Young v. Hawaii, 911 F. Supp. 2d 972

George K. Young, Jr. sued Hawaii state and county officials alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985 and 1986 related to denial of a license to carry a weapon under Hawaii Revised Statutes § 134-9.
Plaintiff also alleged that HRS § 134-6 (repealed) and the licensing regime violate the U.S. Constitution, including the Second, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments and Article I, § 10.
Defendants moved to dismiss; state defendants invoked sovereign immunity, and county defendants argued lack of standing and no constitutional violation.
The court decided the matter without a hearing and granted the motions to dismiss with prejudice.
The record shows prior related suits by Young (Young I and Young II), with holdings recognizing Eleventh Amendment immunity and evolving Second Amendment jurisprudence.
The court concluded that no claims could proceed against the State Defendants or against county defendants and officials in their official capacities, and all actions were dismissed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Eleventh Amendment immunity bar	State defendants waived immunity; § 1983 abrogates immunity.	State enjoys sovereign immunity; § 1983 does not abrogate it.	State claims barred by Eleventh Amendment; immunity not waived or abrogated.
Standing to challenge HRS Chapter 134	denial of license injures Second Amendment rights, giving standing for injunctive relief.	No standing for monetary relief; standing limited for ongoing injuries; insufficient to challenge statute.	Plaintiff has standing for injunctive relief against Second Amendment challenge; no standing for damages.
Second Amendment challenge to Hawaii's carrying laws	HRS Chapter 134 violates the Second Amendment beyond the home.	Carrying laws regulate public carrying and are consistent with Heller and McDonald when applying intermediate scrutiny.	Second Amendment claim fails; statutes pass intermediate scrutiny; no right to carry in public without regulation.
Other constitutional and statutory challenges	Counts alleging Bill of Attainder, Ninth Amendment rights, Due Process, and Contract Clause violations.	These theories lack support under governing precedent and are not viable.	Counts on Ninth Amendment, Privileges and Immunities, Due Process, Bill of Attainder, and Contract Clause all fail; claims dismissed with prejudice.

Heller v. District of Columbia, 554 U.S. 570 (U.S. 2008) (Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms limited; not unlimited outside home)
McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (U.S. 2010) (Second Amendment applies to states via Due Process Clause)
Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (U.S. 1908) (allows prospective injunctive relief against state officers; immunity not for past damages)
Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737 (U.S. 1984) (standing and injury in fact principles in equal protection cases)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (-standing requirements: injury, causation, redressability)
Kachalsky v. Cacace, 817 F. Supp. 2d 235 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (intermediate scrutiny applied to firearm carry regulation)
Peruta v. County of San Diego, 758 F. Supp. 2d 1106 (S.D. Cal. 2010) (concealed carry licensing upheld under intermediate scrutiny depending on state scheme)
Piszczatoski v. Filko, 840 F. Supp. 2d 813 (D.N.J. 2012) (upheld open and concealed carry licensing scheme under intermediate scrutiny)
Moore v. Madigan, 842 F. Supp. 2d 1092 (C.D. Ill. 2012) (second amendment challenges to licensing survive intermediate scrutiny)
Masciandaro, 638 F.3d 458 (4th Cir. 2011) (outside-the-home carrying regulations subject to intermediate scrutiny)
City of Lakewood v. Plain Dealer Publ’g Co., 486 U.S. 750 (U.S. 1988) (prior restraint doctrine applicability limited to First Amendment context)