Moore Response
2
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY DENNIS J. HERRERA City Attorney CHRISTINE VAN AKEN Deputy City Attorney Direct Dial: (415) 554-4633 Email: [email protected] CITY HALL, RM 234 · 1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE · SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102 RECEPTION: (415) 554-4700 · FACSIMILE: (415) 554-4699 n:\govlit\li2012\091333\00814625.doc December 18, 2012 VIA ECF Molly C. Dwyer Clerk of Court United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 95 Seventh Street San Francisco, CA 94103 Re: Baker v. Kealoha, No. 12-16258 Argued December 6, 2012 Dear Ms. Dwyer: Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(j), appellees Louis Kealoha and the City and County of Honolulu submit this response to the Rule 28(j) submission made by appellant Christopher Baker on December 11, 2012. In Moore v. Madigan, No. 12-1269 & 12-1788 (attached to Mr. Baker’s Rule 28(j) brief), the Seventh Circuit invalidated Illinois’s “blanket prohibition on carrying [a] gun in public,” slip op. at 14, which the Seventh Circuit characterized as “the most restrictive gun law of any of the 50 states,” slip op. at 19. Moore indicates that the Second Amendment right to bear arms extends outside the home, slip op. at 5, a point disputed by the parties in this case, but even if this Court adopted Moore’s holding it would not compel the Court to invalidate Hawaii’s public-carry law in this case. In contrast to Illinois, Hawaii allows public carrying of firearms with a license, either concealed by individuals who are able to show reason to fear injury to their person or property or unconcealed by public-protection professionals who can show need. Haw. Rev. Stat. § 134-9. Moore acknowledges that Illinois may impose a permit- or license-based regime for carrying guns outside the home, slip op. at 16, and it does not compel Illinois to issue carry licenses to anyone who seeks them for self-defense, the claim made by Mr. Baker in this case. Very truly yours, DENNIS J. HERRERA City Attorney /s/ CHRISTINE VAN AKEN Deputy City Attorney The body of this letter contains 229 words. Case: 12-16258 12/18/2012 ID: 8444136 DktEntry: 44 Page: 1 of 2
Transcript of Moore Response
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
DENNIS J. HERRERA City Attorney
CHRISTINE VAN AKEN Deputy City Attorney Direct Dial: (415) 554-4633 Email: [email protected]
CITY HALL, RM 234 · 1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE · SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102
RECEPTION: (415) 554-4700 · FACSIMILE: (415) 554-4699
n:\govlit\li2012\091333\00814625.doc
December 18, 2012 VIA ECF Molly C. Dwyer Clerk of Court United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 95 Seventh Street San Francisco, CA 94103 Re: Baker v. Kealoha, No. 12-16258
Argued December 6, 2012 Dear Ms. Dwyer:
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(j), appellees Louis Kealoha and the City and County of Honolulu submit this response to the Rule 28(j) submission made by appellant Christopher Baker on December 11, 2012.
In Moore v. Madigan, No. 12-1269 & 12-1788 (attached to Mr. Baker’s Rule 28(j) brief), the Seventh Circuit invalidated Illinois’s “blanket prohibition on carrying [a] gun in public,” slip op. at 14, which the Seventh Circuit characterized as “the most restrictive gun law of any of the 50 states,” slip op. at 19.
Moore indicates that the Second Amendment right to bear arms extends outside the home, slip op. at 5, a point disputed by the parties in this case, but even if this Court adopted Moore’s holding it would not compel the Court to invalidate Hawaii’s public-carry law in this case. In contrast to Illinois, Hawaii allows public carrying of firearms with a license, either concealed by individuals who are able to show reason to fear injury to their person or property or unconcealed by public-protection professionals who can show need. Haw. Rev. Stat. § 134-9. Moore acknowledges that Illinois may impose a permit- or license-based regime for carrying guns outside the home, slip op. at 16, and it does not compel Illinois to issue carry licenses to anyone who seeks them for self-defense, the claim made by Mr. Baker in this case.
Very truly yours, DENNIS J. HERRERA City Attorney /s/ CHRISTINE VAN AKEN Deputy City Attorney
The body of this letter contains 229 words.
Case: 12-16258 12/18/2012 ID: 8444136 DktEntry: 44 Page: 1 of 2
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY Letter to Molly C. Dwyer Page 2 December 18, 2012
n:\govlit\li2012\091333\00814625.doc
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I electronically filed the following with the Clerk of the Court for the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by using the appellate CM/ECF system on December 18, 2012.
APPELLEES’ FRAP 28(j) LETTER
Participants in the case who are registered CM/ECF users will be served by the appellate CM/ECF system.
I declare under penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed December 18, 2012, at San Francisco, California.
s/Pamela Cheeseborough Pamela Cheeseborough
Case: 12-16258 12/18/2012 ID: 8444136 DktEntry: 44 Page: 2 of 2
![005014899 00304 - National Archives of Ireland576 WILLS AND MOORE James. Effects £123, MOORE James. [3171 Effects £78,740 14s. lid. MOORE James. [126] Effects £191, MOORE Jane.](https://static.fdocuments.in/doc/165x107/5e3ab50527fb205ece07a5d5/005014899-00304-national-archives-of-576-wills-and-moore-james-effects-123.jpg)
