Mendoza

MEMORANDUM **

Former Hawaii state prisoner Marc Charles Mendoza appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging his conviction by jury trial for possessing a loaded firearm in a place other than his place of business or residence. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm.

Mendoza contends that Hawaii Revised Statute § 134-6 violates the Second, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, Tenth, Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. We disagree. The Second Amendment limits only federal action. See Fresno Rifle and Pistol Club v. Van De Kamp, 965 F.2d 723, 729-31 (9th Cir.1992). The Ninth Amendment does not encompass an unenumerated individual right to bear arms. See San Diego County Gun Rights Comm. v. Reno, 98 F.3d 1121 , 1125 (9th Cir.1996). In addition, Mendoza presented no viable arguments that would establish that Section 134-6 is not rationally related to a legitimate government interest under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See United States v. Hancock, 231 F.3d 557, 565-66 (9th Cir.2000). Finally, there is simply no basis in the law for Mendoza’s claims…