Brady Campaign Amicus Petition For Rehearing

(1 of 34)
Case: 12-16258, 09/06/2016, ID: 10113416, DktEntry: 89-1, Page 1 of 10
No. 12-16258
IN THE
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

CHRISTOPHER BAKER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
LOUIS KEALOHA, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Hawaii, No. 1:11-cv-00528-ACK-KSC
Senior District Judge Alan C. Kay
BRADY CENTER TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCES MOTION FOR LEAVE
TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF APPELLEES
PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC
BRADY CENTER TO PREVENT
GUN VIOLENCE
Jonathan E. Lowy
Alla Lefkowitz
Avery Gardiner
Kelly Sampson
840 First Street, N.E. Suite 400
Washington, D.C. 20002
(202) 370-8104
jlowy@bradymail.org
Dated: September 6, 2016
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

Kathryn M. Ali
Jonathan Diesenhaus
Anna M. Kelly
Evan W. Guimond
555 Thirteenth Street, N.W.
(202) 637-5771
kathryn.ali@hoganlovells.com
Christine E. MacGregor
1835 Market Street, 29th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Counsel for Amicus Curiae
(2 of 34)
BRADY CENTER TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCES

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SUPPLEMENTAL AMICUS CURIAE
BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF APPELLEES PETITION FOR
REHEARING EN BANC
The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence respectfully requests this Court
grant leave to file a supplemental amicus curiae brief in support of the DefendantsAppellees petition for rehearing en banc in this matter.1 Defendants-Appellees
have consented to the filing of this brief; Plaintiff-Appellant has declined to
consent.
The Brady Center was granted leave to participate as amicus in this matter
below with the District Court finding that the Brady Centers brief was
particularly valuable in light of the significant public interest in Second
Amendment litigation across the nation 2 Indeed, the District Courts decision
referenced the Brady Centers brief twice. This panel also granted leave for Brady
Center to file a brief in support of Defendants-Appellees position on the merits.3
Furthermore, on August 16, 2016, the Court issued an Order granting the Brady
Centers motion for leave to file an amicus brief in support of rehearing. See Order
at 1, Baker v. Kealoha, No. 12-16258 (9th Cir. Aug. 16, 2016), ECF No. 82, and in
1
The Brady Centers proposed brief is attached as Appendix A.

See Order Granting The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violences Motion for
Leave to File an Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of Defendants, filed Feb. 23,
2012, attached hereto as Appendix B, at 3.
3
See Ninth Circuit Order, filed Sept. 4, 2012, attached hereto as Appendix
C, at 1.
2
(3 of 34)
that same order, directed the parties to supplement their own briefing on the
Petition for Rehearing to address an en banc opinion of the Circuit. 4 By this
motion, the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence requests nothing more than
leave to supplement its brief already on file to address the same request the Court
made of the parties and urges the Court to grant this motion based on the same
grounds as it did amicuss prior motion for leave.
I.
IDENTITY OF AMICUS CURIAE

Amicus Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence is a national, non-partisan,
non-profit organization dedicated to reducing gun violence through education,

research, and legal advocacy. Through its Legal Action Project, it has filed
numerous amicus curiae briefs in cases involving firearms regulations, including
McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3095 n.13, 3105 n.30, 3107 n.34
(2010) (Stevens, J., dissenting) (citing Brady Center brief), United States v. Hayes,
555 U.S. 415, 427 (2009) (citing Brady Center brief), and District of Columbia v.
Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), and Peruta v. City of San Diego, No. 10-56971, 2016
WL 3194315 (9th Cir. June 9, 2016). Amicus brings a broad and deep perspective
to the issues raised here and has a compelling interest in ensuring that the Second
See Order at 1 (requesting supplemental briefs in light of the en banc

decision in Peruta v. County of San Diego, No. 10-56971 and Richards v. Prieto,
No. 11-16255).
2
(4 of 34)
Amendment does not impede reasonable governmental action to prevent gun

violence.
II.
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED AMICUS BRIEF

The proposed brief, Appendix A, explains the import of the en banc Ninth
Circuit ruling in Peruta v. Cty. of San Diego, 742 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir. 2014) and
provides updated social science research, which underscores prior studies
demonstrating that concealed-carry restrictions further the important government
interest in public safety.
III.
ARGUMENT
A.
Court has Broad Discretion to Authorize Amicus Parties
This Court has the discretion to grant this motion and allow the Brady
Center to file its brief. Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237 (9th Cir. 1982) (abrogated
on other grounds by Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995)). The classic role of
amici curiae is three-fold: (1) assist in a case of general public interest; (2) to
supplement the efforts of counsel; and (3) to draw the courts attention to law that
escaped consideration. Miller-Wohl Co., Inc. v. Commr of Labor and Industry,
694 F.2d 203, 204 (9th Cir. 1982). The Court may also exercise its discretion to
grant amicus status in order to avail itself of the benefit of thorough and erudite
legal arguments. Gerritsen v. de la Madrid Hurtado, 819 F.2d 1511, 1514 n.3 (9th
Cir. 1987).
3
(5 of 34)
The Brady Centers brief fulfills the role of amici curiae. The brief not only
explains the significant impact of Peruta on the outcome of this case, as
specifically requested by the panel, but also provides the panel with the most upto-date social science research demonstrating the unique risks associated with the
concealed-carry of firearms in public.
B.
Brady Centers Brief Will Assist the Court
The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence has participated in Second

Amendment litigation throughout the nation, including the seminal cases of
McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010) and District of Columbia v.
Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). Its brief can help inform the Court of the immediate
effects the panels decisions are having on concealed-carry regimes across the
Ninth Circuit and the intense public concern that accompanies those effects. The
district court allowed the Brady Center to participate as amicus curiae below,
finding that its brief was particularly valuable in light of the likely significant
public interest in this case. See Appendix B at 3; see also Appendix C at 1.
The court also noted that the Brady Centers brief helped with substantive issues,
while the other parties may be litigating procedural issues. Appendix B at 3.
Brady Centers broader and more public-policy-oriented perspective would be
similarly useful to the full Court at this stage of the litigation.
(6 of 34)
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons explained above, this Court has wide discretion to allow
amicus status. The parties have been consulted and, with the exception of the
Plaintiff-Appellant who plainly rejected the Brady Centers request for consent,
have consented to the Brady Center filing a supplemental amicus curiae brief in
support of Appellees petition for rehearing en banc. The Brady Center, therefore,
respectfully requests this Court grant this motion and grant leave to file the
proposed brief.
September 6, 2016
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Kathryn M. Ali
Kathryn M. Ali
Jonathan Diesenhaus
Anna M. Kelly
Evan W. Guimond
Washington, DC 20004
(202) 637-5600
(267) 675- 4694
christine.macgregor@hoganlovells.com
(7 of 34)
Jonathan E. Lowy
Alla Lefkowitz
Avery Gardiner
Kelly Sampson
BRADY CENTER TO PREVENT GUN
VIOLENCE - LEGAL ACTION PROJECT
(202) 370-8104
jlowy@bradymail.org
(8 of 34)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Kathryn M. Ali, hereby certify that on September 6, 2016 electronic
copies of this amicus brief were served through the Courts CM/ECF system to:
Alan Alexander Beck, Esquire, Attorney
Direct: 619-971-0424
Law Offices of Alan Beck
4780 Governor Drive
San Diego, CA 92122
Richard Loren Holcomb, Jr., Esquire, Attorney
Direct: 808-545-4040
Holcomb Law, LLLC
Suite 808
1136 Union Mall
Honolulu, HI 96813
Kevin O'Grady, Attorney
Direct: 808-521-3367
Law Office of Kevin O'Grady, LLC
1136 Union Mall
Suite 704
Honolulu, HI 96813
Counsel for Appellant
Curtis Edwin Sherwood, Esquire, Deputy Corporation Counsel
Direct: 808-523-4859
Corporation Counsel, City and County of Honolulu
Suite 110
530 S. King Street
Honolulu, HI 96813
(9 of 34)
Christine Van Aken, Deputy City Attorney

Direct: 415-554-4633
City Attorney's Office
City and County of San Francisco
234
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
City Hall, Room 234
San Francisco, CA 94102-4682
Kendall Moser
AGHI - OFFICE OF THE HAWAII ATTORNEY GENERAL
Firm: 808-568-1180
425 Queen Street
Honolulu, HI 96813
Counsel for Appellees
Kimberly Tsumoto Guidry
Direct: 808-586-1360
Firm: 808-568-1180
425 Queen Street
Honolulu, HI 96813
Girard Douglas Lau, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General
Firm: 808-568-1180
425 Queen Street
Honolulu, HI 96813
Robert Tadao Nakatsuji, Esquire
Direct: 808-586-1360
Firm: 808-568-1180
2
(10 of 34)
425 Queen Street

Honolulu, HI 96813
Mark Murakami, Esquire, Attorney
Direct: 808-531-8031
Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Firm: 808-531-8031
1003 Bishop Street
Suite 1600
Honolulu, HI 96813
Nicholas Courson
Direct: 808-241-4930
Office of the County Attorney
Suite # 220
4444 Rice Street
Lihue, HI 96766
Caleb Patrick Rowe, Esquire, Deputy Corporation Counsel
Direct: 808-270-7741
Department of the Corporation Counsel
County of Maui
2rd Floor
200 South High Street
Wailuku, HI 96793
Counsel for Amici Curiae
/s/ Kathryn M. Ali
Kathryn M. Ali
(202) 637-5600
Dated:
September 6, 2016
(11 of 34)
APPENDIX A
(12 of 34)
No. 12-16258
IN THE
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

CHRISTOPHER BAKER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
LOUIS KEALOHA, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Hawaii, No. 1:11-cv-00528-ACK-KSC
Senior District Judge Alan C. Kay
SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF FOR AMICUS CURIAE
BRADY CENTER TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE IN SUPPORT OF
APPELLEES PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC
BRADY CENTER TO PREVENT
GUN VIOLENCE
Jonathan E. Lowy
Alla Lefkowitz
Avery Gardiner
Kelly Sampson
(202) 370-8104
jlowy@bradymail.org
Dated: September 6, 2016

Kathryn M. Ali
Jonathan Diesenhaus
Anna M. Kelly
Evan W. Guimond
(202) 637-5771
Counsel for Amicus Curiae
(13 of 34)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT .........................................................1
ARGUMENT .............................................................................................................2
I.
THE SECOND AMENDMENT DOES NOT PROTECT THE

RIGHT OF A MEMBER OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC TO CARRY
A CONCEALED GUN IN PUBLIC.....................................................3
II.
SOCIAL SCIENCE CONFIRMS THAT HAWAIIS HANDGUN

PERMITTING PROCESS FURTHERS THE GOVERNMENTS
IMPORTANT INTEREST IN PUBLIC SAFETY...............................4
CONCLUSION..........................................................................................................6
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE.........................................................................8
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ..................................................................................9
(14 of 34)
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
CASES
Baker v. Kealoha,
No. 12-16258, 2012 WL 3342643 (C.A.9 Aug. 7, 2012).....................................4
Drake v. Filko,
724 F.3d 426 (3d Cir. 2013) .................................................................................3
Kachalsky v. Cty. of Westchester,
701 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 2012) ...................................................................................3
Peruta v. Cty. of San Diego,
742 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir. 2014) ..............................................................................2
Peruta v. Cty. of San Diego,
824 F.3d 919 (9th Cir. 2016) ............................................................................2, 3
Peterson v. Martinez,
707 F.3d 1197 (10th Cir. 2013) ............................................................................3
United States v. Masciandaro,
638 F.3d 458 (4th Cir. 2011) ................................................................................4
Woollard v. Gallagher,
712 F.3d 865 (4th Cir. 2013) ................................................................................3
OTHER AUTHORITIES
Abhay Aneja, John J. Donohue III, & Alexandria Zhang, The Impact of
Right to Carry Laws and the NRC Report: The Latest Lessons for the
Empirical Evaluation of Law and Policy (Natl Bureau of Econ.
Research, Working Paper No. 18294, 2014) ........................................................5
Concealed Carry Killers Background, Violence Policy Ctr .....................................4
Amanda Gutterman, States With Most Gun Deaths Have High Gun
Ownership And Weak Gun Laws, Report Shows, The Huffington Post
(Jan. 29, 2015, 3:33 PM).......................................................................................6
ii
(15 of 34)
Clifton B. Parker, Right-to-carry gun laws linked to increase in violent

crime, Stanford research shows, Stanford News (Nov. 14, 2014). ......................5
David I. Swedler, et al., Firearm Prevalence and Homicides of Law
Enforcement Officers in the United States, 105 Am. J. of Pub. Health
2042 (2015)...........................................................................................................6
iii
(16 of 34)
CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

Pursuant to Rule 26.1 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, the
Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence states that it has no parent corporations, nor
has it issued shares or debt securities to the public. The organization is not a
subsidiary or affiliate of any publicly owned corporation, and no publicly held
corporation holds ten percent of its stock.
/s/ Kathryn M. Ali

Kathryn M. Ali
(17 of 34)
ARGUMENT
In the nearly two and a half years since Amicus initially filed its brief in this
case, two significant developments have made the arguments for reversing the
panel decision stronger and more urgent.1 First, the en banc Court reversed the
panel decision in Peruta v. Cty. of San Diego, 742 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir. 2014),
holding that the Second Amendment does not give a member of the general public
a right to carry a concealed gun in public. Peruta v. Cty. of San Diego, 824 F.3d
919, 927 (9th Cir. 2016). This binding precedent negates the basis for the panels
holding in this case. Second, new social science research underscores prior studies
demonstrating that concealed-carry restrictions further the important government
interest in public safety.
Lives depend on this Court faithfully applying the
holding in Peruta and reversing the panel decision.
On August 16, 2016, the Court issued an Order granting the Brady Center to
Prevent Gun Violences motion for leave to file an amicus brief in support of
rehearing. See Order at 1, Baker v. Kealoha, No. 12-16258 (9th Cir. Aug. 16,
2016), ECF No. 82. In light of this Order, which also sought supplemental briefing
from the parties, the Brady Center files this short supplemental brief. The Brady
Center received consent to file from Defendants-Appellees; however, PlaintiffAppellant declined to consent. No party or partys counsel authored this brief in
whole or in part. No party, partys counsel, or person other than Amicus, its
members, or its counsel contributed money intended to fund preparation and
submission of this brief.
2
(18 of 34)
I.
THE SECOND AMENDMENT DOES NOT PROTECT THE

RIGHT OF A MEMBER OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC TO
CARRY A CONCEALED GUN IN PUBLIC
In Peruta, this Court correctly held that the protection of the Second
Amendmentwhatever the scope of that protection may besimply does not

extend to carrying of concealed firearms in public by members of the general
public. 824 F.3d at 927. In reaching this conclusion, the en banc Court relied on
the remarkably consistent historical record, from English law and Colonial
America to those surrounding the adoption of the Second and Fourteenth
Amendments, all of which pointed towards a blanket prohibition on the carrying of
concealed weapons.
Id. at 929-39.
The Peruta opinion also recognized the
emerging consensus among the federal courts of appeals that states have the
authority to prohibit entirely or to limit substantially the carrying of concealed or
concealable firearms.2 Id. at 939. Binding circuit precedent in Peruta mandates
that the panel decision be reversed. The consequences of failing to do so would be
2
Citing Peterson v. Martinez, 707 F.3d 1197 (10th Cir. 2013) (right to carry
concealed weapons does not fall within the Second Amendment's scope); Woollard
v. Gallagher, 712 F.3d 865 (4th Cir. 2013) (Maryland requirement that handgun
permits be issued only to individuals with good and substantial reason to wear,
carry, or transport a handgun does not violate Second Amendment); Drake v.
Filko, 724 F.3d 426, 42930 (3d Cir. 2013) (New Jersey justifiable need
restriction on carrying handguns in public does not burden conduct within the
scope of the Second Amendment's guarantee); Kachalsky v. Cty. of Westchester,
701 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 2012) (New York proper cause restriction on concealed
carry does not violate Second Amendment).
3
(19 of 34)
immediate and life-threatening. As the Fourth Circuit has put it, This is serious
business. We do not wish to be even minutely responsible for some unspeakably
tragic act of mayhem because in the peace of our judicial chambers we
miscalculated as to Second Amendment rights. United States v. Masciandaro,
638 F.3d 458, 475 (4th Cir. 2011).
II.
SOCIAL SCIENCE CONFIRMS THAT HAWAIIS HANDGUN

PERMITTING PROCESS FURTHERS THE GOVERNMENTS
IMPORTANT INTEREST IN PUBLIC SAFETY
Reversing the panel decision will also advance Hawaiis stated compelling
interestprotecting the public health and safety. 3 Since 2007, at least 885
people have been killed by individuals with concealed carry permits; over 200 of
these deaths occurred in the last two years.
See Concealed Carry Killers
Background, Violence Policy Ctr. 4 This number includes 17 law enforcement

officers. Id. A significant number of these 885 deaths occurred during 29 mass
shootings committed by individuals with concealed carry permits. Id. Should this
Court prevent Hawaii from enforcing its concealed-carry program, more guns will
enter public spaces, meaning that more people will be within range of a lethal
firearm.
Baker v. Kealoha, No. 12-16258, 2012 WL 3342643, at *24 (C.A. 9 Aug. 7,

2012).
4
Available
at
http://concealedcarrykillers.org/concealed-carry-killersbackground/ (last updated Aug. 12, 2016).
4
(20 of 34)
Recent research also confirms that public carrying increases violent crime.
The most up-to-date research in this area has concluded that [t]he totality of the
evidence based on educated judgments about the best statistical models suggests
that right-to-carry laws5 are associated with substantially higher rates of aggravated
assault, rape, robbery and murder.
Parker, supra note 5 (internal quotation
omitted); see also Abhay Aneja, John J. Donohue III, & Alexandria Zhang, The
Impact of Right to Carry Laws and the NRC Report: The Latest Lessons for the
Empirical Evaluation of Law and Policy 80-81 (Natl Bureau of Econ. Research,
Working Paper No. 18294, 2014) (suggesting that RTC laws increased every
crime category by at least 8 percent, except murder (in that model, murder rose 3
percent but it is not statistically significant).) (emphasis added).6
Finally, as recent events in Dallas and Baton Rouge make tragically clear,
public carrying also increases the risk that police officers will be killed in the line
of duty. It is no surprise that weak gun laws translate to high rates of gun
Right-to-Carry or RTC laws (also known as shall issue laws) describe

laws pursuant to which citizens carry concealed firearms either without a permit or
after obtaining a permit from local government or law enforcement. Clifton B.
Parker, Right-to-carry gun laws linked to increase in violent crime, Stanford
research
shows,
Stanford
News
(Nov.
14,
2014),
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/november/donohue-guns-study-111414.html.
6
Available at http://www.nber.org/papers/w18294.pdf. Professor Donohue et
al. further explained that if anything our 8 percent estimate . . . is likely to
understate the true increases in aggravated assault caused by the RTC law. Id. at
82.
5
(21 of 34)
ownership in a state.7 And researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health
and elsewhere recently concluded that [o]fficers in the high-gun [ownership]
states had 3 times the likelihood of being killed compared with low-gun
[ownership] states. 8
According to the researchers, [t]he differences were
large[,] and [s]tates should consider methods for reducing firearm ownership as a
way to reduce occupational deaths of [officers]. Id. at 2042, 2047. Now is not
the time to weaken Hawaiis gun violence prevention laws. Our lives, and the
lives of those who protect us, depend on it.
CONCLUSION
This Court should grant rehearing and reverse the panels decision.
Amanda Gutterman, States With Most Gun Deaths Have High Gun
Ownership And Weak Gun Laws, Report Shows, The Huffington Post (Jan. 29,
2015, 3:33 PM), http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/29/weak-gun-laws-andhigh-gu_n_6572384.html.
8
David I. Swedler, et al., Firearm Prevalence and Homicides of Law
Enforcement Officers in the United States, 105 Am. J. of Pub. Health 2042, 2047
(2015),
available
at
http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.2015.302749
(emphasis
added).
6
(22 of 34)
September 6, 2016
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Kathryn M. Ali
Kathryn M. Ali
Jonathan Diesenhaus
Anna M. Kelly
Evan W. Guimond
(202) 637-5600
(267) 675-4694
christine.macgregor@hoganlovells.com
Jonathan E. Lowy
Alla Lefkowitz
Avery Gardiner
Kelly Sampson
BRADY CENTER TO PREVENT GUN
VIOLENCE - LEGAL ACTION PROJECT
(202) 370-8104
jlowy@bradymail.org
(23 of 34)
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
Pursuant to Rule 32(a)(7)(C) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure
and Ninth Circuit Rule 32-1, the undersigned hereby certifies that this brief
complies with the type-volume limitation of Rule 32(a)(7)(B) of the Federal Rules
of Appellate Procedure and Ninth Circuit Rule 29-2.
1.
Exclusive of the exempted portions of the brief, as provided in Rule
32(a)(7)(B)(iii) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, the brief contains

1,252 words.
2.
The brief has been prepared in proportionally spaced typeface using
Microsoft Word 2010 in 14 point Times New Roman font. As permitted by Rule
32(a)(7)(C)(i) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, the undersigned has
relied upon the word count feature of this word-processing system in preparing this
certificate.
/s/ Kathryn M. Ali
Kathryn M. Ali
(202) 637-5600
Dated:
September 6, 2016
(24 of 34)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Kathryn M. Ali, hereby certify that on September 6, 2016 electronic
copies of this amicus brief were served through the Courts CM/ECF system to:
Alan Alexander Beck, Esquire, Attorney
Direct: 619-971-0424
Law Offices of Alan Beck
4780 Governor Drive
San Diego, CA 92122
Richard Loren Holcomb, Jr., Esquire, Attorney
Direct: 808-545-4040
Holcomb Law, LLLC
Suite 808
1136 Union Mall
Honolulu, HI 96813
Kevin O'Grady, Attorney
Direct: 808-521-3367
Law Office of Kevin O'Grady, LLC
1136 Union Mall
Suite 704
Honolulu, HI 96813
Counsel for Appellant
Curtis Edwin Sherwood, Esquire, Deputy Corporation Counsel
Direct: 808-523-4859
Corporation Counsel, City and County of Honolulu
Suite 110
530 S. King Street
Honolulu, HI 96813
(25 of 34)
Christine Van Aken, Deputy City Attorney

Direct: 415-554-4633
City Attorney's Office
City and County of San Francisco
234
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
City Hall, Room 234
San Francisco, CA 94102-4682
Kendall Moser
Firm: 808-568-1180
425 Queen Street
Honolulu, HI 96813
Counsel for Appellees
Kimberly Tsumoto Guidry
Direct: 808-586-1360
Firm: 808-568-1180
425 Queen Street
Honolulu, HI 96813
Girard Douglas Lau, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General
Firm: 808-568-1180
425 Queen Street
Honolulu, HI 96813
Robert Tadao Nakatsuji, Esquire
Direct: 808-586-1360
Firm: 808-568-1180
10
(26 of 34)
425 Queen Street

Honolulu, HI 96813
Mark Murakami, Esquire, Attorney
Direct: 808-531-8031
Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Firm: 808-531-8031
1003 Bishop Street
Suite 1600
Honolulu, HI 96813
Nicholas Courson
Direct: 808-241-4930
Office of the County Attorney
Suite # 220
4444 Rice Street
Lihue, HI 96766
Caleb Patrick Rowe, Esquire, Deputy Corporation Counsel
Direct: 808-270-7741
Department of the Corporation Counsel
County of Maui
2rd Floor
200 South High Street
Wailuku, HI 96793
Counsel for Amici Curiae
/s/ Kathryn M. Ali
Kathryn M. Ali
(202) 637-5600
Dated:
September 6, 2016
11
(27 of 34)
APPENDIX B
(28 of 34)
Case 1:11-cv-00528-ACK-KSC
Case: 12-16258, 09/06/2016,
Document
ID: 10113416,
40-1 FiledDktEntry:
02/23/12 89-3,
Page
Page
1 of 24 of 5PageID #:
383
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
CHRISTOPHER BAKER,
Plaintiff,
vs.
LOUIS KEALOHA, as an individual
and in his official capacity as
Honolulu Chief of Police; STATE
OF HAWAII; CITY AND COUNTY OF
HONOLULU; HONOLULU POLICE
DEPARTMENT; NEIL ABERCROMBIE,
in his official capacity as
Hawaii Governor,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civ. No. 11-00528 ACK-KSC
ORDER GRANTING THE BRADY CENTER TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCES MOTION

FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS
This matter comes before the Court on the Brady Center

to Prevent Gun Violences Motion for Leave to File an Amicus
Curiae Brief in support of the Defendants in the above-captioned
case.
After reviewing the motion, against which no opposing
memoranda have been filed, the Court hereby GRANTS the Motion for
Leave to File an Amicus Curiae Brief.
-1-
(29 of 34)
Case: 12-16258, 09/06/2016,
Document
ID: 10113416,
40-1 FiledDktEntry:
02/23/12 89-3,
Page
Page
384
On February 13, 2012, counsel for the Brady Center to

Prevent Gun Violence (the Brady Center) filed a Motion for
Leave to File an Amicus Curiae Brief in support of Defendants.
In the Brady Centers motion, counsel asserted, among other
things, that its proposed brief would provide the Court with an
overview of recent and longstanding Supreme Court Second
Amendment jurisprudence and the policy implications of extending
the Second Amendment right beyond the home, as well as a
discussion of an emerging trend towards using a two-pronged
approach to Second Amendment litigation, as discussed in United
States v. Skoien, 614 F.3d 638 (7th Cir. 2010).
District courts frequently welcome amicus curiae briefs
from non-parties concerning legal issues that have potential
ramifications beyond the parties directly involved or when the
amicus has unique information or perspective that can help the
court beyond the help that the lawyers for the parties are able
to provide.
NGV Gaming, Ltd v. Upstream Point Molate, LLC, 355
F. Supp. 2d 1061, 1068 (N.D. Cal. 2005) (quoting Cobell v.

Norton, 246 F. Supp. 2d 59, 62 (D.D.C. 2003) (quoting Ryan v.
Commodity Futures Trading Commn, 125 F.3d 1062, 1064 (7th Cir.
1997))).
Furthermore, courts in this Circuit have broad
discretion to appoint amici curiae.
See Hoptowit v. Ray, 682
F.2d 1237, 1260 (9th Cir. 1982) (superceded by statute on other
-2-
(30 of 34)
Case: 12-16258, 09/06/2016,
Document
ID: 10113416,
40-1 FiledDktEntry:
02/23/12 89-3,
Page
Page
385
grounds).
fold:
Clasically, amici curiae serve a role that is three-
(1) assist in a case of general public interest; (2) to
supplement the efforts of counsel; and (3) to draw the courts

attention to law that escaped consideration.
Ocean Mammal Inst.
v. Gates, Civ. No. 07-00254 DAE-LEK, Order Granting the Honolulu

Council of the Navy League of the United States Motion to File
an Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of Federal Defendants
Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction
(filed Nov. 1, 2007) (quoting Miller-Wohl Co., Inc. v. Comr of
Labor and Industry, 694 F.2d 203, 204 (9th Cir. 1982)).
The Brady Centers proposed amicus curiae brief
accomplishes these aims, and is particularly valuable in light of
the likely significant public interest in this case.
As a
participant in Second Amendment litigation across the nation, the

Brady Center will provide the Court with information regarding
national trends, and will also contribute substantive legal
arguments to a discussion that may focus on procedural issues.
Accordingly, while the Brady Center is not a party in this
action, the Court deems it appropriate to consider its position.
In keeping with the Courts broad discretion to
appoint amici curiae, the Court concludes that the Brady Centers
participation will be valuable to the just disposition of this
case, and is in the best interests of the Court, the parties, and
the public.
-3-
(31 of 34)
Case: 12-16258, 09/06/2016,
Document
ID: 10113416,
40-1 FiledDktEntry:
02/23/12 89-3,
Page
Page
386
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS the
Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violences Motion For Leave to File
an Amicus Curiae Brief.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:
Honolulu, Hawai#i, February 23, 2012.
________________________________
Alan C. Kay
Sr. United States District Judge
Baker v. Kealoha, Civ. No. 11-00528 ACK-KSC: Order Granting The Brady Center
To Prevent Gun Violences Motion For Leave To File An Amicus Curiae Brief In
Support Of Defendants.
-4-
(32 of 34)
APPENDIX C
(33 of 34)
Case:
Case:
12-16258
12-16258,
09/04/2012
09/06/2016, ID:ID:
10113416,
8309708 DktEntry:
DktEntry:
89-4,
25 Page
Page:
2 of13of 2
FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHRISTOPHER BAKER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
LOUIS KEALOHA, as an individual and
in his official capacity as Honolulu Chief
of Police; et al.,
SEP 04 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
No. 12-16258
D.C. No. 1:11-cv-00528-ACKKSC
District of Hawaii,
Honolulu
ORDER
Defendants - Appellees.
The court denies appellants motion to stay appellate proceedings in this

preliminary injunction appeal pending issuance of the decision in Richards, et al.
v. Prieto, et al., No. 11-16255.
The Clerk shall calendar this appeal, No. 12-16258, before the panel that
will be assigned to decide appeal No. 11-16255.
Briefing is completed.
The amicus brief submitted by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence is
filed. Within 7 days of the filing of this order, the filer is ordered to file 7 copies of
the brief in paper format, with a green cover, accompanied by certification,
hmb/MOATT
(34 of 34)
Case:
Case:
12-16258
12-16258,
09/04/2012
09/06/2016, ID:ID:
10113416,
8309708 DktEntry:
DktEntry:
89-4,
25 Page
Page:
3 of23of 2
attached to the end of each copy of the brief, that the brief is identical to the
version submitted electronically.
FOR THE COURT:
MOLLY C. DWYER
CLERK OF COURT
By: Holly Baldwin

Deputy Clerk
hmb/MOATT

Brady Campaign Amicus Petition For Rehearing

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Brady Campaign Amicus Petition For Rehearing

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

(1 of 34)

Case: 12-16258, 09/06/2016, ID: 10113416, DktEntry: 89-1, Page 1 of 10

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

On Appeal from the United States District Court

Dated: September 6, 2016

HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

BRADY CENTER TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCES

The Brady Centers proposed brief is attached as Appendix A.

IDENTITY OF AMICUS CURIAE

non-profit organization dedicated to reducing gun violence through education,

See Order at 1 (requesting supplemental briefs in light of the en banc

Amendment does not impede reasonable governmental action to prevent gun

SUMMARY OF PROPOSED AMICUS BRIEF

Court has Broad Discretion to Authorize Amicus Parties

Brady Centers Brief Will Assist the Court

The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence has participated in Second

Christine Van Aken, Deputy City Attorney

425 Queen Street

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

On Appeal from the United States District Court

Dated: September 6, 2016

HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

THE SECOND AMENDMENT DOES NOT PROTECT THE

SOCIAL SCIENCE CONFIRMS THAT HAWAIIS HANDGUN

Clifton B. Parker, Right-to-carry gun laws linked to increase in violent

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

/s/ Kathryn M. Ali

Lives depend on this Court faithfully applying the

holding in Peruta and reversing the panel decision.

THE SECOND AMENDMENT DOES NOT PROTECT THE

Amendmentwhatever the scope of that protection may besimply does not

The Peruta opinion also recognized the

SOCIAL SCIENCE CONFIRMS THAT HAWAIIS HANDGUN

See Concealed Carry Killers

Background, Violence Policy Ctr. 4 This number includes 17 law enforcement

Baker v. Kealoha, No. 12-16258, 2012 WL 3342643, at *24 (C.A. 9 Aug. 7,

Parker, supra note 5 (internal quotation

Right-to-Carry or RTC laws (also known as shall issue laws) describe

According to the researchers, [t]he differences were

Exclusive of the exempted portions of the brief, as provided in Rule

32(a)(7)(B)(iii) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, the brief contains

The brief has been prepared in proportionally spaced typeface using

Christine Van Aken, Deputy City Attorney

425 Queen Street

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Civ. No. 11-00528 ACK-KSC

ORDER GRANTING THE BRADY CENTER TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCES MOTION

This matter comes before the Court on the Brady Center

After reviewing the motion, against which no opposing

On February 13, 2012, counsel for the Brady Center to

NGV Gaming, Ltd v. Upstream Point Molate, LLC, 355

F. Supp. 2d 1061, 1068 (N.D. Cal. 2005) (quoting Cobell v.

See Hoptowit v. Ray, 682

F.2d 1237, 1260 (9th Cir. 1982) (superceded by statute on other

Clasically, amici curiae serve a role that is three-

(1) assist in a case of general public interest; (2) to

supplement the efforts of counsel; and (3) to draw the courts

Ocean Mammal Inst.

v. Gates, Civ. No. 07-00254 DAE-LEK, Order Granting the Honolulu

participant in Second Amendment litigation across the nation, the

Honolulu, Hawai#i, February 23, 2012.

The court denies appellants motion to stay appellate proceedings in this