A Groundbreaking Settlement for COFA Residents

For many Compact of Free Association (COFA) migrants living in the United States, this case marks a pivotal moment in their quest for equal treatment under the law. Billy Peter, a Honolulu-based individual, sought to exercise his right to acquire a firearm but faced rejection due to his immigration status. His journey through the courts not only highlights the complexities of U.S. gun laws but also underscores broader questions about citizenship and constitutional protections.

Redefining Eligibility Under Federal Law

In November of last year, Billy Peter initiated a lawsuit against Hawaiʻi Attorney General Anne Lopez, arguing that existing statutes unjustly discriminated against COFA citizens. At the heart of his argument was the contention that denying him a firearm permit violated his constitutional rights as outlined in the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. The case referenced the landmark 2022 Bruen decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, which invalidated New York's restrictive concealed-carry licensing process.

This precedent served as a cornerstone for Peter's legal team, suggesting that similar challenges could arise across jurisdictions enforcing strict firearm regulations. By aligning his case with the principles established in Bruen, Peter positioned himself as part of a growing movement advocating for expanded interpretations of constitutional freedoms.

Challenging State Legislation on Firearms

Hawaiʻi Revised Statute 134-2 explicitly restricts firearm permits to "citizens, nationals, or lawful permanent residents" aged twenty-one or older. For individuals like Billy Peter, who hold COFA status, this provision created an insurmountable barrier. Despite meeting other eligibility criteria—such as maintaining a clean criminal record and completing mandatory safety training—he remained ineligible solely based on his nationality.

The statute's rigid framework overlooked the unique circumstances of COFA migrants, who enjoy special privileges under treaties allowing them to reside and work in the U.S. indefinitely. This oversight prompted Peter's attorneys to question whether such exclusions aligned with the broader intent of constitutional guarantees.

Settlement and Implications Beyond Hawaii

In January, the U.S. District Court in Hawaii approved a settlement favorable to Peter, awarding his legal representatives $28,500 in compensation. While the court refrained from issuing a definitive ruling on the constitutional merits of COFA migrants' rights, the outcome clarified one critical point: COFA status alone does not disqualify individuals from acquiring firearms.

This clarification carries significant implications for thousands of COFA residents across the country. It sets a precedent encouraging others to pursue legal avenues when encountering discriminatory practices tied to their immigration status. Moreover, it invites further scrutiny of state-level firearm legislation, potentially prompting reforms to accommodate diverse immigrant populations.

Legislative Responses and Future Considerations

As part of the settlement agreement, lawmakers in Hawaii are expected to approve a claims bill incorporating Peter's case among several others. With an estimated total value exceeding $7 million, this legislative measure reflects ongoing efforts to address unresolved disputes involving state agencies. However, the broader impact of Peter's victory extends beyond monetary compensation.

It calls attention to systemic issues within current firearm regulations and prompts discussions around inclusivity and fairness. Policymakers must now consider how best to reconcile these statutes with evolving interpretations of constitutional rights, ensuring all residents receive equitable treatment regardless of their background or origin.