cloudcroft
Campaign Veteran
As per an article in today's paper (Sunday, 3-25-12) of the Honolulu Star Advertiser:
"Request to tote gun in public rejected: The public interest outweighs a man's right to bear arms for his job, a judge rules"
"A federal judge has turned down the latest challenge to Hawaii gun control laws filed by an Aiea man who sought to carry a handgun in public. Christopher Baker contended that state laws violated his "right to bear arms" under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. But on Wednesday Senior U.S. District Judge Alan Kay rejected Baker's request for an injunction that would have paved the way for him to carry a gun in public. Kay said Baker was not likely to prevail at a November trial on his lawsuit; that the public interest weighed in favor of turning down his request; and Baker had not shown he was "irreparably harmed."
<snip>
-- http://www.staradvertiser.com/newsp..._gun_in_public_rejected.html?id=144132495&c=n
I suppose one has to wait until one is maimed, killed or raped to show that he/she has suffered "irreparable harm" and so SHOULD have been issued a CC permit as requested. If so, then would said permit be nicely framed and awarded to the recipient - likely posthumously -- at a public ceremony, personally presented by the Honolulu Chief of Police himself: Louis "no-issue" Kealoha? Outrageous!
...and so the saga continues.
HI will have to be FORCED to change, despite OTHER federal district courts (as in Maryland's very recent Woollard v. Sheridan case) ruling (in part) that “At bottom, this case rests on a simple proposition: If the Government wishes to burden a right guaranteed by the Constitution, it may do so provided that it can show a satisfactory justification and a sufficiently adapted method. The showing, however, is always the Government‘s to make. A citizen may not be required to offer a good and substantial reason why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right‘s existence is all the reason he needs.”
Additionally, IMO everyone has a "satisfactory justification" to carry: Everyone has a LIFE to protect! Period. So I would add THAT idea to the above ruling. Also, that EVERY STATE must allow its citizens at least ONE way to exercise the complete 2nd Amendment (BOTH the "keep" and "bear" parts): Each state MUST have either OC or CC (and I mean SHALL-issue, none of that MAY-issue BS).
OCing may be WAY too frightening to "the authorities" of HI presently (not sure if citizens would be as frightened, maybe they WOULD be since they've been UNarmed for so many years since 1959 -- statehood -- and may be USED to it) but it's hard enough getting "gun is out of sight" CC recognized, as seen in this HI federal district judge's "legal wisdom."
And of course, I see word "burdening" used by the judge above of any RIGHT is actually an "infringement" but that's another topic...
"Request to tote gun in public rejected: The public interest outweighs a man's right to bear arms for his job, a judge rules"
"A federal judge has turned down the latest challenge to Hawaii gun control laws filed by an Aiea man who sought to carry a handgun in public. Christopher Baker contended that state laws violated his "right to bear arms" under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. But on Wednesday Senior U.S. District Judge Alan Kay rejected Baker's request for an injunction that would have paved the way for him to carry a gun in public. Kay said Baker was not likely to prevail at a November trial on his lawsuit; that the public interest weighed in favor of turning down his request; and Baker had not shown he was "irreparably harmed."
<snip>
-- http://www.staradvertiser.com/newsp..._gun_in_public_rejected.html?id=144132495&c=n
I suppose one has to wait until one is maimed, killed or raped to show that he/she has suffered "irreparable harm" and so SHOULD have been issued a CC permit as requested. If so, then would said permit be nicely framed and awarded to the recipient - likely posthumously -- at a public ceremony, personally presented by the Honolulu Chief of Police himself: Louis "no-issue" Kealoha? Outrageous!
...and so the saga continues.
HI will have to be FORCED to change, despite OTHER federal district courts (as in Maryland's very recent Woollard v. Sheridan case) ruling (in part) that “At bottom, this case rests on a simple proposition: If the Government wishes to burden a right guaranteed by the Constitution, it may do so provided that it can show a satisfactory justification and a sufficiently adapted method. The showing, however, is always the Government‘s to make. A citizen may not be required to offer a good and substantial reason why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right‘s existence is all the reason he needs.”
Additionally, IMO everyone has a "satisfactory justification" to carry: Everyone has a LIFE to protect! Period. So I would add THAT idea to the above ruling. Also, that EVERY STATE must allow its citizens at least ONE way to exercise the complete 2nd Amendment (BOTH the "keep" and "bear" parts): Each state MUST have either OC or CC (and I mean SHALL-issue, none of that MAY-issue BS).
OCing may be WAY too frightening to "the authorities" of HI presently (not sure if citizens would be as frightened, maybe they WOULD be since they've been UNarmed for so many years since 1959 -- statehood -- and may be USED to it) but it's hard enough getting "gun is out of sight" CC recognized, as seen in this HI federal district judge's "legal wisdom."
And of course, I see word "burdening" used by the judge above of any RIGHT is actually an "infringement" but that's another topic...
Last edited: