State v. Mendoza

LEVINSON, Justice,

concurring.

I concur in the judgment of the court.

In his opening brief, Mendoza asserts a single point of error on appeal:

The [circuit] court erred in denying ... Mendoza’s [m]otion to [d]ismiss [the] [a]mended [c]omplaint....

Article I, [s]ection 17 of the [Hawaii] State Constitution and the [s]eeond [a]mendment [to] the Federal Constitution secure the right of individuals to keep and bear arms and provide that such right “shall not be infringed.” ... As applied to ... Mendoza, [Hawaii] Revised Statutes (HRS) [§ ] 134-4(b) constitutes an infringement of the right to bear arms because it requires that ... Mendoza obtain a permit prior to purchasing/possessing a firearm. In order to apply for a permit, ... Mendoza would be required, under HRS § 134-2, to reveal extremely personal and confidential information, including privileged information.

Thus, Mendoza’s appeal raises only one narrow question for resolution: Does the application of HRS § 134r4(b) (1998) to Mendoza infringe upon any rights secured either by the second amendment to the United States Constitution or by article I, section 17 of the Hawai'i Constitution? The simple answer is “no.” Inasmuch as (1) article I, section 17 “incorporates the 2nd Amendment to the Federal Constitution,” see Committee of the Whole Rep. No. 5, reprinted in I Proceedings of the Constitutional Convention of Hawai'i of 1950, at 303; see also Stand. Comm. Rep. No. 20, reprinted in id. at 164, and (2) HRS § 134-4(b) has no ‘“reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia,’ ” see Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55, 65-66 n.8, 100 S.Ct. 915, 921 n.8, 63 L.Ed.2d 198 (1980) (quoting United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178, 59 S.Ct. 816, 818, 83 L.Ed. 1206 (1939)), I would hold that HRS § 314-4(b), as applied to Mendoza, in no way infringes upon rights secured by the second amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 17 of the Hawai'i Constitution.