Of the numerous challenges to unconstitutional laws across the United States in a post NYSRPA v. Bruen world, National Association for Gun Rights v. Lopez in Hawaii is amongst ’em. NAGR v. Lopez is currently being heard in the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii. The details of the case revolve around Hawaii’s prohibition on the possession of magazines over ten rounds and so-called “assault pistols.”
NAGR, generally known for their efforts as lobbyists, have been launching more lawsuits challenging gun control laws in recent years. The aspect of this case that’s rather unique is the choice of attorney Hawaii’s Attorney General has tapped to defend the state’s statute.
Arguing the case for Hawaii is an attorney associated with Bloomberg-funded Everytown Law.
The complaint was originally filed on September 6, 2022 as National Association for Gun Rights v. Shikada. On March 21, 2023 a pro hac vice motion was filed for attorney William J. Taylor, Jr. requesting that the court admit a lawyer not licensed to practice law in a given jurisdiction for this. With all the unconstitutional gun control laws that Hawaii has, one would think that they’d have their own legal team that’s competent and ready to defend their regulations.
Who is William J. Taylor? Everytown’s page reveals the following . . .
As Deputy Director, Second Amendment Litigation at Everytown Law, Bill supports state attorneys general and city attorneys in Second Amendment cases, helps manage Everytown’s amicus practice, represents municipalities defending their gun laws in court, and speaks publicly at law schools and in other settings about the Second Amendment and the future of gun litigation.
Taylor’s CV is impressive and his bio notes that he’s a former Assistant Attorney General from New York. The page boasts a win that Taylor got for the Empire State in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Cuomo in which a district court upheld the law banning semi-automatic rifles and standard capacity magazines.
The pro hac vice motion states Taylor’s explanation for the application . . .
In January 2020, I and my co-counsel, attorneys at the law firm Kramer, Levin, Naftalis & Frankel LLP, applied for pro hac vice admission to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California in Jones v. Becerra, No. 3:19-cv-01226, for the purpose of moving for leave to file an amicus curiae brief on behalf of Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund. The district court denied the applications for failure to designate local counsel with an office located within the district. We reapplied for pro hac vice admission. The court then denied all motions for leave to file an amicus brief in the case, including Everytown’s motion, and in connection with that denial, denied our pro hac vice applications, which the court also noted were incomplete. In light of the denial of leave to participate as an amicus curiae, we did not resubmit our pro hac vice applications. Since this denial of pro hac vice admission, I have continued to apply for and, without exception, gain admission to the bars of multiple federal courts.
On behalf of Everytown, Taylor has filed amicus briefs in a number of cases over the years. Some of the more high profile include . . .
- NYSRPA v. The City of New York, Supreme Court of the United States, case 18-280: New York CIty’s handgun transportation prohibition laws. Filed August 12, 2019
- Young v. Hawaii, United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, case 12-17808: Hawaii’s prohibition on “open carry” in the state. Filed June 4, 2020
- National Rifle Association v. Swearingen, United State District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Civil Action No. 4:18-cv-137- v. MW-MAF: Florida’s prohibition on the sale of firearms to those under the age of 21. Filed September 10, 2020
- Antonyuk v. Hochul, United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, Civil Action No. 1:22-cv-0986-GTS-CFH: New York’s post NYSRPA v. Bruen response law limiting carry etc. Filed October 18, 2022
In addition to the Antonyuk case, Taylor also filed a brief for Everytown on the 18th of October, 2022, in the semi-related Goldstein v. Hochul case in the Southern District of New York.
I reached out to Dudley Brown, the President of the National Association for Gun Rights. Brown and I chatted a bit about the situation in Hawaii, and he too found the state’s representation selection peculiar.
I was shocked when the Hawaii Attorney General’s office deputized an Anytown for Gun Control staff attorney to serve as their direct representative. This NYC attorney came with all the Bloomberg talking points.
When asked about so-called “assault weapons” and similar cases and trying to read the tea leaaves here, Brown said . . .
The federal judge asked which cases had already done a deep dive on the assault weapon and magazine ban issues, to which NAGR attorney Barry Arrington replied that the Benitez California ruling was due any day now, which would surely be a comprehensive ruling. That panicked the Everytown attorney – everyone knows Benitez is almost surely going to eviscerate gun-banners’ arguments.
It’s interesting, to say the least, that the state of Hawaii is utilizing an attorney from a known anti-civil rights organization to carry their gun controlling water here. Is this a big “a ha” moment for the ruling class in the Aloha State?
Hawaii has been handed defeat after defeat when it comes to the draconian limits they’ve put on Second Amendment rights. Is this their last-ditch effort to try and salvage some control that they can continue to exert over their citizens?
A sidebar commentary — this opens the door concerning ethical considerations on a philosophical level. Considering groups like NAGR, the National Rifle Association, the Second Amendment Foundation, et.al. are funded by residents of Hawaii. And those same Hawaii residents who donate to gun rights orgs are having their tax dollars used by the state to argue for preserving civil rights violations in court.
National Association for Gun Rights v. Lopez is likely to put another crack in Hawaii’s crumbling wall of gun control laws. NAGR most recently submitted to the court nine pages listing the number of other cases dealing with similar prohibitions throughout the country.
As mentioned by Brown, another Benitez opinion on the topic will be handed down soon and is likely to deliver another blow to the gun-controllers’ agenda. NAGR is currently waiting for an order and opinion on their motion for a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the law, which was argued on April 7, 2023.
Stay tuned.
