$28,500 Settlement: COFA Migrant Denied Gun Permit by Honolulu Police Department
In a significant ruling that highlights the complexities surrounding the rights of Compact of Free Association (COFA) migrants, Billy Peter, a resident of Honolulu, has been awarded $28,500 after facing a denial from the Honolulu Police Department (HPD) regarding his request for a gun permit. This case sheds light on the ongoing conversation about fundamental rights and legal protections in the United States.
Background: The COFA Controversy
Billy Peter, originally from the Federated States of Micronesia, was eager to exercise his perceived rights and purchase a firearm. However, when he approached the HPD last fall, he was met with a disheartening response. The department informed Peter that he was ineligible to apply for a firearm permit due to his status as a COFA alien.
Understanding the COFA Agreement
The COFA agreements facilitate a unique status for citizens from the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of Palau, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands. Through these treaties, individuals from these nations can live and work freely within the U.S. without the need for traditional immigration processes. Yet, this promise of opportunity often runs into legal barriers, especially concerning rights such as gun ownership.
The Permit Denial: A Violation of Rights?
Peter was asked to present his immigration documentation, which he did. He provided a Form I-94, a crucial record for COFA migrants indicating their arrivals and departures. Unfortunately, an HPD officer dismissed his documentation, insisting he required a green card to qualify for the firearm permit.
Peter perceived this denial as more than just a bureaucratic hurdle; he viewed it as a violation of his Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms and an infringement on the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. His argument was that COFA migrants were being treated differently compared to U.S. citizens, which he asserted was unconstitutional.
Legal Action: Filing a Lawsuit
In November, fueled by a desire for justice, Peter took the bold step of filing a lawsuit against Hawaiʻi Attorney General Anne Lopez in federal court. Citing the landmark 2022 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n Inc. v. Bruen, which invalidated certain restrictions on gun permits, his legal team argued that similar logic should apply in his situation.
Challenging Hawaii’s Revised Statute
The lawsuit called into question Hawaiʻi Revised Statute 134-2, which restricts gun permits to “Citizens, nationals, or lawful permanent residents of the United States.” Peter’s case was bolstered by his clean criminal record, a solid employment history, and the completion of a handgun safety course in 2024, underscoring his qualifications for safely acquiring a firearm.
The Court’s Decision: A Win for Peter
In January, a federal district court in Hawaiʻi reached a resolution that favored Peter. Following the decision, the state agreed to pay Peter and his attorneys a total of $28,500 in settlement funds. This amount will come from a claims bill anticipated to be approved by the Hawaiʻi Legislature, which addresses multiple legal settlements within the state.
Peter’s attorneys, Kevin O’Grady and Alan Beck, emphasized that while the court did not definitively rule on the legal rights of COFA migrants regarding the Second Amendment, they successfully established that this group could not be barred from obtaining firearms solely based on their immigration status.
What’s Next for Billy Peter?
While Peter is now positioned more favorably to pursue gun ownership, O’Grady mentioned that it remains unclear whether Peter will seek a firearm moving forward. However, it is evident that Peter’s assertion—had it not been for the law, he would have swiftly acquired a firearm—remains a potent reminder of the ongoing struggle for equality and rights among COFA migrants in the U.S.
Conclusion: A Precedent for Future Cases
Billy Peter’s case is emblematic of the broader issues surrounding immigrants’ rights and gun ownership in America. As legal professionals analyze this case, it may set a precedent for other COFA migrants facing similar obstacles. The dialogue surrounding legal rights, equality, and constitutional protections continues to evolve, and cases like Peter’s highlight the importance of advocating for justice in every form.
For more information about the implications of this case, explore resources such as ACLU and SCOTUSblog.
