Hawaii Takes Gun Control One Step Further

77zach · Jul 25, 2018

Overturned en banc, obviously. If it goes to the SCOTUS I'd say there is a good chance this decision is upheld. Then, come the summer of 2025, you might be able to apply for a permit to openly carry in Hawaii and California. It will only cost $900, require a 200 question essay exam, and 10,000 hours of training in death valley on the last Saturday of every other month at 2pm. Thanks Trump and SCOTUS! MAGA!

WalkingWolf · Jul 25, 2018

77zach said:
Overturned en banc, obviously. If it goes to the SCOTUS I'd say there is a good chance this decision is upheld. Then, come the summer of 2025, you might be able to apply for a permit to openly carry in Hawaii and California. It will only cost $900, require a 200 question essay exam, and 10,000 hours of training in death valley on the last Saturday of every other month at 2pm. Thanks Trump and SCOTUS! MAGA!

It will get to SCOTUS before that, and with the make up of SCOTUS AND that the ruling as it stands now pretty much along the lines of State V Kerner. That means NO permit, if they do it will end right back in courts.

Even the far left liberals know that the words of the 2A, and carry at that particular time in history meant open carry. The militia carried rifles, and the people carried riffles, pistols were too large for conceal carry, and there was no reason to CC. Over the ages there have been numerous rulings to indicate which way this would go. NRA took it upon themselves to limit gun rights, then they capitalized on that by trying to push off P4P as a right.

Interesting that most of the exploding heads over this ruling are not coming from antis, it is coming from rabid conceal carry fanatics.

JTHunter2 · Jul 25, 2018

Hawaii loses court case

A 3 judge panel makes a split decision in favor of the Second Amendment and rules Hawaii's "good cause" need too restrictive. :banana: :monkey

Court Rules Open Carry Is ‘Core 2nd Amendment Right’

Gun rights activists scored another judicial win this week with a narrow appeals court ruling that deemed one Hawaii law too restrictive.

According to The Washington Times, the state code allows for residents to keep firearms inside residences and places of business.

Carrying a gun on one’s person, however, is generally prohibited without a license. Such permission is granted under the law only if a person can convince local law enforcement that it is necessary in response to legitimate safety concerns.

https://www.westernjournal.com/cour...um=AE&utm_campaign=can&utm_content=2018-07-25

color of law · Jul 25, 2018

There is like 3 different threads addressing this Hawaii case. can we combine them???????

color of law · Jul 25, 2018

77zach said:
Overturned en banc, obviously. If it goes to the SCOTUS I'd say there is a good chance this decision is upheld. Then, come the summer of 2025, you might be able to apply for a permit to openly carry in Hawaii and California. It will only cost $900, require a 200 question essay exam, and 10,000 hours of training in death valley on the last Saturday of every other month at 2pm. Thanks Trump and SCOTUS! MAGA!

What was overturned?
http://www.abajournal.com/news/arti...tro&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=daily_email

A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday in a 2-1 decision that the Second Amendment protects the right to openly carry a gun for self-defense outside of the home.

The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in the case of a Hawaii man, George Young, who was twice denied a license to carry a handgun, report Reuters and a series of tweets by South Texas College of Law professor Josh Blackman. The case is Young v. Hawaii.

In an opinion by Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain, the 9th Circuit majority said the Second Amendment’s right to bear as well as keep arms “implies some level of public carry in case of confrontation.”

“In sum, we reject a cramped reading of the Second Amendment that renders to ‘keep’ and to ‘bear’ unequal guarantees.” O’Scannlain said.

O’Scannlain also said the U.S. Supreme Court implied the right exists in public in its two decisions protecting the right to own handguns within the home, District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago. In both decisions the court spoke of the right of self-defense being most acute and most notable within the home, “implying that the right exists, perhaps less acutely, outside the home,” O’Scannlain said.

O’Scannlain distinguished a 2016 en banc decision by the 9th Circuit on Second Amendment protections for guns outside the home. The prior decision, Peruta v. County of San Diego, held that the Second Amendment does not protect a right to carry a concealed weapon but did not address whether the Second Amendment protects a right to open carry, O’Scannlain said.

The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear Peruta in June 2017, prompting a dissent by Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Neil M. Gorsuch. “I find it extremely improbable that the framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen,” Thomas wrote.

Grapeshot · Jul 26, 2018

color of law said:
There is like 3 different threads addressing this Hawaii case. can we combine them???????

Link me next time, please

cloudcroft · Jul 26, 2018

I hope things NOW are going to change for the (even if few) real Americans still left in CA.
I hope that the even sorrier (liberalism-wise) state of HI is forced to comply also.
Best wishes (from TX)...

77zach · Jul 26, 2018

color of law said:
What was overturned?
http://www.abajournal.com/news/arti...tro&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=daily_email

Nothing yet. I think there will be an en banc decision of the 9th overturning the panel's decision. I think it could very well go to Scotus and Young being vindicated. But how many years that process takes is anyone's guess. Also, what it actually looks like in practice will be interesting. DC and Illinois residents finally "won" their cases too. But when the ruling class of antagonistic jurisdictions rarely get put in their place by a court, look how they make it as difficult as possible to exercise your rights. Illinois nearly passed shall issue without a court forcing them too yet they have concealed carry only with no reciprocity and a "prohibited Places" list a mile long. Look at DC. You'd have to be really dedicated to go through their carry permit process, essentially for revolvers only, and a prohibited places list a mile long, including the Metro! The hoops, time, and expense, required is insane.

77zach · Jul 26, 2018

WalkingWolf said:
That means NO permit, if they do it will end right back in courts.

That would shock me to death. Didn't Young simply complain that they wouldn't issue him a license to openly carry? Basically, it seems the 9th, until the panel is overruled, is saying that state doesn't get to decide what good cause is to carry. Young didn't complain about the license requirement, but simply that Ha wouldn't issue a license. Same thing happened in DC. But still, as explained below, DC's defeat was meaningless for DC residents as carry is so restricted as to be almost worthless.

What interests me now is what do the demon-statists do? If they ask for an en banc decision, they win.....but do they only delay the inevitable? Will the supreme kourt(sic) strike down not only Hawaii's tyranny but also California's and NY, NJ, MD, etc? We know that DC did not appeal their decision because they didn't want to hurt "gun control" and may issue in NY and CA. It could be that CA and NY are finally being boxed in, which is a good thing. Still, Trump is going to have to do some impressive court packing in order for the subsequent hoop jumping to be struck, like the aforementioned $900 fee and 1,000 hours of "training" in death valley on the last Saturday of every other month.

WalkingWolf · Jul 26, 2018

77zach said:
That would shock me to death. Didn't Young simply complain that they wouldn't issue him a license to openly carry? Basically, it seems the 9th, until the panel is overruled, is saying that state doesn't get to decide what good cause is to carry. Young didn't complain about the license requirement, but simply that Ha wouldn't issue a license. Same thing happened in DC. But still, as explained below, DC's defeat was meaningless for DC residents as carry is so restricted as to be almost worthless.

What interests me now is what do the demon-statists do? If they ask for an en banc decision, they win.....but do they only delay the inevitable? Will the supreme kourt(sic) strike down not only Hawaii's tyranny but also California's and NY, NJ, MD, etc? We know that DC did not appeal their decision because they didn't want to hurt "gun control" and may issue in NY and CA. It could be that CA and NY are finally being boxed in, which is a good thing. Still, Trump is going to have to do some impressive court packing in order for the subsequent hoop jumping to be struck, like the aforementioned $900 fee and 1,000 hours of "training" in death valley on the last Saturday of every other month.

Hawii has concealed carry permits, as far as I know there is no open carry. His argument was that he was denied a permit, that he should be allowed to open carry. The court made no reference to permits, only a right to open carry. I am sure they will try to permit it, but down the road if Trump's pick is confirmed I believe Thomas will take the lead on 2A cases. He is a hard line second amendment supporter.

77zach · Jul 26, 2018

WalkingWolf said:
Hawii has concealed carry permits, as far as I know there is no open carry. His argument was that he was denied a permit, that he should be allowed to open carry. The court made no reference to permits, only a right to open carry. I am sure they will try to permit it, but down the road if Trump's pick is confirmed I believe Thomas will take the lead on 2A cases. He is a hard line second amendment supporter.

That would be nice, but I'm not sure that's what it means, although I haven't read the decision. According to OCDO, Hawaii's permit does not distinguish between open and concealed carry, per their statutes. I thought he wanted a permit to openly carry because of Peruta said concealed carry could be regulated or banned.

color of law · Jul 26, 2018

Hawaii's law:

§134-9(c) No person shall carry concealed or unconcealed on the person a pistol or revolver without being licensed to do so under this section or in compliance with sections 134-5(c) or 134-25.

YOUNG V. STATE OF HAWAII:
Page 9:

Young’s argument is straightforward: he asserts that the County has violated the Second Amendment by enforcing against him the State’s limitations in section 134-9 on the open carry of firearms to those “engaged in the protection of life and property”

Page 10:

But, as even the dissent acknowledges, our court explicitly left unresolved the question of whether the Second Amendment encompasses a right to open carry. See id. (“There may or may not be a Second Amendment right for a member of the general public to carry a firearm openly in public. The Supreme Court has not answered that question, and we do not answer it here.”).

Page 59:

Young has indeed stated a claim that section 134-9’s limitations on the issuance of open carry licenses violate the Second Amendment.

Based on the above, the appeals court has remanded the above question back down to the district court to determine. That is a legal question.

VictorCreed · Jul 27, 2018

77zach said:
That would be nice, but I'm not sure that's what it means, although I haven't read the decision. According to OCDO, Hawaii's permit does not distinguish between open and concealed carry, per their statutes. I thought he wanted a permit to openly carry because of Peruta said concealed carry could be regulated or banned.

That is what I thought as well. Banning or regulating sort of implied that.

CJ4wd · Jul 27, 2018

IIRC, Hawaii is like several other states that state that you must have a "permit" for concealed carry but then don't issue ANY permits, effectively prohibiting any carry. :banghead: :cuss:
One state (Illinois) had neither method of carry which is why Judge Posner slapped them down several years ago.

Unfortunately, they are still "stonewalling" many applicants with "objections" from local authorities, most of which have turned out to be baseless. Because of these objections, the state's review board is playing "catch up" with the incredible backlog. Some applicants have been left hanging for 2 + years. :shocker:

Grapeshot · Jul 27, 2018

CJ4wd said:
IIRC, Hawaii is like several other states that state that you must have a "permit" for concealed carry but then don't issue ANY permits, effectively prohibiting any carry. :banghead: :cuss:
One state (Illinois) had neither method of carry which is why Judge Posner slapped them down several years ago.
Unfortunately, they are still "stonewalling" many applicants with "objections" from local authorities, most of which have turned out to be baseless. Because of these objections, the state's review board is playing "catch up" with the incredible backlog. Some applicants have been left hanging for 2 + years. :shocker:

Someone needs to file a Writ of Mandamus.

357SigFan · Jul 27, 2018

carry for myself said:
1 , 3 , and 4 seem very reasonable. the rest is just a violation of rights.

i do believe all firearms should be sold with locks *everyone should have one , just in case"

i do believe firearms sellers should be responsible for what they sell....and not just let people kick in their doors and steal em if there is a natural disaster.

and i do believe gun store should have to report firearms thefts.

none of those three violate rights. however the others are pure horse doo doo

Lock - meh - I suppose supply them with the firearm - the last couple I bought came with some cheapo 'lock', but that's not much help if you need it in a hurry. A 'safe' (RSC) is a far better option for those that you don't need quick access to, and some sort of quick access 'gun vault' is better to keep them where they should be. As far as the 'argument' that it's to 'prevent accidents' - bull hockey - as I've said before, EDUCATION!!! TEACH KIDS ABOUT FIREARMS!!!! I was raised from a very young age to respect them, and it was always very clear that I could touch one any time I wanted, all I needed to do is ask. The problem with society in general is that they are a 'forbidden fruit', so that makes kids want to 'play with them' more.

Securing your inventory is common sense - I sure woudln't want my inventory ripe for the pickings, so I'd sure so anything I could to make sure it was secure.

As far as reporting stolen firearms, I think you missed the part where the ATF beat them to the punch.. 'The law' aside, if you are a FFL and inventory is stolen from you, don't you think you'd want to report that? I sure as H*** would. Those firearms are in your bound book and they can't just 'go missing'. ***ATF Officer reviews bound book - Agent: 'I see you have these firearms that have an acquisition but no disposition - What happened to them? FFL Holder: 'Uhhhhh.... I dunno'*** <- that woudln't end well.

color of law · Jul 29, 2018

To clarify what I said above: http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...Step-Further&p=2233534&viewfull=1#post2233534
What the appeals court has said is that one mode of carry (open carry or conceal carry) is constitutionally protected and cannot be regulated; lower court decide which one.

since9 · Jul 30, 2018

color of law said:
To clarify what I said above: http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...Step-Further&p=2233534&viewfull=1#post2233534
What the appeals court has said is that one mode of carry (open carry or conceal carry) is constitutionally protected and cannot be regulated; lower court decide which one.

Both modes were well known to those who wrote our Second Amendment.

Absent any specification of mode of carry, the phrase, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" applies to BOTH modes of carry. Most specifically, it applies regardless of one's mode of carry.

Limiting carry to open carry is an infringement.

Limiting carry to concealed carry is an infringement.

When are people going to wake up and realize that nearly all laws -- written, case, or precedent -- dealing with who, what, where, why, and how people can keep and bear arms are infringements on the right of the people to keep and bear arms?

Even out Founding Fathers wanted some laws, but very wisely, they realized that any such laws would lead to a slippery slope, so they banned ALL laws involving firearms. But the overcontrolling bastards who fail to understand the concept of freedom had begun penning one gun control law after another, long before we even declared our Independence, and they're still doing it today, both in the legislatures as well as the courts.

The only way We the People will ever be free from their arrogantly stupid ignorance is to tell them all they can go to hell and back it up by force, if necessary.

Thankfully, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals partial panel ruling is a step in the right directly. Sadly, it will most likely soon be overturned by a full panel.

since9 · Jul 30, 2018

357SigFan said:
Lock - meh - I suppose supply them with the firearm - the last couple I bought came with some cheapo 'lock', but that's not much help if you need it in a hurry. A 'safe' (RSC) is a far better option for those that you don't need quick access to, and some sort of quick access 'gun vault' is better to keep them where they should be. As far as the 'argument' that it's to 'prevent accidents' - bull hockey - as I've said before, EDUCATION!!! TEACH KIDS ABOUT FIREARMS!!!! I was raised from a very young age to respect them, and it was always very clear that I could touch one any time I wanted, all I needed to do is ask. The problem with society in general is that they are a 'forbidden fruit', so that makes kids want to 'play with them' more.

I agree with, wholeheartedly, and did precisely that with my own son. Some of you have even met him in the meets we used to have here in Colorado Springs.

During his first visit after I bought my firearm, I spent three days training him:

Day 1: Reading about the Second Amendment, local laws, and the proper care and feeding of a firearm, namely, Jeff's rules, along with the safety and precautions in the owners manual.

Day 2: Hands-on training with snap caps. Three times that day we ran through load and unload drills, malfunctions, and various shooting scenarios.

Day 3: Live fire at the range.

After that, I usually had my firearm out and around, but I watched it and him like a hawk in order to reinforce the point that it's available to him if he absolutely needed it to protect life and limb against an intruder, but otherwise NEVER touch it without express permission and my presence, which begins with my unloading it, handing it to him, and his verifying that it's in an unloaded condition.

He's now and adult and knows how to properly handle firearms. In fact, we went shooting with friends a couple of months ago, and I was impressed with both his marksmanship and safe firearms handling skills.

CJ4wd · Aug 1, 2018

Grapeshot said:
Someone needs to file a Writ of Mandamus.

From whom? The SC?
If it were possible for the SC to issue a writ bolstering the Second, clarification of two words would help. Those would be "keep" and "bear".

KEEP
1 - to observe or pay regard to;
2 - to take care of, or have and take care or charge of;
a) to protect, guard, defend; b) to look after, watch over; c) to raise {livestock}; d) to maintain in good order or condition;
3 - to maintain, or cause to stay or continue; (to "keep" an engine running);
4 - to have or hold;
5 - to have or hold and not let go.
It seems to me that #2, 4, & 5 are appropriate. #3 might also apply as we have to maintain our defensive tools.

BEAR
1 - to hold and take along, carry, transport;
2 - to possess as a part, characteristic, attribute, etc.
There are 12 more, just for the first of three "BEAR" definitions but these two seem to fit.

The question is this: Where in the Second Amendment does it SPECIFY the "type" of carry? Or is that supposed to be the choice of the individual concerned?
I know the legislative and judicial branches have "claimed" and "ruled" that there "regulations permitted" on carry, regardless of type, but aren't even those "regulations" forms of infringement?

I don't see ANY court in this day and age, not even the SCOTUS, that would be willing to execute a Writ of Mandamus.

Hawaii Takes Gun Control One Step Further

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Accomplished Advocate

Accomplished Advocate

Legendary Warrior

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Accomplished Advocate

Newbie

Regular Member

Legendary Warrior

Regular Member

Accomplished Advocate

Campaign Veteran

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member