Jump to content

Hawaii Defense Foundation sues over may-issue, other restrictions


GarandFan

Recommended Posts

It's become very difficult to keep up with all the second amendment litigation!

 

 

http://www.hawaiireporter.com/hawaii-government-sued-over-restrictive-firearms-laws/123

 

Hawaii Government Sued Over Restrictive Firearms Laws

Historiann.com

 

The non-profit Hawaii Defense Foundation has filed a lawsuit against the Honolulu Chief of Police Louis Kealoha, the Honolulu Police Department and the City & County of Honolulu as well as the State of Hawaii and Gov. Neil Abercrombie for violating the Second and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.

 

The complaint, which was filed in Hawaii's U.S. District Court by attorneys Richard Holcomb, Alan Beck and Kevin O’Grady, argues that Hawaii’s license to carry firearms statute as well as Hawaii's other firearm regulations, are unconstitutional.

 

Michelle Yu, spokesperson for the Honolulu Police Department, said the chief has no comment on the lawsuit.

 

Hawaii has some of the most restrictive gun policies in the country.

 

Hawaii is a "may issue" rather than "shall issue" state, which means that police chiefs that provide concealed and open carry firearms permits may issue them at will. This is different that shall issue states, where the government must provide concealed carry permits so long as the applicant passes all background checks and has no history of mental illness.

 

A total of 49 states have a concealed carry law with Illinois being the exception. Illinois has banned carrying of all concealed weapons including guns and knives. Wisconsin changed its law in July 2011 to allow concealed carry.

 

Hawaii Defense Foundation’s founding director and president, Christopher Baker, said licenses to carry in Hawaii are only issued in “exceptional circumstance” or “where a need or urgency has been sufficiently indicated."

 

This language violates the Second Amendment, which secures the right of all responsible, law-abiding citizens to bear arms for the purpose of self-defense, he said.

 

The lawsuit also claims that the state's bad on non-lethal tools for self-defense such as electric guns is a violation of civil rights.

 

“The Second Amendment protects the right to self-defense. Everyday around the islands good people are robbed, assaulted, raped, or in the worst cases murdered. It’s simply a matter of physics, the Police can’t be everywhere to stop criminals from committing violent acts. We must be allowed to carry the tools that give us a chance to protect ourselves from harm,” Baker said. “We want criminals to have to think about the consequences of attacking someone,” he continued, “but right now, nothing serves as a deterrent to them - the odds are in their favor.”

 

The foundation, which was established as a mechanism to defend civil rights and offer educational courses on firearm safety, self-defense training, and life saving techniques, has launched a fundraising effort to support the litigation.

 

More information on the web (www.TheHDF.org).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The next big fight... Will Hawaii get shall issue before Illinois?

 

 

I read somewhere that one of the problems with litigating the issue in HI was that no resident was reportedly interested in getting a permit enough to even apply so they could get turned down.

 

personally, I would not be surprised if the authorities there just decided to start issuing, if anyone actually applied.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I read somewhere that one of the problems with litigating the issue in HI was that no resident was reportedly interested in getting a permit enough to even apply so they could get turned down.

 

personally, I would not be surprised if the authorities there just decided to start issuing, if anyone actually applied.

 

 

I'd heard that, too. Just not sure that I believe it. I think it's more likely that HI is a "shall not issue" state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read somewhere that one of the problems with litigating the issue in HI was that no resident was reportedly interested in getting a permit enough to even apply so they could get turned down.

 

personally, I would not be surprised if the authorities there just decided to start issuing, if anyone actually applied.

 

 

I'd heard that, too. Just not sure that I believe it. I think it's more likely that HI is a "shall not issue" state.

 

It is an unusual state. Very different from the rest of the country. It is hard to say just what may or may not be true.

 

It can't hurt to have a well thought out attack going on there as well, although it seems unnecessary given the litigation going on in CA over may issue. It is in the same circuit IIRC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The next big fight... Will Hawaii get shall issue before Illinois?

 

 

I read somewhere that one of the problems with litigating the issue in HI was that no resident was reportedly interested in getting a permit enough to even apply so they could get turned down.

 

personally, I would not be surprised if the authorities there just decided to start issuing, if anyone actually applied.

 

I read an article last year on how hard they make it for retired LEOs to get carry permits. They make Chicago look cooperative! :headbang1:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was there last week. (Boy, I hate being back :shocked: ). I didn't know about this club, or I could've stopped by to say hi (although I guess they are only on Oahu, and I was on 2 different islands). Good to hear that Hawaii is fighting too.

 

In ranking of CCW rights, Hawaii comes right above us (#49 to our #50). They have a law for "may issue", but there is no known record (as far as I can tell, and I did research it) of it ever being used to issue to non LEO. Hawaii is pretty crazy for many firearm laws; you need a license "specific to the gun" to own a firearm there, and they have lots of restrictions on type of firearm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was there last week. (Boy, I hate being back sad.gif ). I didn't know about this club, or I could've stopped by to say hi (although I guess they are only on Oahu, and I was on 2 different islands). Good to hear that Hawaii is fighting too.

 

In ranking of CCW rights, Hawaii comes right above us (#49 to our #50). They have a law for "may issue", but there is no known record (as far as I can tell, and I did research it) of it ever being used to issue to non LEO. Hawaii is pretty crazy for many firearm laws; you need a license "specific to the gun" to own a firearm there, and they have lots of restrictions on type of firearm.

 

I still rank them below us. I know, they have a CCW law on the books so they should be above us but until they start issuing a license, their law is worse than useless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still rank them below us. I know, they have a CCW law on the books so they should be above us but until they start issuing a license, their law is worse than useless.

 

I rank them above us because they have a law allowing CCW, whereas we don't. All they need is the election of one good county chief of police, and all would be well for citizens of that particular county. (Out of the 4 counties in Hawaii). Election of one good chief would put them on par w/ California and New York (rights either good or bad based on the county in which you live). Certainly not good, but still infinitely better than what we have in Illinois. So while they also have a large climb, it is slightly less than Illinois'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still rank them below us. I know, they have a CCW law on the books so they should be above us but until they start issuing a license, their law is worse than useless.

 

I rank them above us because they have a law allowing CCW, whereas we don't. All they need is the election of one good county chief of police, and all would be well for citizens of that particular county. (Out of the 4 counties in Hawaii). Election of one good chief would put them on par w/ California and New York (rights either good or bad based on the county in which you live). Certainly not good, but still infinitely better than what we have in Illinois. So while they also have a large climb, it is slightly less than Illinois'.

 

And all we need is one good election to replace the reps that voted against HB148 and we'll have a shall issue system. But we don't have the votes and they don't have a chief of police that will issue LTC's. So right now, we're ahead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of the 57, 50 states we have realistically 8 problem children IL, HI, NJ, MD, NY, CA & MA, These are the children forcibly sent the reformatory. HI is the only may issue state were not even the politically connected or Hollywood crowd seem to get permits. This is probably a good thing, because the argument that they are actually in practice "no issue" makes the case even easier to prove.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of the 57, 50 states we have realistically 8 problem children IL, HI, NJ, MD, NY, CA & MA, These are the children forcibly sent the reformatory. HI is the only may issue state were not even the politically connected or Hollywood crowd seem to get permits. This is probably a good thing, because the argument that they are actually in practice "no issue" makes the case even easier to prove.

 

 

Both MA and CA are getting dramatically better though. I fully expect most of CA to be something approaching shall issue in the near future, regardless of what happens elsewhere. Gun owners in CA are doing a good job in the courts and with political pressure there. I fully expect LA county to turn away from the dark side before next spring and start issuing.

 

NY outside of NYC is mostly pretty good, if somewhat slow and expensive, and with some troubling restrictions in a few areas.

 

PR has turned away from the dark side recently. I think it will be effectively shall issue there soon if it is not already.

 

DC is no issue as well.

 

We also have a fair number of states that need work on the non-resident issues, NY and DC being the worst.

 

And there is still the issue of whether LTC satisfies the 2A that lurks around the corner on all of this stuff and everyone is afraid of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And all we need is one good election to replace the reps that voted against HB148 and we'll have a shall issue system. But we don't have the votes and they don't have a chief of police that will issue LTC's. So right now, we're ahead.

with only 4 counties in hawaii they only need to replace 4 chiefs to become effectively "shall issue"

 

in IL we need to replace 6 reps and the governor to get to that point (and will still have more restictions)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And all we need is one good election to replace the reps that voted against HB148 and we'll have a shall issue system. But we don't have the votes and they don't have a chief of police that will issue LTC's. So right now, we're ahead.

with only 4 counties in hawaii they only need to replace 4 chiefs to become effectively "shall issue"

 

in IL we need to replace 6 reps and the governor to get to that point (and will still have more restictions)

 

 

Why would we have to replace the governor? We need the same number of votes to pass as we do to override a veto.

 

HI needs to replace 100% of their chiefs, I'm not sure what percentage we need to change but I'll bet it's less the 10%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would we have to replace the governor? We need the same number of votes to pass as we do to override a veto.

 

HI needs to replace 100% of their chiefs, I'm not sure what percentage we need to change but I'll bet it's less the 10%.

we still need a larger number of people replaced, 6 at the least

 

 

Chances of holding a veto without a few votes margin seem pretty limited. And that says nothing at all about the senate where the other side only has to hold onto 20 votes. Given a mixture of hard core antis, people that owe a big enough favor to Cullerton, and those that can be bribed, I would guess it would be pretty easy to hold onto 20 votes in the senate at present. JMNSHO.

 

I had an interesting email exchange with a fellow downstate recently. He is a bit more of a cynic about IL politics than even I am, but has a pretty astute view of IL politics over a long time. He expects some kind of LTC legislation will eventually pass due to the current court cases, but one that is much more restrictive than HB148, and may even be more or less may issue. It is hard for me to see how that would square with the NRA's stated positions on the matter of may issue, and the clout they supposedly have on this issue.

 

OTOH, I have learned to my sorrow that "our" side in these matters has often managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, so I don't entirely discount his thinking on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chances of holding a veto without a few votes margin seem pretty limited. And that says nothing at all about the senate where the other side only has to hold onto 20 votes. Given a mixture of hard core antis, people that owe a big enough favor to Cullerton, and those that can be bribed, I would guess it would be pretty easy to hold onto 20 votes in the senate at present. JMNSHO.

 

I had an interesting email exchange with a fellow downstate recently. He is a bit more of a cynic about IL politics than even I am, but has a pretty astute view of IL politics over a long time. He expects some kind of LTC legislation will eventually pass due to the current court cases, but one that is much more restrictive than HB148, and may even be more or less may issue. It is hard for me to see how that would square with the NRA's stated positions on the matter of may issue, and the clout they supposedly have on this issue.

 

OTOH, I have learned to my sorrow that "our" side in these matters has often managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, so I don't entirely discount his thinking on this.

 

I realize that you don't think we're ever going to get a concealed carry law passed but you don't mind if we keep trying, do you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would we have to replace the governor? We need the same number of votes to pass as we do to override a veto.

 

HI needs to replace 100% of their chiefs, I'm not sure what percentage we need to change but I'll bet it's less the 10%.

we still need a larger number of people replaced, 6 at the least

 

 

Chances of holding a veto without a few votes margin seem pretty limited. And that says nothing at all about the senate where the other side only has to hold onto 20 votes. Given a mixture of hard core antis, people that owe a big enough favor to Cullerton, and those that can be bribed, I would guess it would be pretty easy to hold onto 20 votes in the senate at present. JMNSHO.

 

I had an interesting email exchange with a fellow downstate recently. He is a bit more of a cynic about IL politics than even I am, but has a pretty astute view of IL politics over a long time. He expects some kind of LTC legislation will eventually pass due to the current court cases, but one that is much more restrictive than HB148, and may even be more or less may issue. It is hard for me to see how that would square with the NRA's stated positions on the matter of may issue, and the clout they supposedly have on this issue.

 

OTOH, I have learned to my sorrow that "our" side in these matters has often managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, so I don't entirely discount his thinking on this.

I don't know who the man is that you refer to, but i'd say he's right on track.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I realize that you don't think we're ever going to get a concealed carry law passed but you don't mind if we keep trying, do you?

 

Feel free to try all you want. I don't know what makes you feel I think it can't be done. I think it can and will be done and have said so repeatedly. We only differ much on the time frame being promised. I have a much more realistic time frame in mind. Don't drink the koolaid!

 

And note some important words in my previous post "at present". At present we are out of luck. Just the way it is. Until we get enough leverage either through the courts or through the ballot box, or potentially though the political process, we will continue to be out of luck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gentlemen,

 

Please refer back to the title of this thread. And bob - please keep in mind that your "realism" may not be the same as someone else's. That does not necessarily mean that either of one of you have a corner on the "realistic" market and it does not necessarily mean anyone is "drinking the koolaid". Your insulting manner does not run true to our code of conduct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HI needs to replace 100% of their chiefs, I'm not sure what percentage we need to change but I'll bet it's less the 10%.

 

But to allow carry for some residents, they only need to elect one fair chief. They are one person away from some recognition. (And yes, I know the electoral makeup of Hawaii, and getting that one person is a very uphill battle.) Illinois is farther off. To allow carry for any citizens at all, we need to push out at least 6 of the morons in the House and an unknown number in the Senate, and then go and pass a good (or at least decent) law. (On the legal front, both Hawaii and Illinois have things brewing (per the original content of this article)). So I still think Hawaii is in front of us on the legislative front. They have a law, that if ever used, would spell some relief. Of course, this is all a debate over "which terrible thing is slightly worse than the other terrible thing". What Hawaii has is very bad, and even if they elected one chief who started granted licenses to law-abiding citizens, it would be far from an endgame. Just, on the whole gamut of states regarding CCW, we are still in last place. (Regarding firearm laws in general, I would put Illinois ahead of Hawaii, where you need a gun-specific permit for each firearm, as well as bans on any magazine that holds more than 10 rounds. As bad as the FOID is, that is much worse.) But I stand by my comment that for CCW specifically, no state can dislodge Illinois from last place, until we get a major change in the legislature (hopefully in next election) or until the United States Supreme Court rules on "to bear" in a matter at any way consistent with the founding father's intention. Until then, we are in 50th place out of 50.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As bad as the FOID is, that is much worse.) But I stand by my comment that for CCW specifically, no state can dislodge Illinois from last place, until we get a major change in the legislature (hopefully in next election) or until the United States Supreme Court rules on "to bear" in a matter at any way consistent with the founding father's intention. Until then, we are in 50th place out of 50.

 

 

Where does it say in the constitution that the words in the constitution are to be construed as they meant 200+ years ago? keep in mind to all the religion haters and abortion lovers out there that the founding fathers would be aghast at the way religion has been systematically attacked via government and the courts and they would never have gotten the bizarre logic of Roe v. Wade.

 

The courts have ruled that homosex is a right. You think G. Washington would have bought into the idea of Fred sexing up Joe?

 

Or of Jill and jane marrying? in that case we are on the path of changing what that practice has meant for thousands of years.

 

not agreeing with the "living" constitution nonsense but just pointing out there is nothing in the constitution that requires it be interpreted as it would have been at the time it was written, and it has never been consistently interpreted that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

not agreeing with the "living" constitution nonsense but just pointing out there is nothing in the constitution that requires it be interpreted as it would have been at the time it was written, and it has never been consistently interpreted that way.

 

 

I'm not saying that it has always been interpreted this way, but that it should be. The document was written and should be interpreted as such. If a mistake was made, it should be corrected via an amendment (as the 13th amendment famously did), not just re-interpreted to please the folks currently in power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

All I want to know is if Magnum P.I. carried and if Higgins had enough political clout to buy him his permit?

 

 

whistle.png

 

;) That was a good show. I especially like it knowing Tom Selleck is on the board of the NRA. He’s one of the handful of Hollywood actors / actresses I respect.

 

And Magum P.I. did carry in quite a few episodes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...