r owness of t hese except i ons r ef l ect
Congr ess’ s expr ess i nt ent t o est abl i sh a ‘ zer o t ol er ance pol i cy’
t owar ds guns and domest i c vi ol ence. ” I d.
Two ci r cui t cour t s of appeal s whi ch have addr essed §
922( g) ( 9) ’ s const i t ut i onal i t y have f ound i t unnecessar y t o
addr ess any of t he st at ut or y except i ons i n § 921( a) ( 33) ( B) ( i i ) .
See U. S. v. Whi t e, 593 F. 3d 1199, 1205- 06 ( 11t h Ci r . 2010)
- 43-
Case 1:11-cv-00589-ACK-BMK Document 137 Filed 07/18/14 Page 43 of 53 PageID #:
2046
( uphol di ng t he Laut enber g Amendment as a “pr esumpt i vel y l awf ul
l ongst andi ng pr ohi bi t i on[ ] ” wi t hout exami ni ng §
921( a) ( 33) ( B) ( i i ) ’ s except i ons) ; U. S. v. Booker , 644 F. 3d 12, 22-
26 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) ( appar ent l y appl yi ng i nt er medi at e scr ut i ny
( whet her “t her e i s a subst ant i al r el at i onshi p bet ween §
922( g) ( 9) ’ s di squal i f i cat i on of domest i c vi ol ence mi sdemeanant s
f r omgun owner shi p and t he gover nment al i nt er est i n pr event i ng
gun vi ol ence i n t he home”) and uphol di ng t he const i t ut i onal i t y of
§ 922( g) ( 9) wi t hout anal yzi ng § 921( a) ( 33) ( B) ( i i ) ’ s except i ons) .
On t he ot her hand, t he Four t h and Sevent h Ci r cui t s have
addr essed t hese except i ons. The Four t h Ci r cui t i n St at en obser ved
t hat § 922( g) ( 9) ’ s “pr ohi bi t or y sweep i s . . . nar r owed by t he
f act t hat , f or pur poses of § 922( g) ( 9) , a per son shal l not be
consi der ed t o have been convi ct ed of a domest i c vi ol ence
mi sdemeanor ” i f hi s convi ct i on has been expunged, set - asi de, or
par doned, or i f hi s ci vi l r i ght s have been r est or ed. U. S. v.
St at en, 666 F. 3d 154, 163 ( 4t h Ci r . 2011) . “Wi t h t he nar r owness
of § 922( g) ( 9) ’ s pr ohi bi t or y sweep i n mi nd, ” t he Four t h Ci r cui t
appl i ed i nt er medi at e scr ut i ny and f ound t hat t he st at ut e was a
r easonabl e f i t bet ween t he subst ant i al gover nment obj ect i ve of
r educi ng domest i c gun vi ol ence and keepi ng domest i c vi ol ence
of f ender s f r ompossessi ng f i r ear ms. I d. at 163- 67.
I n Skoi en, t he Sevent h Ci r cui t , appar ent l y usi ng
i nt er medi at e scr ut i ny ( whet her t her e i s a “subst ant i al r el at i on”
- 44-
Case 1:11-cv-00589-ACK-BMK Document 137 Filed 07/18/14 Page 44 of 53 PageID #:
2047
bet ween § 922( g) ( 9) and t he “i mpor t ant gover nment al obj ect i ve” of
“pr event i ng ar med mayhem”) , br i ef l y di scussed whet her t he
def endant coul d sat i sf y any of § 922( g) ( 9) ’ s except i ons under t he
l aw of t he convi ct i ng st at e. U. S. v. Skoi en, 614 F. 3d 638, 644- 45
( 7t h Ci r . 2010) . The Skoi en cour t not ed t hat t he def endant was
convi ct ed i n Wi sconsi n; and Wi sconsi n pr ovi des “mi sdemeanant s an
oppor t uni t y t o seek par don or expungement . ” I d. at 645.
Skoi en r ecogni zed t hat t he Laut enber g Amendment
“t ol er at es di f f er ent out comes f or per sons convi ct ed i n di f f er ent
st at es, but t hi s i s t r ue of al l si t uat i ons i n whi ch a f i r ear ms
di sabi l i t y ( or any ot her adver se consequence) depends on st at e
l aw. ” I d. at 645. “The [ Supr eme Cour t ] hel d i n [ Logan v. U. S. ,
552 U. S. 23 ( 2007) ] t hat t hi s var i abi l i t y does not cal l i nt o
quest i on f eder al f i r ear ms l i mi t s based on st at e convi ct i ons t hat
have been l ef t i n pl ace under t he st at es’ wi del y di spar at e
appr oaches t o r est or i ng ci vi l r i ght s. ” I d.
Under Hawai i l aw, Pl ai nt i f f i s el i gi bl e t o have hi s
har assment convi ct i ons par doned, but cannot get hi s convi ct i ons
expunged or have hi s ci vi l r i ght s r est or ed wi t hi n t he meani ng of
§ 921( a) ( 33) ( B) ( i i ) . As di scussed above, al t hough Pl ai nt i f f ’ s
opt i ons t o r est or e hi s Second Amendment r i ght s ar e mor e l i mi t ed
t han some ot her st at es; t he Supr eme Cour t has r ecogni zed t hat
Congr ess’ deci si on t o have r est or at i on
t r i gger ed by event s gover ned by st at e l aw
i nsur ed anomal ous r esul t s. The sever al st at es
have consi der abl y di f f er ent l aws gover ni ng
- 45-
Case 1:11-cv-00589-ACK-BMK Document 137 Filed 07/18/14 Page 45 of 53 PageID #:
2048
par don, expungement , and f or f ei t ur e and
r est or at i on of ci vi l r i ght s. Fur t her mor e,
st at es have dr ast i cal l y di f f er ent pol i ci es as
t o when and under what ci r cumst ances such
di scr et i onar y act s of gr ace shoul d be
ext ended. Anomal i es gener at ed by [ t he
st at ut or y except i ons i n § 921( a) ( 33) ( B) ( i i ) ]
ar e t he i nevi t abl e consequence of maki ng
access t o t he exempt i on[ s] depend[ ent ] on t he
di f f er i ng l aws and pol i ci es of t he sever al
st at es.
Logan, 552 U. S. at 34 ( quot i ng McGr at h v. U. S. , 60 F. 3d 1005,
1009 ( 2nd Ci r . 1995) ) .
Thi s Cour t r ecogni zes t hat t he bur den t he Laut enber g
Amendment pl aces on Pl ai nt i f f i s qui t e subst ant i al and amount s t o
a near “t ot al pr ohi bi t i on” on hi s r i ght t o possess f i r ear ms.
Chovan, 735 F. 3d at 1138. However , sect i on 922( g) ( 9) has sever al
l i mi t i ng pr ovi si ons, one of whi ch al l ows Pl ai nt i f f t o r est or e hi s
Second Amendment r i ght s by obt ai ni ng a par don.
19/
For t he f or egoi ng r easons, t he Cour t f i nds t hat 18
U. S. C. § 922( g) ( 9) i s const i t ut i onal as appl i ed t o Pl ai nt i f f and
19/
I n t hei r suppl ement al br i ef , Def endant s ci t e t wo f eder al
di st r i ct cour t cases f or t he pr oposi t i on t hat t he Laut enber g
Amendment sur vi ves const i t ut i onal scr ut i ny even i f t he par t i cul ar
of f ender cannot sat i sf y any of t he st at ut or y except i ons i n §
921( a) ( 33) ( B) ( i i ) . See U. S. v. Smi t h, 742 F. Supp. 2d 855, 869
( S. D. W. Va. 2010) ( hol di ng t hat , even assumi ng t he def endant i s
per manent l y bar r ed f r omf ut ur e f i r ear ms possessi on, § 922( g) ( 9)
i s r easonabl y t ai l or ed t o accompl i sh t he gover nment ’ s compel l i ng
i nt er est i n pr event i ng domest i c vi ol ence mi sdemeanant s f r om
possessi ng guns) ; Enos v. Hol der , 855 F. Supp. 2d 1088, 1098- 1100
( E. D. Cal . 2012) ( f i ndi ng t hat § 922( g) ( 9) passes const i t ut i onal
must er even assumi ng t he pl ai nt i f f s ar e wi t hout a means t o
r est or e t hei r r i ght s or have t hei r convi ct i ons set asi de,
par doned or expunged) .
- 46-
Case 1:11-cv-00589-ACK-BMK Document 137 Filed 07/18/14 Page 46 of 53 PageID #:
2049
st at ut or i l y di squal i f i es hi mf r ompossessi ng f i r ear ms under
f eder al l aw. Accor di ngl y, Pl ai nt i f f cannot est abl i sh t hat hi s
Second Amendment r i ght s wer e vi ol at ed.
Because Pl ai nt i f f cannot est abl i sh a l i ber t y or
pr oper t y i nt er est under t he Second Amendment , t he Cour t f ur t her
concl udes t hat Pl ai nt i f f cannot est abl i sh t hat hi s Four t eent h
Amendment due pr ocess r i ght s wer e vi ol at ed. See Hewi t t v.
Gr abi cki , 794 F. 2d 1373, 1380 ( 9t h Ci r . 1986) ( r ul i ng t hat a
l i ber t y or pr oper t y i nt er est must exi st i n or der f or a pl ai nt i f f
t o est abl i sh a due pr ocess vi ol at i on) . Consequent l y, Pl ai nt i f f ’ s
42 U. S. C. § 1983 cl ai ms, whi ch ar e pr edi cat ed on Second and
Four t eent h Amendment vi ol at i ons, f ai l as wel l . See 42 U. S. C. §
1983; Gi bson v. U. S. , 781 F. 2d 1334, 1338 ( 9t h Ci r . 1986) ( “To
make out a cause of act i on under sect i on 1983, pl ai nt i f f [ ] must
pl ead t hat ( 1) t he def endant s act i ng under col or of st at e l aw ( 2)
depr i ved pl ai nt i f f [ ] of r i ght s secur ed by t he Const i t ut i on or
f eder al st at ut es. ”) .
As such, t he Cour t DI SMI SSES Pl ai nt i f f ’ s Amended
Compl ai nt i n i t s ent i r et y wi t h pr ej udi ce.
B. Hawaii Law
Cases f r omt he Supr eme Cour t and Ni nt h Ci r cui t i ndi cat e
t hat f eder al l aw can pr ecl ude an i ndi vi dual f r omobt ai ni ng
f i r ear ms, even i f t hat i ndi vi dual i s qual i f i ed t o possess
f i r ear ms under st at e l aw.
- 47-
Case 1:11-cv-00589-ACK-BMK Document 137 Filed 07/18/14 Page 47 of 53 PageID #:
2050
I n U. S. v. Br ai l ey, whi ch t hi s Cour t di scusses
her ei nbef or e, Br ai l ey was convi ct ed of vi ol at i ng § 922( g) ( 9) .
Br ai l ey, 408 F. 3d at 610. Ci t i ng t he Supr eme Cour t ’ s deci si on i n
Car on v. U. S. , 524 U. S. 308, 313- 14 ( 1998) , Br ai l ey ar gued t hat a
2000 amendment t o Ut ah l aw ( al l owi ng mi sdemeanant s l i ke hi msel f
t o possess f i r ear ms) was a st at e l aw t o whi ch t he f eder al l aw
must gi ve “f ul l ef f ect . ” The Ni nt h Ci r cui t af f i r med Br ai l ey’ s
convi ct i on under § 922( g) ( 9) even t hough he was qual i f i ed t o
possess f i r ear ms under Ut ah l aw because “Car on deci ded t hat t he
def endant coul d be convi ct ed of possessi on of a f i r ear m, i n hi s
case a r i f l e, under f eder al l aw, even t hough hi s possessi on of
t he r i f l e was per mi t t ed under st at e l aw. Car on’ s hol di ng,
t her ef or e, i s t hat f eder al l aw, not st at e l aw, cont r ol s t he r i ght
of a def endant t o bear a f i r ear munder a f eder al st at ut e. ”
Br ai l ey, 408 F. 3d at 612; see al so Car on, 524 U. S. at 316
( “Rest or at i on of t he r i ght t o vot e, t he r i ght t o hol d of f i ce, and
t he r i ght t o si t on a j ur y t ur ns on so many compl exi t i es and
nuances t hat st at e l aw i s t he most conveni ent sour ce f or
def i ni t i on. As t o t he possessi on of weapons, however , t he Feder al
Gover nment has an i nt er est i n a si ngl e, nat i onal , pr ot ect i ve
pol i cy, br oader t han r equi r ed by st at e l aw. ”) .
As Def endant s poi nt out i n t hei r suppl ement al br i ef ,
t hese t wo cases demonst r at e t hat “Congr ess ant i ci pat ed t hat t her e
woul d be di scr epanci es i n t he var i ous st at es’ pr ocedur es
- 48-
Case 1:11-cv-00589-ACK-BMK Document 137 Filed 07/18/14 Page 48 of 53 PageID #:
2051
r egar di ng means t o expunge, set asi de or par don convi ct i ons, and
r est or at i on of ci vi l r i ght s, but t hat t he f ocus i s on a si ngl e
[ nat i onal ] pol i cy r egar di ng t he pr ohi bi t i on of f i r ear mowner shi p
f or i ndi vi dual s who commi t a mi sdemeanor cr i me of domest i c
vi ol ence. ” ( Def s. ’ s Supp. Br i ef at 5. )
Si mi l ar l y, i n Chovan, whi ch t hi s Cour t di scusses above,
Dani el Chovan was convi ct ed i n 1996 of t he mi sdemeanor of
i nf l i ct i ng cor por al i nj ur y on a spouse, i n vi ol at i on of
Cal i f or ni a Penal Code § 273. 5( a) . Chovan, 735 F. 3d at 1130. Under
Cal i f or ni a Penal Code § 12021( c) ( 1) , whi ch at t he t i me appl i ed t o
mi sdemeanant s gener al l y, Chovan was bar r ed f r omowni ng any
f i r ear mf or a t en- year per i od f ol l owi ng hi s convi ct i on. I d.
However , under 18 U. S. C. § 922( g) ( 9) , Chovan was bar r ed f r om
possessi ng any f i r ear mf or l i f e. I d. I n 2010, and af t er t he
Cal i f or ni a t en- year l i mi t at i ons per i od had r un, Chovan was
i ndi ct ed f or and convi ct ed of possessi ng f i r ear ms i n vi ol at i on of
§ 922( g) ( 9) . I d. at 1131. On appeal , t he Ni nt h Ci r cui t af f i r med
Chovan’ s convi ct i on under § 922( g) ( 9) , despi t e t he f act t hat
Chovan was st at ut or i l y qual i f i ed under st at e l aw t o possess
f i r ear ms. I d.
Accor di ngl y, pur suant t o t he Br ai l ey, Car on and Chovan
deci si ons, f eder al l aw can pr ecl ude Pl ai nt i f f f r omobt ai ni ng a
f i r ear ms per mi t , even assumi ng he qual i f i es under Hawai i
st at ut or y l aw.
- 49-
Case 1:11-cv-00589-ACK-BMK Document 137 Filed 07/18/14 Page 49 of 53 PageID #:
2052
I n any event , t hi s Cour t f i nds t hat H. R. S. § 134- 7( a)
bar s Pl ai nt i f f f r ompossessi ng f i r ear ms. H. R. S. § 134- 7( a) was
added t o § 134- 7' s st at ut or y scheme i n 2006 and al l ows t he pol i ce
chi ef t o deny a f i r ear ms per mi t t o per sons who ar e “pr ohi bi t ed
f r ompossessi ng f i r ear ms or ammuni t i on under f eder al l aw. ”
I n i t s Sept . 30 Or der , t he Cour t not ed t hat nei t her
par t y addr essed whet her t he pol i ce chi ef was ent i t l ed t o
r et r oact i vel y appl y H. R. S. § 134- 7( a) . Sept . 30 Or der at 20 n.
15. Because t he Laut enber g Amendment ( as def i ned i n Bel l ess) di d
not bar Pl ai nt i f f f r omobt ai ni ng a f i r ear ms per mi t , t he Cour t
concl uded t hat i t need not det er mi ne whet her i t was i mpr oper f or
t he pol i ce chi ef t o appl y § 134- 7( a) . Now, i n l i ght of Cast l eman,
t he Cour t f i nds t hat t he Laut enber g Amendment pr ohi bi t s Pl ai nt i f f
f r ompossessi ng f i r ear ms. Consequent l y, t he i ssue bef or e t he
Cour t i s whet her t he appl i cat i on of § 134- 7( a) woul d have an
i mper mi ssi bl e r et r oact i ve ef f ect .
The Ni nt h Ci r cui t has ar t i cul at ed a t wo- st ep f r amewor k
f or det er mi ni ng whet her a st at ut e has an i mper mi ssi bl e
r et r oact i ve ef f ect . Sacks v. S. E. C. , 648 F. 3d 945, 951 ( 9t h Ci r .
2011) . Fi r st , a cour t must “det er mi ne whet her t he st at ut e . . .
cl ear l y expr esses t hat t he l aw i s t o be appl i ed r et r oact i vel y. ”
I d. I f not , a cour t must “consi der whet her appl i cat i on of t he
[ st at ut e] woul d have a r et r oact i ve ef f ect by ‘ at t achi ng new l egal
consequences t o event s compl et ed bef or e i t s enact ment . ’ ” I d.
- 50-
Case 1:11-cv-00589-ACK-BMK Document 137 Filed 07/18/14 Page 50 of 53 PageID #:
2053
( quot i ng Mej i a v. Gonzal es, 499 F. 3d 991, 997 ( 9t h Ci r . 2007) ) .
Her e, t he Cour t i n i t s r evi ew of § 134- 7( a) ’ s
l egi sl at i ve hi st or y has not f ound any i ndi cat i on t hat t he Hawai i
St at e Legi sl at ur e i nt ended t he st at ut e t o be appl i ed
r et r oact i vel y. See 2006 Haw. Sess. Laws at 28- 30; 2006 Haw.
Senat e J our nal of 23r d Legi sl at ur e at 1200 & 1277; 2006 Haw.
House of Repr esent at i ves J our nal of 23r d Legi sl at ur e at 1497 &
1653. However , pr oceedi ng t o t he second st ep of t he Sacks
f r amewor k, i t appear s t hat appl i cat i on of § 134- 7( a) woul d not
have an i mper mi ssi bl e r et r oact i ve ef f ect i n t hi s case.
Speci f i cal l y, t he Laut enber g Amendment was enact ed i n 1996 and,
t her ef or e, def i ned gun r i ght s at t he t i me Pl ai nt i f f was convi ct ed
i n 1997. Accor di ngl y, i t appear s t hat t he appl i cat i on of § 134-
7( a) woul d not have an i mper mi ssi bl e r et r oact i ve ef f ect because
t he st at e l aw does not t ake away or i mpai r r i ght s Pl ai nt i f f had
bef or e t he l aw was enact ed. Landgr af v. USI Fi l mPr oduct s, 511
U. S. 244, 269- 270 ( 1994) ( hol di ng t hat a cour t exami ni ng i f a l aw
shoul d be appl i ed r et r oact i vel y shoul d consi der whet her t he “new
pr ovi si on at t aches new l egal consequences t o event s compl et ed
bef or e i t s enact ment ”) .
For t hese r easons, t he Cour t concl udes t hat H. R. S. §
134- 7( a) pr ecl udes Pl ai nt i f f f r omacqui r i ng a f i r ear ms per mi t .
20/
20/
Because 18 U. S. C. § 922( g) ( 9) and H. R. S. § 134- 7( a) bar
Pl ai nt i f f f r ompossessi ng f i r ear ms, t he Cour t f i nds i t
(continued...)
- 51-
Case 1:11-cv-00589-ACK-BMK Document 137 Filed 07/18/14 Page 51 of 53 PageID #:
2054
Si nce Pl ai nt i f f ’ s const i t ut i onal r i ght s have not been
vi ol at ed, i t f ol l ows t hat t he cl ai ms agai nst Keal oha and t he Ci t y
l ack mer i t .
21/
CONCLUSION
For t he f or egoi ng r easons, t he Cour t GRANTS Def endant s’
Mot i on f or Summar y J udgment or , i n t he Al t er nat i ve, Mot i on f or
Reconsi der at i on.
Al l cl ai ms agai nst t he Ci t y and Keal oha ar e di smi ssed
wi t h pr ej udi ce because Pl ai nt i f f ’ s pr i or har assment convi ct i ons
pr ohi bi t hi mf r omobt ai ni ng a f i r ear ms per mi t pur suant t o 18
20/
(...continued)
unnecessar y t o addr ess subsect i ons ( b) and ( c) of H. R. S. § 134- 7.
21/
Al t er nat i vel y, t he Cour t f i nds t hat Keal oha i s ent i t l ed t o
qual i f i ed i mmuni t y and t he Ci t y i s not subj ect t o muni ci pal
l i abi l i t y under Monel l v. New Yor k Ci t y Dept . Soc. Ser v. , 436
U. S. 658, 694 ( 1978) .
The qual i f i ed i mmuni t y def ense i s a t wo- par t i nqui r y: ( 1)
whet her t he f act s shown make out a vi ol at i on of a const i t ut i onal
or f eder al st at ut or y r i ght and ( 2) whet her t hat “r i ght was
‘ cl ear l y est abl i shed’ at t he t i me of t he chal l enged conduct . ”
Ashcr of t v. al - Ki dd, 131 S. Ct . 2074, 2080 ( 2011) . Her e, t he
Cour t does not have t o pr oceed t o t he second st ep of t he
qual i f i ed i mmuni t y i nqui r y: as di scussed supr a, t he Cour t f i nds
t hat t her e was no vi ol at i on of Pl ai nt i f f ’ s Second Amendment
r i ght s as he i s st at ut or i l y di squal i f i ed under 18 U. S. C. §
922( g) ( 9) and H. R. S. § 134- 7( a) f r ompossessi ng f i r ear ms.
Accor di ngl y, t he Cour t f i nds t hat Keal oha i s ent i t l ed t o
qual i f i ed i mmuni t y as t o Pl ai nt i f f ’ s cl ai ms f or money damages.
For t he same r eason, t he Cour t concl udes t hat t he Ci t y i s
not l i abl e under Monel l . See Van Or t v. Est at e of St anewi ch, 92
F. 3d 831, 835 ( 9t h Ci r . 1996) ( f i ndi ng t hat t o pr evai l on a
Monel l cl ai ma pl ai nt i f f must est abl i sh, i nt er al i a, t hat he
possessed a const i t ut i onal r i ght of whi ch he was depr i ved) .
- 52-
Case 1:11-cv-00589-ACK-BMK Document 137 Filed 07/18/14 Page 52 of 53 PageID #:
2055
U. S. C. § 922( g) ( 9) and H. R. S. § 134- 7( a) .
22/
The Cour t f i nds t hat
18 U. S. C. § 922( g) ( 9) i s const i t ut i onal as appl i ed t o Pl ai nt i f f
because, i nt er al i a, he can r est or e hi s Second Amendment r i ght s
by seeki ng a par don f or hi s har assment convi ct i ons.
23/
I n sum, t he Cour t concl udes t hat Pl ai nt i f f ’ s r ecour se
f r omt he pr ohi bi t i ons under 18 U. S. C. § 922( g) ( 9) and H. R. S. §
134- 7( a) i s t o seek a par don f or hi s har assment convi ct i ons.
I T I S SO ORDERED.
DATED: Honol ul u, Hawai #i , J ul y 18, 2014.
________________________________
Al an C. Kay
Seni or Uni t ed St at es Di st r i ct J udge
Fi sher v. Keal oha et al . , Ci v. No. 11- 00589 ACK- BMK: ORDER GRANTI NG
DEFENDANTS’ MOTI ON FOR SUMMARY J UDGMENT OR, I N THE ALTERNATI VE, MOTI ON FOR
RECONSI DERATI ON.
22/
Because Pl ai nt i f f i s st at ut or i l y di squal i f i ed f r om
possessi ng f i r ear ms under 18 U. S. C. § 922( g) ( 9) and H. R. S. § 134-
7( a) , t he Cour t vacat es i t s pr i or Or der , ent er ed on J une 29,
2012, i n whi ch t he Cour t i ssued a pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on
di r ect i ng Keal oha t o “r esci nd t he pr i or deni al of Pl ai nt i f f ’ s
per mi t t o acqui r e f i r ear ms and t o i ssue a per mi t aut hor i zi ng
Pl ai nt i f f t o acqui r e f i r ear ms. ” 2012 Pr el i mi nar y I nj unct i on Or der
at 36.
23/
The Cour t al so f i nds t hat Sect i on 922( g) ( 9) i s
const i t ut i onal on i t s f ace. See f oot not e 15, page 31 of t hi s
Or der ( expl ai ni ng t hat t he anal ysi s t o be appl i ed t o f aci al and
as- appl i ed const i t ut i onal chal l enges i s t he same) .
- 53-
Case 1:11-cv-00589-ACK-BMK Document 137 Filed 07/18/14 Page 53 of 53 PageID #:
2056

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful