Teter v. Connors
| Decision Date | 13 May 2020 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 19-00183-ACK-WRP |
| Citation | 460 F.Supp.3d 989 |
| Parties | Andrew TETER and James Grell, Plaintiffs, v. Clare E. CONNORS, in her Official Capacity as the Attorney General of the State of Hawaii, and Al Cummings, in his Official Capacity as the State Sheriff Division Administrator, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Hawaii |
Alan A. Beck, Law Office of Alan Beck, San Diego, CA, Stephen D. Stamboulieh, Pro Hac Vice, Stamboulieh Law, PLLC, Madison, MS, for Plaintiffs.
Ryan M. Akamine, Department Attorney General, Honolulu, HI, for Defendants.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING THE STATE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
A decade ago, the United States Supreme Court decided District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008), in which it recognized for the first time an individual right under the Second Amendment to keep and bear arms. According to the Court, the "core" right under the Second Amendment is the "right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home." Id. at 634–35, 128 S. Ct. 2783. The landmark ruling did not clarify all the contours of Second Amendment jurisprudence, and it left open many questions for "future evaluation." Id. This case raises a question not clearly resolved by Heller. Specifically, it asks the Court to determine the constitutionality of Hawai‘i's ban on butterfly knives.
Plaintiffs Andrew Teter and James Grell ("Plaintiffs") challenge the constitutionality of Hawai‘i Revised Statutes ("HRS") § 134-53(a), which bans the sale, possession, and carrying of "butterfly knives." Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a), Plaintiffs seek an order (1) finding that the statute violates their Second Amendment rights and (2) enjoining the statute from enforcement. Defendants Clare E. Connors, in her Official Capacity as the Attorney General of the State of Hawai‘i, and Al Cummings, in his Official Capacity as the State Sheriff Division Administrator (collectively, the "State") contend that the statute does not implicate Second Amendment protections in the first place and that, even if it did, it would pass constitutional muster. For the reasons detailed below, the Court finds that HRS § 134-53(a) is not an unconstitutional restriction on the right to bear arms. The Court therefore DENIES Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 33, and GRANTS the State's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 36.
Hawai‘i has banned the manufacture, sale, transfer, possession, and transport of butterfly knives for over twenty years. The Hawai‘i legislature passed HRS § 134-53 in 1999 in response to a Hawai‘i Supreme Court decision, In the Interest of Doe, 73 Haw. 89, 828 P.2d 272 (1992), which held that butterfly knives were not encompassed in an existing ban on "switchblade knives," HRS § 134-52. See Haw. Legis. S. Comm. on Judiciary, Standing Comm. Report No. 1389 (1999), ECF No. 37-6, at pp. 27–29 of 46 ("Legis. Comm. Report No. 1389"); Haw. Comm. on Conf., Conf. Comm. Report No. 88 (1999), ECF No. 37-6, at pp. 35–37 of 46 ("Conf. Comm. Report No. 88"). The legislature passed HRS § 134-53 to impose an identical ban on butterfly knives:
(a) Whoever knowingly manufactures, sells, transfers, possesses, or transports in the State any butterfly knife, being a knife having a blade encased in a split handle that manually unfolds with hand or wrist action with the assistance of inertia, gravity or both, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
HRS § 134-53(a).1 Compare id., with id. § 134-52(a) (banning switchblades). When it passed the law, the legislature gathered evidence and community input supporting and opposing the law, and made findings that butterfly knives—like switchblades—are often associated with gang activity and present a danger to the public:2
A butterfly knife (sometimes call a "balisong") is a type of folding knife that most likely originated in the Philippines, although there is some conflicting evidence that it originated in France. Pls.' Mot. 2; State's Mot. 4; see also Decl. of Pls.' Expert Burton Richardson, ECF No. 34-4 ("Richardson Decl.") ¶ 4; Report of Pls.' Expert Burton Richardson, ECF No. 34-5 ("Richardson Report") at p. 1; Dep. of State's Witness Lieutenant Robin Nagamine, ECF No. 34-6 ("Nagamine Dep.") at p. 26. It is known for its interesting appearance when opened—resembling a butterfly—and its unique design. Pls.' Mot. 1 n.1. The design allows the knife to be opened or closed with one hand, which is impressive and intriguing to the user or observer. Richardson Decl. p. 2. The same features that make the butterfly knife interesting to watch also give it an intimidating and threatening effect. See Id. (); State's Mot. 3 (); The Art of the Butterfly Knife, Ex. I to State's Mot., ECF No. 37-10 (). At the same time, butterfly knives open slightly more slowly than other modern knives, and it typically takes some practice to use one properly. See Richardson Decl. at pp. 3–6; Richardson Report at pp. 3–5; Knives Deal, Ex. F to State's Mot. ECF No. 37-7, at p. 3.
According to Plaintiffs' expert, butterfly knives are used for self-defense, in certain martial arts circles, and sometimes as a pocket utility knife. See generally Richardson Decl. Evidence submitted by the State likewise reflects those uses. On the other hand, as detailed above, the State has also submitted evidence showing that butterfly knives are popular with minors and with criminals and gang members. See HPD Letter; Conf. Comm. Report No. 88; Legis. Comm. Report No. 731.
Butterfly knives are legal to some extent in the majority of states, but in many they are restricted or else banned altogether. Pls.' Mot. 4; see also The Art of the Butterfly Knife, supra. In some states, butterfly knives are viewed as falling within the statutory definition of a switchblade, and thus covered under those bans. State's Mot. 9–10 & n.1–2 (collecting cases). The record does not contain empirical evidence about the popularity of butterfly knives, including to what extent they are possessed on a national scale. The record does include some, mostly anecdotal, evidence that butterfly knives are quite popular in certain villages in the Philippines, see Richardson Report at pp. 1–2; Nagamine Dep. at 26:5–18, and that knives in general are one of the most popular and most commonly-owned weapons in the United States, see Pls.' Mot. 4; Pls.' Opp. 1–2, 16.
On April 10, 2019, Plaintiffs sued the Attorney General of the State of Hawai‘i and the State Sheriff Division Administrator challenging the constitutionality of HRS § 134-53(a). Compl., ECF No. 1. Plaintiffs are residents of Hawai‘i who "wish[ ] to purchase a butterfly knife for self-defense and other purposes in their home and would acquire, possess, carry and where appropriate use a butterfly knife to protect themselves and their homes." Pls.' Mot. 1. Neither Plaintiff alleges that he has been charged with a crime under HRS § 134-53(a). See Compl. ¶¶ 86–93, 96–101.
Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Summary Judgment and concise statement of facts ("CSF") on January 14, 2020, and the State filed its cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and CSF the next day. See Pls.' Mot.; Pls.' CSF, ECF No. 34; State's Mot.; State's CSF, ECF No. 37. The State filed its memorandum and CSF in opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion on April 7, ECF Nos. 52 & 53, and Plaintiffs filed their reply in support of their Motion one week later, ECF No. 58. Meanwhile, Plaintiffs filed their memorandum and CSF in opposition to the State's Motion on March 30, ECF Nos. 50 & 51, and the State filed its reply in support of its Motion on April 14, ECF No. 57. In addition to the parties' briefing, Amicus Curiae Hawaii Firearms Coalition filed a brief in support of Plaintiffs, ECF No. 45, and Amicus...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Palmer v. Sisolak
...intermediate scrutiny applies in cases where Second Amendment rights are "affected in some lesser way"); see also Teter v. Connors , 460 F. Supp. 3d 989, 1003 (D. Haw. 2020) (citation omitted, emphasis in original) (stating that "[m]ost post- Heller decisions have landed on some form of int......
-
O'Neil v. Neronha
...dangers posed by the proscribed weapons," as there were for semi-automatic weapons. Worman, 922 F.3d at 39 ; see Teter v. Connors, 460 F. Supp. 3d 989, 1006 (D. Hawaii 2020) (noting "reliable evidence that butterfly knives are closely associated with crime and popular with minors and gang m......
- United States v. Smith, No. 2:19-cr-00213
-
Palmer v. Sisolak
...intermediate scrutiny applies in cases where Second Amendment rights are “affected in some lesser way”); see also Teter v. Connors, 460 F.Supp.3d 989, 1003 (D. Haw. 2020) (citation omitted, emphasis in original) (stating that “[m]ost post-Heller decisions have landed on some form of interme......