Hawaii is a special kind of place. Being the youngest of all the states with one of the oldest histories, there have been some growing pains, to put it lightly. It’s important to embrace and continue to celebrate the cultural practices and traditions of Hawaii prior to its territorial annexation to the United States. However, the so-called “spirit of Aloha” has been used to subvert the rights of the people of Hawaii – and others. There’s been a recent challenge to a Hawaiian law that prohibits Micronesian nonimmigrants from bearing arms.

Last month, on November 27th, 2024, attorneys Alexander Alan Beck and Kevin Gerard O’Grady filed Peter v. Lopez. The filing states that the “action challenges the constitutionality of State’s laws that prohibits the acquisition, purchase, sale, ownership, and possession of firearms by persons who legally live in the United States pursuant to a Compact of Free Association (“COFA”).”

The Compact of Free Association is a 1982 agreement that the United States entered into with the Government of the Federated States of Micronesia. The agreement has since been amended, but states in so many terms that “that the people of the Federated States of Micronesia have the right to enjoy self-government.” And further fortify that the “common interests of the United States of America and the Federated States of Micronesia in creating and maintaining their close and mutually beneficial relationship through the free and voluntary association of their respective Governments.”

The history behind the agreement has to do with the United States having control of Micronesia post-WWII. After ratification of the Compact, it allowed Micronesia to become an independent nation.

A U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services bulletin outlines the relationship between citizens of Micronesia and the U.S.:

Citizens of the FSM [Federated States of Micronesia] and RMI [Republic of the Marshall Islands] by birth and those citizens of the former TTPI [Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands] who acquired FSM or RMI citizenship in 1986 are entitled under the Compacts to travel and apply for admission to the United States as nonimmigrants without visas.

However, admission is not guaranteed. Most grounds of inadmissibility under U.S. immigration laws, such as criminal convictions, are applicable.

If determined admissible under the Compacts, an FSM or RMI citizen may live, study, and work in the United States. The United States has the right to set terms and conditions on the nonimmigrant stay of FSM and RMI citizens. Currently, they are granted an unlimited length of stay.

Hawaii law essentially prohibits such legal nonimmigrants from procuring and possessing firearms. The complaint states that Hawaii’s “prohibition of firearm acquisition, ownership, and possession, by COFA aliens makes it impossible for those individuals to exercise their right to ‘keep arms’, as guaranteed by the Second Amendment’s text and as recognized and reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen.”

In quoting Hawaii law, the complaint observes that Hawaiian issuing authorities “shall issue permits to acquire firearms to: (1) Citizens, nationals, or lawful permanent residents of the United States of the age of twenty-one years or more.” The law, as the complaint states, “prohibits adults who are not citizens of the United States, nor nationals or lawful permanent residents, from acquiring, purchasing, and owning and or possessing any firearm.”

The suit makes an injury claim that the statute is violative of both the Second and 14th Amendment rights of the plaintiff.

“It is well established that states cannot discriminate against legally admitted aliens in the exercise of their fundamental rights,” attorney Alan Beck said in a statement. “I am very hopeful that the trial court will immediately put an end to Hawaii’s unconstitutional discrimination.”

The complaint was filed in the Federal District Court of Hawaii. It’s been just shy of a month since the filing. How the case is going to progress is not yet known. Considering Beck and his partners’ track records — in this specific case O’Grady — of dismantling Hawaii’s unconstitutional law, it would come as no surprise if the State of Hawaii would try to enter into some sort of an agreement with the aggrieved on the matter.