BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation has filed an amicus brief in a case that successfully challenged the State of Hawaii’s regulatory scheme for carrying firearms in public for personal protection, in which defendants have asked for an en banc hearing before the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals after a three-judge panel ruled against the state.
SAF is asking the court to reject the en banc request, and accept the decision of the panel in favor of plaintiff George Young in the case that is known as Young v. Hawaii. In July, the appeals court ruled that the Second Amendment protects the right to openly carry a firearm for self-defense.
“The 9th Circuit panel ruling was proper recognition that the right to bear arms extends beyond the confines of someone’s home,” noted SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “Clearly, anti-gunners in Hawaii do not want that to stand, so they’ve requested an en banc hearing before a full panel.
“This case is one of many in recent years that looks at the carrying of firearms in public for personal protection,” he continued. “It is of great interest to SAF members and supporters all over the country, because the Second Amendment right to bear arms is no less a right than any of the other rights enumerated and protected by the Bill of Rights. After all, nobody would argue that a citizen’s First, Fourth or Fifth Amendment rights stop at the front door of their home.”
The amicus brief also mentions “the completely arbitrary standard for obtaining either a concealed or open carry license in the County of Hawaii, coupled with the facts that it is both virtually impossible to get either type of carry license in the County of Hawaii.” Gottlieb noted that this sort of regulatory scheme essentially diminishes the Second Amendment to the status of a government privilege that is never granted.
“Rights protected specifically by the Constitution cannot be rights in name, alone,” Gottlieb observed. “Citizens must be able to exercise their rights or else they exist only on paper. The Ninth Circuit panel ruled correctly and our brief contends that the court should decline further review.”