Lawsuit Disputes Hawaii’s Gun Ownership Ban for Micronesians Living in the U.S. Long-Term Without Citizenship

In the case of Peter v. Lopez, filed in the District of Hawaii, the plaintiff is a long-term resident of Hawaii who lives in the United States under the terms of the Compact of Free Association (COFA) involving several Pacific island nations, including the Federated States of Micronesia, Palau, and the Marshall Islands. COFA allows citizens of these nations significant opportunities to reside and work in the U.S. However, despite this legal status, COFA citizens do not hold lawful permanent resident status, which sets them apart from green card holders under the Immigration and Nationality Act. This legal distinction becomes crucial when addressing Hawaii’s firearm ownership regulations.

Hawaii law, specifically Hawaii Revised Statutes (H.R.S.) § 134-2, imposes a general prohibition on gun ownership by non-citizens, with exceptions for certain groups. There have been legal challenges to this law, most notably in the case of Fotoudis v. City & County of Honolulu. In that case, the court ruled that the statute’s ban on firearm ownership for permanent resident aliens violated the Second Amendment. Following this decision, the state maintained the prohibition on other non-citizen residents, specifically influencing U.S. Nationals from American Samoa until a lawsuit prompted a legal settlement.

The subsequent case, Alanoa Nickel v. Connors, resulted in a stipulated injunction that allowed U.S. Nationals to possess firearms, leading to an amendment of H.R.S. § 134-2 to include these individuals among those permitted to own guns. Despite these changes, the statute continues to bar COFA residents from firearm ownership, leading to legal contention regarding the constitutionality of this exclusion. The plaintiffs contend that this ban represents a violation of the Second Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution, asserting that non-citizens should not suffer discrimination in gun ownership rights.

Legal precedents provide context for the argument surrounding equal protection and the treatment of non-citizens, particularly COFA aliens. Citing Graham v. Richardson (1971), the plaintiffs argue that alienage is considered a suspect class, which requires any discriminatory laws against non-citizens to undergo strict scrutiny. This means that the government must demonstrate that such discrimination is narrowly tailored to achieve a legitimate government interest. The strict scrutiny standard poses a significant burden for the state to justify its ban on firearm ownership for COFA aliens.

The plaintiffs further draw on cases like Fletcher v. Haas and Say v. Adams, which successfully challenged similar state laws restricting firearm possession to citizens. In each instance, the courts noted the failure of blanket prohibitions to accurately assess the risk posed by individual non-citizens and highlighted the existence of nondiscriminatory alternatives to achieving the government’s regulatory objectives. This legal framework underscores the inconsistency in Hawaii’s current laws regarding firearm rights for non-citizens and COFA residents specifically.

The case is being represented by attorneys Kevin O’Grady and Alan Beck, the latter of whom has a history of advocating for non-citizens’ rights in similar contexts, having represented plaintiffs in both the Fotoudis and Nickel cases. The outcome of Peter v. Lopez could set a significant precedent regarding the constitutional rights of COFA aliens and the broader implications of Second Amendment protections for non-citizens in the United States. If the court finds the firearm ownership ban unconstitutional, it could compel the state to reconsider its regulations concerning COFA residents, potentially altering the legal landscape for non-citizens seeking to exercise their Second Amendment rights in Hawaii.