-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Hawaii's Alienage Ban Falls
- Thread starter Knuckle Dragger
- Start date
Do you have a link to a PDF without the spammy scribd stuff? It would only allow me to read a couple of pages without downloading an app or redeeming a promo code.
Not at the moment. Something is going on with PACER or Recap that's preventing me from getting a link to the order.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,526
- Likes
- 33,542
It's really cool that this is a Summary Judgment and order for permanent injunctive relief. In other words, it's a slam-dunk for our side.
This link help?
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/hawaii/hidce/1:2014cv00333/117486
I believe this is the full order:
http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/hawaii/hidce/1:2014cv00333/117486/37/0.pdf
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/hawaii/hidce/1:2014cv00333/117486
I believe this is the full order:
http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/hawaii/hidce/1:2014cv00333/117486/37/0.pdf
Comm2A is the gift that keeps on giving . . . but this time it is for our side!
Good work guys.
Good work guys.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,526
- Likes
- 33,542
Even an order in HI helps our cause here in MA, just a little bit.
Every time a federal court rules in favor of gun rights, it becomes less "unthinkable" that a ruling will go our way. Just a few years ago, the general perception was that any case brought in favor of gun rights was a fringe pleading not to be taken seriously. Cultural shifts have a huge influence on the courts - just imagine how a gay marriage case would have been received in the 60s.
Every time a federal court rules in favor of gun rights, it becomes less "unthinkable" that a ruling will go our way. Just a few years ago, the general perception was that any case brought in favor of gun rights was a fringe pleading not to be taken seriously. Cultural shifts have a huge influence on the courts - just imagine how a gay marriage case would have been received in the 60s.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,526
- Likes
- 33,542
No direct impact, since we won a case (Fletcher v. Haas) covering the same issue in MA.
The long term impact is that every time a gun rights case is won in federal court, ruling in favor of our side in a federal case becomes a bit less unthinkable.
IANAL - Please excuse the laypersons interpretation:
Comm2A filed suit on behalf of a resident Alien against the Chiefs of Police of two Massachusetts towns and against the director of the Massachusetts Firearms Review Board.
From: http://comm2a.org/index.php/55-projects/103-fletcher
Comm2A Website said:
Comm2A won this case in federal court, establishing that 2A rights cannot be denied resident aliens.
Fletcher v Haas et al is now being used as precedent for similar arguments in other jurisdictions - Hawaii in the case of this thread.
The Hawaii decision references Fletcher five times... This not only benefits the person in Hawaii making the complaint; Being referenced in this way strengthens and validates the Fletcher decision (and gives Ron, Knuckle Dragger, and the others at Comm2A well-deserved bragging rights at Lawyer bars.
![[smile]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/001.gif "Smile [smile]")
)Perfect, thanks!
To my untrained eye, two things were striking:
1. How quickly the case made it from refused permit application to summary judgment, just over two months.
2. The conferences with the court, where the parties agreed to modify language, etc.
It looks to me like the defendants were not putting up a fight and instead helped bring the case to a quick resolution. Does it also look that way to those of you who actually know something about these things?
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,526
- Likes
- 33,542
The normal course of events when a govt entity, particularly a small town with outside counsel, is sued it to hand the papers to the attorney and say "handle this".
In the case of the Natick case (suing to get an LTC for someone with an out of state $20 fine for the heathen devil weed), the town spent money to pay an attorney to defend the case, when it could instead have told the attorney "tell the court we are offering no defense". I suspect the defense, and ringing up of Natick's legal tab, was because town counsel went on autopilot "Client sued, we need to defend and bill" rather than a careful consideration as to whether or not the case was worth fighting.
They filed for a preliminary injunction. That brings the case closer to the top of the queue. We could have done that in Fletcher, but were we rookies and elected to go a little slower. I haven't read the order, but from the docket it appears that Hawaii was not prepared to fight this. I'm still a little surprised that MA fought us so hard in Fletcher because even at that time the case law was pretty clear on the issue. I think politics drove the state's strategy in Fletcher along with a sort of hope that if they could win it would slow us down.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,526
- Likes
- 33,542
Didn't quite work out that way
![[party]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/021.gif "Party [party]")
This is how gun rights are going to be restored, not in one giant sweeping victory but in numerous small victories like this. As the victories and precedents pile up, it will be harder and harder for the antis to defend against the slew of lawsuits.
This fits the analogy of "How do you eat an elephant (jackass in the case of MA)?" "One bite at a time!"
My suspicion is that since that HRS was written, the public perception of aliens in Hawaii has shifted, and that the city of Honolulu (and the state) didn't actually want to keep the law on the books. If they had a problem with the injunction, they would have fought it right or not. In this case I think fighting it 1. Wouldn't give them any brownie points with the deep blue electorate. 2. Wouldn't really help them anyway.
So now all green card holders can apply for a license but isn't it still up to the CLEO as to whether that person will get a license to posses or not? So yes, he can apply, but yes he can be denied as well. Am I wrong?
You are correct by law. In practice, permits to acquire in Hawaii are shall issue, only people with mental health disqualifiers or state or federal PP status get denied. There was a case brought a couple of years ago Fisher v Kealoha that is challenging some of the state disqualifiers.
JuergenG
NES Member
Didn't quite work out that way
And rightly so!
