Common Gunsense in Maui?
BY Herschel Smith2 years, 1 month ago
WAILUKU — With the defense citing a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision confirming that the right to carry handguns for self-defense extends outside the home, a judge dismissed firearms charges Wednesday against a Paia man who said he had a gun for self-protection when he was arrested on a trespassing charge.
“The way the Supreme Court has interpreted the Second Amendment has caused all of us — criminal defense attorneys, prosecutors, judges — to rethink our gun laws,” said Deputy Public Defender Ben Lowenthal, who represents Christopher L. Wilson. “I hope that prosecutors, when charging these cases, are mindful of this interpretation of the Second Amendment.”
Wilson, 46, had faced the felony charge of keeping a firearm in an improper place and the misdemeanor charge of keeping ammunition in an improper place after he was arrested Dec. 7, 2017.
Police were called after the owner of Flyin Hawaii Zip Lines in the West Maui Mountains was alerted at 11 p.m. Dec. 6, 2017, that trespassers had entered the property, according to information in court records.
Police waited on the roadside while the owner, who was armed with an AR-15 assault rifle, and an employee located three hikers who told police they were hiking to look at the moon and native plants, according to the information.
After a hiker said others might be on the private trail, the owner went back to search and returned about 10 minutes later with Wilson, who told police he had a handgun in his front waistband, according to the court information.
Police reported recovering a .22-caliber handgun loaded with a 10-round magazine.
In seeking to have the firearms charges dismissed, Lowenthal said that until 2008, it was understood that the Second Amendment was related to state militia. He said a 2008 Supreme Court case struck down a law banning handguns in residences in the District of Columbia and “clarified and made it abundantly clear we’re dealing with an independent right designed for an individual to have a firearm for self-protection purposes.”
On June 23, in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the Supreme Court clarified that the right to carry a handgun for self-defense “extends beyond the home,” Lowenthal said. In that case, the court found that a New York law requiring a license to carry concealed weapons in public places is unconstitutional.
“After all, the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation, and confrontation can surely take place outside the home,”the court said.
Lowenthal said the charge alleging Wilson was keeping a firearm in an improper place is similar to legislation struck down in the Bruen case.
“What we have here is Mr. Wilson who is hiking on a mountain trail,”Lowenthal said. “He is outdoors. He has a handgun. It is for self-protection purposes. He was apprehended by private agents, not the police, who had firearms themselves.”
Deputy Prosecutor Sally Tobin said the Second Amendment right isn’t unlimited but is subject to “reasonable restrictions” imposed by states.
“We have always recognized places that a firearm is inappropriate, so there are limits,” she said.
She said the Second Amendment doesn’t give someone the right to carry an unregistered firearm, as Wilson did. She said the gun wasn’t registered in Maui County or the state.
Second Circuit Judge Kirstin Hamman referred to the Supreme Court cases in granting the defense request to dismiss two of the charges against Wilson.
A Nov. 28 trial is set for Wilson on remaining misdemeanor charges alleging he didn’t obtain a permit to acquire a firearm and first-degree criminal trespassing.
Lowenthal said he doesn’t know of any similar motion being granted statewide.
If he was trespassing, he should be charged as such. But the judge made the right call. In this source we learn that the prosecutor initially argued that the defendant lacked standing to argue that Bruen protected him. I think they’ve got it backwards.
The defendant isn’t involved in a lawsuit against the state. He was charged by the state. His lack of attempt to obtain a permit is precisely the point in question. In other words, saying that he lacks standing to argue Bruen begs the question because it presupposes the consequent.
I wish lawyers took classes in logic.
No comments yet.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
Leave a comment