• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Another disgraceful legal turn for Hawaii...

cloudcroft

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2007
Messages
1,906
Location
Colorado Springs, CO (formerly El Paso, TX)
Federal judge dismisses suit over isle gun laws
By Ken Kobayashi (Honolulu Star Advertiser newspaper)
POSTED: 01:30 a.m. HST, Dec 08, 2012

"A federal judge has rejected the latest challenge to Hawaii gun control laws by dismissing a lawsuit filed by a Hawaii island man who claimed the statutes violate his rights under the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment.

The ruling by Senior U.S. District Judge Helen Gillmor follows a line of Hawaii federal court decisions rejecting similar challenges to state gun laws.

Jonathan Lowy, Brady Center Legal Action Project director, hailed the ruling Friday and said the decision is also the latest nationwide upholding state restrictions on carrying guns in public.

George K. Young Jr., 62, a nonlawyer representing himself, filed his lawsuit in June claiming that state laws violate his constitutional right to bear arms under the Second Amendment.

He contended his rights were violated when Hawaii County police denied him a license to carry a concealed or unconcealed gun in public."

<snip>

""Hawaii's firearm carrying laws do not violate the plaintiff's Second Amendment rights," Gillmor said in a 40-page decision filed Nov. 29.

"The carrying laws do not restrict the core protection afforded by the Second Amendment."

<snip>

-- http://www.staradvertiser.com/newsp...ses_suit_over_isle_gun_laws.html?id=182644501



...and the case was simply "dismissed," which suggests an arrogant anti-gun judge wouldn't even give it serious consideration or waste her time finding any merit in the case/argument! But there IS merit: Why is the word "keep" in the 2nd Amendment a "core right" but the other word "bear" -- where it says KEEP and BEAR (IMO, "and" indicating equal importance) is NOT a "core right? Why is protecting onself ONLY at home a "core right" but protecting oneself when going OUT past one's front door, like to work & school for example, NOT a "core right?" Are people expected to STAY HOME their entire lives?

Rulings like this sure do make me think there REALLY IS a "vast Left Wing conspiracy" out there, with NO regard for the US Constitution whatsoever (except the parts/civil rights they LIKE).

Are there ANY Federal judges/courts in America where one CAN expect JUSTICE -- like affirming the constitution instead of eroding it?

Seems there is LITTLE hope of correcting anything "working within the system." And not only in HI, but nationally.
 
Last edited:

cloudcroft

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2007
Messages
1,906
Location
Colorado Springs, CO (formerly El Paso, TX)
Yes, but if ALL pro-gun people leave HI (and never return), then there will be no one there even to TRY to change things, in which case ALL hope for change will probably be gone. In other words, there will be NONE of that "hope and change" Obama was talking about...;-)

Seriously though, I guess when/if Chris Baker gives up and/or leaves, that will be a clear indicator that it's over for HI. ;-)
 
Last edited:

kywildcat581

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2009
Messages
107
Location
Louisville, Kentucky, USA
Yes, but if ALL pro-gun people leave HI (and never return), then there will be no one there even to TRY to change things, in which case ALL hope for change will probably be gone. In other words, there will be NONE of that "hope and change" Obama was talking about...;-)

Seriously though, I guess when/if Chris Baker gives up and/or leaves, that will be a clear indicator that it's over for HI. ;-)

Well if all of the pro gun people leave hawaii, it will leave the anti gun people to deal with the criminals...
 

cloudcroft

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2007
Messages
1,906
Location
Colorado Springs, CO (formerly El Paso, TX)
True...and they'd deserve everything they got.

And then, looking even further into the future, after the local criminals have completely owned/disposed of all the anti-gun residents, HI would be one big Crime Zone: We could put up a big wall around the whole island and call it "Oahu National Prison & Penal Colony" -- and send all the mainland criminals, there too.

Well, at least that's how part of Australia got started...

;-)
 
Last edited:

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,689
Location
Whatcom County
What a shame she should be impeached.

The court system except in rarities has long become a another arm of the state instead of protecting people from the state.

I hope it is overturned.

I also have in mind though that Heller and McDonald were not necessarily "wins". The wily statist judges craftily worded the their decisions for some very open interpretations.
 

junglebob

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2006
Messages
361
Location
Southern Illinois, Illinois, USA
What a shame she should be impeached.

The court system except in rarities has long become a another arm of the state instead of protecting people from the state.

I hope it is overturned.

I also have in mind though that Heller and McDonald were not necessarily "wins". The wily statist judges craftily worded the their decisions for some very open interpretations.

Has anyone noticed the recent ruling in the 7th Circuit Federal Court in Illinois. The court gave the legislature 180 days to pass a license to carry bill. Concealed and open carry has long been unlawful in Illinois for ordinary citizens. A shall issue license to carry bill, introduced in 2011, came within 6 votes of a super majority needed to pass with preemption. Some people scoffed at the idea we'd get a favorable ruling out of an Illinois court.

Hopefully Illinois will get a good shall issue bill passed this year and Hawaii can in the future. Don't give up! Remember an old black Chicago guy Otis McDonald got the Chicago gun ban overturned in the Supreme Court.
 

cloudcroft

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2007
Messages
1,906
Location
Colorado Springs, CO (formerly El Paso, TX)
junglebob,

HI seems to be in a "Twilgiht Zone" of sorts: ON PAPER HI allows CC -- which on the surface one would expect that it allows its residents at least ONE form of carry (if not also OC which would be the second form) -- so I suspect the courts would not see past that and would rule that since HI law already allows for issuing CC permits (even though may-issue), the fact that it never issues them would be irrelevant. Besides, I don't expect any may-issues states in the past have ever been ruled unconstitutional.

Of course, it sure AIN'T irrelevant, but it wouldn't surprise me if the court so ruled.

I also hoped recent rulings by mainland courts would influence HI. For examples, I thought the ruling by Justice Legg in Maryland would, but apparently, not so. And now we have the IL ruling.

I suspect HI will need to be faced with such a serious lawsuit (and one likely HI clearly sees it would LOSE) before it will EVEN go to shall-issue (the very LEAST I would hope for). I'm not sure why the resistance even in heavily-leaning Democrat HI: NM, for example, is heavily Democratic, yet IT has both OC and shall-issue CC. CO went for Obama, but it also has OC and CC. What's up with HI? Its demographics? Who knows...

Going "Constitutional Carry" would be unbelievable...but I think EVERY state should have it. After all, every state is supposed to share/hold-in-common the US Constitution, right? So how can the Constitution -- in its entirety (not parts of it) -- apply in some states but not others?

The saga continues...
 
Last edited:
Top