Christopher L. Wilson v. Hawaii

In 2017, Mr. Wilson was arrested for trespass. When searched, it was discovered he had a firearm on him. He did not have a license to carry.

His case was heard in the lower courts of Hawaii, later it was appealed to the Supreme Court of Hawaii.

There, the court found that because he had not attempted to get a carry license, he could not claim a Second Amendment defense. They then took multiple nasty shots at the Supreme Court of the United States and in the Bruen opinion.

Mr. Wilson then filed a petition for writ of certiorari. On the 9th of December, that petition was denied.

Justice Thomas wrote respecting the denial of certiorari. Justice Alito joined him. Justice Gorsuch also wrote a statement.

No justice wrote to say they would have granted cert. Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch all agreed that cert. should be denied.

In New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U. S. 1 (2022), we singled out Hawaii’s firearms-licensing regime as “analog[ous]” to the New York regime we held unconstitutional. Id., at 15. We explained that States cannot condition an individual’s exercise of his Second Amendment rights on a showing of “special need.” Id., at 70–71. Yet, the Hawaii Supreme Court ignored our holding in the decision below. See 154 Haw. 8, 543 P. 3d 440 (2024). It instead stated that petitioner Christopher Wilson could not invoke the Hawaii regime’s unconstitutionality as a defense in his criminal proceedings because he had never applied for a license. That conclusion contravenes the settled principle that Americans need not engage in empty formalities before they can invoke their constitutional rights, and it wrongly reduces the Second Amendment to a “second-class right.” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 780 (2010) (plurality opinion). Although the interlocutory posture of the petition weighs against correcting this error now, I would grant certiorari in an appropriate case to reaffirm that the Second Amendment warrants the same respect as any other constitutional right.
—Order List (2024)

Oh my, the Hawaii Supreme Court was spanked, hard.

The Second Amendment litigators were also chastised. Thomas et al. have stated clearly, “We are not going to grant certiorari on cases that are still in an interlocutory posture.”

As a Second Amendment litigator, stop appealing during the interlocutory phase. If you win, great. You can find in the appeals. If you are going to lose, lose as quickly as possible, then appeal.

Appealing TROs and preliminary injunctions just delays getting a win. I’m not even sure it is worth asking for TROs and preliminary injunctions. Again, it is just a delay.

In the jurisdictions where these battles are being fought, the appeals courts are not on our side. If you request a TRO and it is not granted, the appeal to the circuit court will lose, but it will add months of time to the process, and it increases the costs as well.

If you request a TRO, and it is granted, the state is going to appeal. Having appealed, the circuit court will stay the TRO, the case then will be scheduled for oral arguments months later.

We are much better off moving to final judgement as quickly as possible.

Comments

Leave a Reply Cancel reply