No. 21-15562 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ANDREW NAMIKI ROBERTS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AL CUMMINGS, in his Official Capacity as the State Sheriff Division Administrator; CLARE E. CONNORS, in her Official Capacity as the Attorney General of the State of Hawai‘i, Defendants-Appellees, and SUSAN BALLARD, in her Official Capacity as the Chief of Police of Honolulu County Defendant On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawai‘i Honorable Helen Gillmor, Senior United States District Judge (Civil No. 1:18-cv-00125-HG-RT) DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES’ ANSWERING BRIEF CLARE E. CONNORS Attorney General of Hawai‘i KIMBERLY T. GUIDRY Solicitor General of Hawai‘i ROBERT T. NAKATSUJI JOHN M. CREGOR, JR. Deputy Attorneys General Department of the Attorney General 425 Queen Street Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96813 Telephone: (808) 586-1360 Fax: (808) 586-8116 E-mail: Robert.T.Nakatsuji@hawaii.gov John.M.Cregor@hawaii.gov Attorneys for Defendants-Appellees AL CUMMINGS and CLARE E. CONNORS Case: 21-15562, 11/15/2021, ID: 12287311, DktEntry: 22, Page 1 of 96 i TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................1 II. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ...............................................................2 III. STATEMENT OF AUTHORITIES................................................................2 IV. COUNTER-STATEMENT OF THE CASE ...................................................2 A. Procedural History of this Case.............................................................2 B. Enactment of Act 183............................................................................8 V. SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT............................................................11 VI. STANDARD OF REVIEW...........................................................................15 VII. ARGUMENT.................................................................................................15 A. This Appeal Should be Dismissed as Moot and the Case Remanded to the District Court for Entry of an Order Dismissing the Complaint ...................................................................15 1. Plaintiff has no claim for prospective injunctive relief because Haw. Rev. Stat. § 134-16 has been repealed by Act 183 .................................................................................17 2. Plaintiff also does not have a valid claim against Haw. Rev. Stat. § 134-51....................................................................20 B. This Court Does Not Have Appellate Jurisdiction Over this Issue.....................................................................................................28 C. The District Court Did Not Abuse its Discretion in Continuing the Stay Pending the Supreme Court’s Consideration of the NYSRPA and Young Cases ................................33 1. The orderly course of justice.....................................................35 2. Hardship or inequity in going forward .....................................37 3. Possible damage........................................................................38 VIII. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................40 Case: 21-15562, 11/15/2021, ID: 12287311, DktEntry: 22, Page 2 of 96 ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Aholelei v. Dep’t of Pub. Safety , 488 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir. 2007) ..............................................................................18 Am. Rivers v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Serv. , 126 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 1997) ..............................................................................15 Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona , 520 U.S. 43 (1997)................................................................................................15 Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Ala. v. Unity Outpatient Surgery Ctr., Inc. , 490 F.3d 718 (9th Cir. 2007) ........................................................................ passim Board of Trustees of Glazing Health and Welfare Trust v. Chambers , 941 F.3d 1195 (2019)............................................................................... 17, 20, 40 Caetano v. Massachusetts , 577 U.S. 411 (2016)................................................................................. 13, 20, 25 City of Mesquite v. Aladdin’s Castle, Inc. , 455 U.S. 283 (1982)..............................................................................................17 Clinton v. Jones , 520 U.S. 681 (1997)..............................................................................................34 CMAX, Inc. v. Hall , 300 F.2d 265 (9th Cir. 1962) ................................................................................35 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Cashcall, Inc. , Nos. 18-55407 & 18-55479, 2019 WL 5390028 (9th Cir. Oct. 21, 2019).........................................................................................39 Consumer Prod. Safety Comm'n v. GTE Sylvania, Inc. , 447 U.S. 102 (1980)..............................................................................................25 Daniels-Hall v. Nat’l Educ. Ass’n , 629 F.3d 992 (9th Cir. 2010) ..................................................................................9 Dejetley v. Kaho ʻ ohalahala , 122 Hawaiʻi 251, 226 P.3d 421 (2010).................................................................26 Case: 21-15562, 11/15/2021, ID: 12287311, DktEntry: 22, Page 3 of 96 iii Dependable Highway Exp., Inc. v. Navigators Ins. Co. , 498 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2007) ..............................................................................15 District of Columbia v. Heller , 554 U.S. 570 (2008)..............................................................................................27 Doe No. 1 v. Reed , 697 F.3d 1235 (9th Cir. 2012) ....................................................................... 16, 19 Ex parte Young , 209 U.S. 123 (1908)..............................................................................................18 Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp. v. Kama , Civ. No. 14-00137 ACK-KSC, 2016 WL 922780 (D. Haw. Mar. 9, 2016).................................................................................. 34, 37 Flast v. Cohen , 392 U.S. 83 (1968)................................................................................................16 Foster v. Carson , 347 F.3d 742 (9th Cir. 2003) ................................................................................15 Ganezer v. Directbuy, Inc. , 571 F.3d 846 (9th Cir. 2009) ................................................................................39 George v. Manheim Investments, Inc. , 731 F. App’x 624 (9th Cir. 2018) .................................................................. 29, 30 Gerritsen v. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. , 112 F. Supp. 3d 1011 (S.D. Cal. 2015)...................................................................9 Grand Canyon Tr. v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation , 691 F.3d 1008 (9th Cir. 2012) ..............................................................................16 Hancock v. Kulana Partners, LLC , 692 F. App’x 329 (9th Cir. 2017) .........................................................................26 Hawai‘i v. Trump , 233 F. Supp. 3d 850 (D. Haw. 2017)....................................................................36 Hines v. D’Artois , 531 F.2d 726 (5th Cir. 1976) ................................................................................31 Case: 21-15562, 11/15/2021, ID: 12287311, DktEntry: 22, Page 4 of 96 iv Italian Colors Rest. v. Becerra , 878 F.3d 1165 (9th Cir. 2018) ..............................................................................27 Karoun Dairies, Inc. v. Karlacti, Inc. , Civil No. 08cv1521 AJB (WVG), 2013 WL 4716202 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 3, 2013) .......................................................................... 36, 37, 38 Kinkaid v. Bd. of Rev. of City & Cty. of Honolulu , 106 Hawai‘i 318, 104 P.3d 905 (2004).......................................................... 23, 24 Landis v. N. Am. Co. , 299 U.S. 248 (1936)....................................................................................... 34, 35 Leslie v. Comm’r , 146 F.3d 643 (9th Cir. 1998) ................................................................................26 Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal., Ltd. , 593 F.2d 857 (9th Cir. 1979) ......................................................................... 34, 36 Lockyer v. Mirant Corp. , 398 F.3d 1098 (9th Cir. 2005) ..............................................................................35 Matera v. Google Inc. , Case No. 15-cv-04062-LHK, 2016 WL 454130 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2016) .......................................................................... 35, 37, 38 Mediterranean Enterprises, Inc. v. Ssangyong Corp. , 708 F.2d 1458 (9th Cir. 1983) ..............................................................................34 Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York , 436 U.S. 658 (1978)....................................................................................... 18, 19 New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen , No. 20-843 (U.S. April 26, 2021) ................................................................. passim New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. City of New York , 140 S. Ct. 1525 (2020)..................................................................................... 4, 19 New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. City of New York , No. 18-280 (U.S.)....................................................................................................4 Pauluk v. Savage , 836 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. 2016) ..............................................................................15 Case: 21-15562, 11/15/2021, ID: 12287311, DktEntry: 22, Page 5 of 96 v Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman , 465 U.S. 89 (1984)................................................................................................18 Powell v. McCormack , 395 U.S. 486 (1969)..............................................................................................16 Preiser v. Newkirk , 422 U.S. 395 (1975)..............................................................................................16 Rocky Mountain Farmers Union v. Corey , 913 F.3d 940 (9th Cir. 2019) ............................................................. 16, 17, 19, 20 State v. Giltner , 56 Haw. 374, 537 P.2d 14 (1975) ............................................................ 21, 22, 24 State v. Muliufi , 64 Haw. 485, 643 P.2d 546 (1982) ................................................................ 22, 24 State v. Ogata , 58 Haw. 514, 572 P.2d 1222 (1977) .....................................................................21 State v. Rackle , 55 Haw. 531, 523 P.2d 299 (1974) .................................................... 21, 22, 24, 27 Teter v. Connors , No. 20-15948 (9th Cir. April 27, 2021)................................................................39 U.S. Parole Comm’n v. Geraghty , 445 U.S. 388 (1980)..............................................................................................16 Union Cent. Life Ins. Co. v. Wernick , 777 F.2d 499 (9th Cir. 1985) ......................................................................... 23, 24 United States v. Gen. Dynamics Corp. , 828 F.2d 1356 (9th Cir. 1987) ..............................................................................29 United States v. Salerno , 481 U.S. 739 (1987)..............................................................................................27 Williamson v. Hawai‘i Paroling Authority , 97 Hawai‘i 183, 35 P.3d 210 (2001).............................................................. 23, 24 Case: 21-15562, 11/15/2021, ID: 12287311, DktEntry: 22, Page 6 of 96 vi Yong v. Immigration and Naturalization Service , 208 F.3d 1116 (9th Cir. 2000) ....................................................................... 31, 32 Young v. Hawai‘i , No. 12-17808, 2021 WL 1114180 (9th Cir. Mar. 24, 2021) (en banc)........................................................................................................ passim Young v. Hawai‘i, No. 20-1639 (U.S. May 11, 2021) ..........................................................................6 Statutes 28 U.S.C. § 1291......................................................................................... 2, 6, 8, 29 Haw. Rev. Stat. §§ 134-2(e) & (g), 134-4(b), 134-5(c), 134-9, 134-25 ..................24 Haw. Rev. Stat. § 134-16 (2011 & Supp. 2019).............................................. passim Haw. Rev. Stat. §§ 134-23, 134-24, 134-25 (2011) ................................................11 Haw. Rev. Stat. § 134-51 (2011) ..................................................................... passim Rules Fed. R. Evid. 201 .......................................................................................................9 Haw. R. App. P. 13 ..................................................................................................26 Constitutional Provisions Haw. Const. art. III, § 10 .........................................................................................28 Legislative History Act 183, Session Laws of Hawai‘i 2021.......................................................... passim Act 183, Session Laws of Hawai‘i 2021 § 1..................................................... 11, 25 Act 183, Session Laws of Hawai‘i 2021 § 2........................................... 9, 10, 22, 23 Act 183, Session Laws of Hawai‘i 2021 § 8....................................................... 9, 19 Act 183, Session Laws of Hawai‘i 2021 § 12............................................................9 Case: 21-15562, 11/15/2021, ID: 12287311, DktEntry: 22, Page 7 of 96 vii GM1311 , Hawai‘i State Legislature, http://www .capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=GM&billnumber =1311&year=2021 ..................................................................................................9 HB891 Measure Status , Hawai‘i State Legislature, https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv .aspx?billtype=HB&billnumber=891&year=2021 ................................ 8, 9, 14, 28 Other Authorities Associated Press, Ruling upholds Hawaii’s limits on carrying guns in public , Honolulu Star-Advertiser (Mar. 24, 2021), https://www.staradvertiser.com/2021/03/24/breaking-news /ruling-upholds-hawaiis-limits-on-carrying-guns-in-public/..................................5 R.F. Chase, Annotation, Appealability of order staying, or refusing to stay, action because of pendency of another action , 18 A.L.R.3d 400, § 2 (1968)......29 Case: 21-15562, 11/15/2021, ID: 12287311, DktEntry: 22, Page 8 of 96 1 I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff-Appellant ANDREW NAMIKI ROBERTS (“Plaintiff”) filed an appeal from the District Court’s Order continuing the stay in this case, notwithstanding the fact that the District Court had several strong reasons for continuing the stay. During the pendency of this appeal, however, events have overtaken the case and have rendered the entire case moot. The Hawai‘i State Legislature has enacted a law, which the Governor of Hawai‘i has signed, that repeals the statute challenged by Plaintiff and replaces the statutory scheme applicable to electric guns. Therefore, this case is now moot. In the alternative, this Court lacks appellate jurisdiction to consider this appeal. The stay is not sufficiently lengthy or indefinite so as to support appellate jurisdiction. In any event, this Court should affirm the District Court’s Order on the merits. The District Court clearly did not abuse its discretion in denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Lift Stay and Re-urge Summary Judgment. The orderly course of justice, the hardship or inequity in going forward, and the possible damage all weigh in favor of continuing the stay. Moreover, there is nothing unusual about federal courts staying cases pending U.S. Supreme Court decisions. Defendants-Appellees AL CUMMINGS, in his Official Capacity as the State Sheriff Division Administrator, and CLARE E. CONNORS, in her Official Case: 21-15562, 11/15/2021, ID: 12287311, DktEntry: 22, Page 9 of 96 2 Capacity as the Attorney General of the State of Hawai‘i (“State Defendants”) respectfully request that this Court dismiss the instant appeal on grounds of mootness and remand this case to the District Court for entry of an Order dismissing the complaint with prejudice. In the alternative, this Court should dismiss this appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. Or this Court should affirm the District Court on the merits and hold that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in continuing the stay. II. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION State Defendants disagree with Plaintiff’s claim that this Court has appellate jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The instant appeal is an appeal from an order continuing a stay and is therefore not an appeal from a final order. State Defendants recognize that the Order entered on May 13, 2021 held that appellate jurisdiction existed for purposes of Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Disposition. DktEntry 11. However, the Ninth Circuit’s Order entered on August 11, 2021 redirected the parties to brief the jurisdiction issue in this appeal. DktEntry 14. III. STATEMENT OF AUTHORITIES State Defendants set forth the pertinent constitutional provisions, statutes, and rules in an Addendum attached below. IV. COUNTER-STATEMENT OF THE CASE A. Procedural History of this Case. Case: 21-15562, 11/15/2021, ID: 12287311, DktEntry: 22, Page 10 of 96 3 On April 2, 2018, Plaintiff filed his Complaint challenging the constitutionality of Section 134-16 of the Hawai‘i Revised Statutes, which generally prohibited the possession and sale of electric guns by ordinary civilians. 1 ER-066 (ECF 1); SER-085-110. On May 21, 2018, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint, which added additional language challenging Section 134-51 of the Hawai‘i Revised Statutes. ER-043-064. 1 Section 134-16 provided in relevant part: Restriction on possession, sale, gift, or delivery of electric guns. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person, including a licensed manufacturer, licensed importer, or licensed dealer, to possess, offer for sale, hold for sale, sell, give, lend, or deliver any electric gun. . . . (c) This section shall not apply to: (1) Law enforcement officers of county police departments; (2) Law enforcement officers of the department of public safety; (3) Conservation and resources enforcement officers of the department of land and natural resources; (4) Members of the Army or Air National Guard when assisting civil authorities in disaster relief, emergency management, or law enforcement functions, subject to the requirements of section 121-34.5; (5) Law enforcement officers appointed by the director of transportation pursuant to section 266-24; and (6) Vendors providing electric guns to the individuals described in paragraphs (1) through (5)[.] Haw. Rev. Stat. § 134-16 (2011 & Supp. 2019). Case: 21-15562, 11/15/2021, ID: 12287311, DktEntry: 22, Page 11 of 96 4 On December 17, 2018, the parties stipulated to stay the proceedings based on proposed legislation on electric guns pending before the 2019 session of the Hawai‘i State Legislature. ER-040-042. Ultimately, the proposed legislation did not pass during that session. On August 2, 2019, Plaintiff filed his Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF 51. On September 4, 2019, State Defendants filed their Cross-[Motion] for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion. ECF 54. On November 26, 2019, the District Court stayed the proceedings pending a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. City of New York , No. 18-280 (U.S.). ER-035-037. The Supreme Court eventually issued its decision on April 27, 2020. See New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. City of New York , 140 S. Ct. 1525 (2020). On June 17, 2020, the District Court stayed the proceedings based on the pendency of the Ninth Circuit en banc proceedings in Young v. Hawai‘i , No. 12- 17808 (9th Cir.). ER-033-034. The Court also based the stay on the fact that legislation on electric guns was pending before the 2020 session of Hawai‘i Legislature. Id. On July 20, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Lift Stay. ER-030-032. Case: 21-15562, 11/15/2021, ID: 12287311, DktEntry: 22, Page 12 of 96 5 On August 14, 2020, the District Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion to Lift Stay and decided to continue the stay pending a decision in Young . ER-075 (ECF 81); SER-078. The Court also relied on “the reasons previously stated in the Minute Order dated June 17, 2020.” SER-078. On March 24, 2021, the Ninth Circuit issued its en banc decision in Young v. Hawai‘i , No. 12-17808, 2021 WL 1114180 (9th Cir. Mar. 24, 2021) (en banc). On March 24, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Lift Stay and Re-urge Summary Judgment. ER-025-029. On March 25, 2021, the District Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion to Lift Stay and Re-urge Summary Judgment, determining that it would not act until the Young proceedings had concluded. ER-008-009. The Court further noted that, according to a report from the Honolulu Star-Advertiser, Alan Beck, who is the plaintiff’s attorney in Young , and an attorney for Plaintiff in the present case, stated that Mr. Young will be asking the Supreme Court to review the Young decision. Id. See also Associated Press, Ruling upholds Hawaii’s limits on carrying guns in public , Honolulu Star-Advertiser (Mar. 24, 2021), https://www.staradvertiser.com /2021/03/24/breaking-news/ruling-upholds-hawaiis-limits-on-carrying-guns-in- public/ (“George Young’s lawyer said he will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case. ‘We are hopeful the Supreme Court will grant review in Mr. Young’s case,’ attorney Alan Beck said.”). Case: 21-15562, 11/15/2021, ID: 12287311, DktEntry: 22, Page 13 of 96 6 Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal from the denial of the Motion on March 26, 2021. ER-003-007. Plaintiff also filed a Motion for Summary Disposition in the Ninth Circuit on March 31, 2021. 9th Cir. DktEntry 2-1. State Defendants filed a Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Disposition on April 9, 2021. DktEntry 7-1. Plaintiff filed a Reply on April 14, 2021. DktEntry 8. On April 26, 2021, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in another Second Amendment case— New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen , No. 20-843 (U.S. April 26, 2021) (Order granting certiorari), SER-024-026 (Exhibit “A” to Memorandum in Opposition). 2 On May 11, 2021, the Plaintiff in Young v. Hawai‘i filed his Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the Supreme Court. See Young v. Hawai‘i, No. 20-1639 (U.S. May 11, 2021) (Petition for Writ of Certiorari), SER-027-069 (Exhibit “B” to Memorandum in Opposition). On May 13, 2021, two judges of the Ninth Circuit, addressing Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Disposition, entered an order remanding the case to the District Court. DktEntry 11. The court held that it had “jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 to review stay orders that impose lengthy or indefinite delays and 2 Formerly New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Corlett , hereinafter “ NYSRPA .” Case: 21-15562, 11/15/2021, ID: 12287311, DktEntry: 22, Page 14 of 96 7 ‘place a plaintiff effectively out of court.’” Id. The court further noted that the challenged stay order did not set forth the District Court’s analysis or explain its weighing of the relevant factors. Id. The court remanded for the limited purpose of allowing the District Court “to reconsider its decision and to set forth its reasons for whatever decision it reaches, so that [the Ninth Circuit] can properly exercise [its] powers of review.” Id. The court directed the District Court to issue its ruling on remand within 30 days of the order and directed Plaintiff to file a status report and/or motion for appropriate relief within 7 days of the District Court’s ruling. Id. On May 19, 2021, the District Court authorized State Defendants to file a Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Lift Stay and Re-urge Summary Judgment, and the Court also authorized Plaintiff to file a Reply, since neither had been previously filed in the case. SER-076-077. On May 24, 2021, State Defendants filed their Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion. SER-004-075. On May 26, 2021, Plaintiff filed his Reply. ER-017-024. On June 2, 2021, the District Court filed its Response to the Ninth Circuit’s May 13, 2021 Order, which elected to continue the stay of the proceedings in this case. ER-010-016; DktEntry 12. The District Court stated three reasons for continuing the stay: (1) in order for the U.S. Supreme Court to address the Case: 21-15562, 11/15/2021, ID: 12287311, DktEntry: 22, Page 15 of 96 8 standard of review that applies to a Second Amendment challenge, which is before the Court in NYSRPA ; (2) to await a decision by the Court on the application for a writ of certiorari seeking review of the en banc decision in Young v. Hawai‘i ; and (3) to allow the Governor of Hawai‘i to review House Bill (“H.B.”) 891, which the State Defendants represented would repeal and replace the electric gun statute at issue in this case. ER-010-016; DktEntry 12. Plaintiff filed his Status Report in the Ninth Circuit on June 7, 2021. DktEntry 13. On August 11, 2021, the Ninth Circuit denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Disposition without prejudice to him renewing the arguments in the opening brief. DktEntry 14. The court set a briefing schedule and also directed the parties to address two additional issues: (1) “the basis for this court’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291” (i.e., appellate jurisdiction); and (2) “the extent to which any live controversy remains in this action following the State of Hawaii’s repeal of Haw. Rev. Stat. § 134-16” (i.e., mootness). DktEntry 14. B. Enactment of Act 183. H.B. 891 was introduced in the 2021 session of the Hawai‘i Legislature, after similar attempts in several previous sessions had failed. See HB891 Measure Status , Hawai‘i State Legislature, https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv .aspx?billtype=HB&billnumber=891&year=2021 (last visited 9/15/21). It was part Case: 21-15562, 11/15/2021, ID: 12287311, DktEntry: 22, Page 16 of 96 9 of Governor David Y. Ige’s own legislative package. Id. (“Package: Governor”). Following approval by the House of Representatives and the Senate, the Governor signed H.B. 891 into law as Act 183 on July 6, 2021. Act 183, Session Laws of Hawai‘i 2021, at 32. 3 Act 183 takes effect on January 1, 2022. Id. § 12 at 32 . Section 8 of Act 183 expressly repeals Section 134-16, which is the provision at the core of Plaintiff’s case. Id. § 8 at 28-31. Act 183 essentially replaces the ban on civilian ownership established by Section 134-16 with a statutory scheme that regulates the sale of electric guns through licensed sellers. It prohibits using electric guns for purposes other than self-defense, defense of another person, or protection of property. Id. § 2 at 3. It prohibits persons who are not licensed sellers from selling, offering, distributing, or transferring electric guns or cartridges. Id. § 2 at 3-4, 5-9. It also prohibits people from purchasing, obtaining, or receiving electric guns or cartridges from persons who are not 3 The text of Act 183 is available on the Hawai‘i Legislature’s website, attached to Governor’s Message No. 1311, which transmitted the final signed version of the bill back to the Legislature. See GM1311 , Hawai‘i State Legislature, http://www .capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=GM&billnumber=1311&year=20 21 (click on pdf icon) (last visited 9/15/21). State Defendants respectfully request that this Court take judicial notice of Act 183, pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 201. See Daniels-Hall v. Nat’l Educ. Ass’n , 629 F.3d 992, 998-99 (9th Cir. 2010); Gerritsen v. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. , 112 F. Supp. 3d 1011, 1033 (S.D. Cal. 2015). Act 183 is also available on Westlaw, in the Hawai‘i state materials section, Hawai‘i proposed and enacted legislation subsection. See 2021 Hawai‘i Laws Act 183 (H.B. 891) (Westlaw). For the Court’s convenience, Act 183 is included in the Addendum. Case: 21-15562, 11/15/2021, ID: 12287311, DktEntry: 22, Page 17 of 96 10 licensed sellers. Id. § 2 at 4. Licensed sellers are required to be trained in electric gun safety. Id. § 2 at 9-10. They are required to provide an informational safety briefing to purchasers at the time of sale. Id. § 2 at 12-13. Licensed sellers are required to conduct criminal background checks of purchasers. Id. § 2 at 11-12. They are required to keep records of their inventory and records of all sales sold in the State or to a recipient in the State. Id. § 2 at 10-11, 13-14. And during regular business hours, licensed sellers must allow the chief of police of the appropriate county to inspect their records and all electric guns and cartridges in their possession or control. Id. § 2 at 14-15. Act 183 also prohibits certain persons from owning electric guns, such as fugitives; persons charged with or convicted of felonies, violent crimes, or drug crimes; the mentally ill; minors under age 21; and persons subject to restraining orders. Id. § 2 at 16-20. It makes the use of electric guns in the commission of separate misdemeanors and separate felonies criminal offenses. Id. § 2 at 22-23. It also provides for certain exceptions for law enforcement and the National Guard. Id. § 2 at 20-21, 25-28. Nothing in Act 183 limits the carrying or possession of electric guns in specific locations. The primary limitation on the use of electric guns is that they must be used for self-defense, defense of another person, or protection of property, which can occur anywhere. Id. § 2 at 3. Act 183 contains no provision that is Case: 21-15562, 11/15/2021, ID: 12287311, DktEntry: 22, Page 18 of 96 11 equivalent to the “place to keep” requirements for firearms, which limit the possession of firearms to the person’s place of business, residence, or sojourn, or travel between these places and other specified locations in an enclosed container. See Haw. Rev. Stat. §§ 134-23, 134-24, 134-25 (2011). Therefore, Act 183 clearly permits people to carry or possess electric guns regardless of the location. Act 183 serves the State’s important, even compelling, interest in protecting public safety. Act 183, § 1 at 1 (“The purpose of this Act is to protect the health and safety of the public by regulating the sale and use of electric guns[.]”). However, it does so by repealing the former ban on civilian ownership and replacing it with a scheme based on reasonable regulation. Id. V. SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT The only remaining claim in this case is a claim for prospective injunctive relief against the State Defendants. However, going forward, nothing prevents Plaintiff from owning, possessing, and using electric guns under Hawai‘i law. On July 6, 2021, Governor Ige signed Act 183 into law. Act 183 expressly repeals Section 134-16. Because the challenged law has been repealed, this case is moot. Act 183 essentially replaces the ban on civilian ownership established by Section 134-16 with a statutory scheme that regulates the sale of electric guns through licensed sellers. Act 183 cannot be construed as “reenacting” Section 134-16, and there is no “reasonable expectation” that the Legislature might reenact Section Case: 21-15562, 11/15/2021, ID: 12287311, DktEntry: 22, Page 19 of 96 12 134-16 in the future. As a practical matter, there is no indication that Plaintiff will not be able to satisfy the modest requirements of Act 183 and secure an electric gun once businesses begin selling them. Therefore, in light of the statute as it now stands, there is no present case or controversy. Section 134-51 also does not amount to a ban on electric guns. Section 134- 51 prohibits the carrying, concealed or unconcealed, of certain enumerated weapons and other “deadly or dangerous weapon[s].” Pursuant to a well- established line of Hawai‘i cases, an electric gun is not a “deadly or dangerous weapon” under the statute. While electric guns are instruments designed to inflict bodily injury, they also have “normal or lawful use[s]” and “have recognized uses of a socially acceptable nature.” They are not “closely associated with criminal activity” and they are not “used only in furtherance of crime[.]” In addition, Act 183 is a specific statute that prevails over a general statute such as Section 134-51. Section 134-51 also applies only to persons “not authorized by law,” and Act 183 constitutes express “authoriz[ation] by law” for persons to carry or possess electric guns. Consequently, Act 183 controls with respect to electric guns, Section 134-51 does not apply, and Section 134-51 does not prevent this case from being moot. Although there was a comment by a state senator to the news media regarding the applicability of Section 134-51, a statement by a single legislator does not control the interpretation of legislation, and it is incorrect in any event. Case: 21-15562, 11/15/2021, ID: 12287311, DktEntry: 22, Page 20 of 96