Hawaii Supreme Court Said Right to Bear Arms Clashes with Spirt of Aloha. Cert Petition Filed with US Supreme Court.
Christopher L. Wilson, Petitioner v. Hawaii No. 23-7517
Last Tuesday, a petition for a writ of certiorari challenging the infamous Hawaii State Supreme Court opinion on the right to keep and bear arms was filed. This was the case in which the state high court wrote, “The spirit of Aloha clashes with a federally-mandated lifestyle that lets citizens walk around with deadly weapons during day-to-day activities.”
The opinion was a slap in the face to the six United States Supreme Court justices who were in the majority in NYSRPA v. Bruen (2022). But the lower courts routinely defy, disregard, and disrespect binding Supreme Court decisions, and not just when it involves the Second Amendment. Supreme Court Rule 10 recognizes this fact and cautions that the Court rarely grants a cert petition to correct the “mistakes” of the lower courts.
The Hawaii High Court held that the defendant, Christopher L. Wilson, did not have standing to challenge the statute requiring a license because he had not applied for a license. This was even though his arrest occurred when it would have been futile for him to apply for a license given that the only licenses issued at the time were to security guards.
The question presented is: Whether the Bruen test determines when a State's criminal prosecution for carrying a handgun without a license violates the Second Amendment?
The petitioner, Mr. Wilson, asks SCOTUS to “grant the petition for certiorari, vacate the decision, and remand for further proceedings to reinstate the trial court's dismissal order. Alternatively, the Petitioner requests the Court to grant his petition and set the case for briefing and argument on the merits.”
The State’s response is due on June 20, 2024. The State of Hawaii can obtain an extension of up to 60 days. When it is a State or Federal Attorney General asking for an extension of time, they rarely (never?) ask for the maximum of a 60-day extension. But in this case, it is the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney Maui County, Hawaii that will be defending the decision. A 60-day extension to file the response may very well be asked for and granted.
SCOTUS does not wait for a reply brief to be filed when scheduling petitions for a conference and so this cert petition will likely be scheduled for the SCOTUS “long conference” near the end of September. If not, the petition will be scheduled for the first conference on October 11th.
It is highly unlikely that the cert petition will be granted but the State’s brief in opposition to granting the petition should be amusing to read.
That said, the more Amicus briefs filed in a case, the greater the likelihood of the cert petition being granted.
Here is a link to the SCOTUS docket.