Isle gun laws seen as solid despite ruling?

[2aHawaii]

Wow, the Star Advertiser kind of commented on the McDonald v. Chicago decision.

In my opinion, they missed the major decisions of both Heller and McDonald. First of all, Heller didn't only say that "the Second Amendment protects guns possession at home for self-protection." It also said that owning a gun is an individual right. Not the right of the militia, the right of the individual. For, McDonald the Supreme Court didn't only send the laws back to the appeals court for change. It stated that the Second Amendment is incorporated and applies to State and local governments.

I am glad to see that the HRA is looking to challenge the handgun waiting period. It makes it a huge pain to get a handgun. Besides the firearms safety class, it requires five trips and two weeks to finally get one.
1. Go down to the gun store and buy the handgun.
2. Go to the police station and apply for a permit to purchase said handgun.
3. Go back to the police station two weeks later to pickup the permit.
4. Go back to the gun store to pick up the handgun.
5. Finally, go back to the police station to register.

Being that the police station isn't open on the weekends or state holidays, this requires two work days for most working people. Ridiculous.

As mentioned in the article, the ruling in McDonald won't directly affect existing gun laws. The next round of cases might.

Although the Hawaii chapter of the National Rifle Association hailed yesterday's U.S. Supreme Court decision, legal experts say they do not believe it will lead to a successful challenge to Hawaii's gun control laws.

"I think the Supreme Court pretty much mimics our opinion about this: We all have a right to protect ourselves under the Second Amendment," said Harvey Gerwig II, president of the Hawaii Rifle Association.

Gerwig said his group does not plan to file any immediate federal court challenge to state laws that he says are so restrictive that they discourage handgun ownership. The association's reasons, he said, include the legal fees and costs to mount such a challenge, but also the group wants to first address the issue with state authorities.

Gerwig said the state laws require paperwork and multiple trips to the police department to legally acquire a handgun. He said his group is not opposed to the required gun safety classes, but believes it should be a one-stop, one-time process to get a handgun.

But Gerwig said if the group is not successful, they might seek the help of the National Rifle Association in filing the federal lawsuit here.

Hawaii law requires a permit and the registration of a handgun, as well as the owner taking a gun safety class. Convicted felons and the mentally ill are prohibited from possessing guns, according to state law.

Attorney General Mark Bennett said he does not see anything in yesterday's decision that makes him think the state laws will be struck down.

He pointed out that the high court's ruling yesterday and another two years earlier dealt with laws that essentially banned individuals from possessing guns in their homes. Hawaii's laws, which regulate who can own handguns - but does not ban them in homes - are not as restrictive as the laws addressed by the high court, Bennett said.

The 2008 high court ruling, District of Columbia v. Heller, found that the Second Amendment protects guns possession at home for self-protection. It struck down the handgun ban in Washington, D.C.

Yesterday's ruling, McDonald v. City of Chicago, sent back to the appeals court laws effectively banning nearly all residents from owning handguns.

The significance is that the court extended Second Amendment rights to the states, which means state and local gun laws can now be challenged in federal court, according to Jon Van Dyke, constitutional law professor at the University of Hawaii law school.

Van Dyke said the Hawaii Supreme Court has already upheld the state gun-control laws under the state Constitution's provision similar to the federal Constitution's right to bear arms.

Yesterday's ruling could lead to federal court challenges here,. But Van Dyke, like Bennett, noted that the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with laws far more restrictive. He said that court did not strike down all regulations, pointing out that it still would be permissible to ban the mentally ill or felons from owning the weapons.

"I think our gun laws are carefully developed, and I would expect that they would be upheld," he said.

[vooduchikn]

2a,

This is definitely a win. There are communities all over the country that have firearms restrictions above the states requirements and process designed to make aquiring a firearm very painful and time consuming, almost to the point that most don't bother (like here). There is now an avenue (person rights) to pursue having this laws repealed or changed.

I get you on the five trips.  I wish I could have all the hours I spent waiting down at HPD while awaiting paperwork processing. I once had my permit and all my personal information "lost" back there in the void and had to re-apply for it again.  They then asked me for my rifle and said they would have to hold it until the 14 days passed! After much protest through the glass and a supervisor on the scene, they finally came to thier senses and issued me a new permit and registered my rifle. I filed a complaint that went no where and I never got an answer from HPD as to where my information went.

I read somewhere that no gun crime has ever been solved in Hawaii by utilizing the registration database at HPD, nor can they track a weapon if it leaves Hawaii. What is the point other than generating state revenue? Maybe Hawaii should look at how other states do business and follow suit. The paperwork disaster going on down at HPD is neither cost efficient or organized.

[Tom_G]

I read somewhere that no gun crime has ever been solved in Hawaii by utilizing the registration database at HPD, nor can they track a weapon if it leaves Hawaii. What is the point other than generating state revenue? Maybe Hawaii should look at how other states do business and follow suit. The paperwork disaster going on down at HPD is neither cost efficient or organized.

Heller or no, McDonald or no, I actually think that this is our best approach to getting rid of the registration process and waiting period.  In this time of financial exigency, if we can show that the firearms unit is the complete waste of resources we all believe it to be, maybe some budget-minded legislators would change their tunes.

However, as much as I hate to say it, I agree with the newspaper's summary.  Our gun laws are not onerous enough for McDonald to do us much good.

[vooduchikn]

I read somewhere that no gun crime has ever been solved in Hawaii by utilizing the registration database at HPD, nor can they track a weapon if it leaves Hawaii. What is the point other than generating state revenue? Maybe Hawaii should look at how other states do business and follow suit. The paperwork disaster going on down at HPD is neither cost efficient or organized.

Heller or no, McDonald or no, I actually think that this is our best approach to getting rid of the registration process and waiting period.  In this time of financial exigency, if we can show that the firearms unit is the complete waste of resources we all believe it to be, maybe some budget-minded legislators would change their tunes.

However, as much as I hate to say it, I agree with the newspaper's summary.  Our gun laws are not onerous enough for McDonald to do us much good.

Exactly!

[HiCarry]

I agree with Tom...we need to frame any argument to remove the onerous registration process in terms of benefits to the community and the costs....It must take millions of dollars to maintain the registration system and to date (to the best of my knowledge and information) none of that has been used to solve a crime in Hawaii....So no real demonstrated benefit but a huge cost....sounds like a government program ripe for reconsideration under the current financial crisis!
 
And, to comment on Van Dyke's comment about McDonald (and by the way, when Gura was here and debated Van Dyke about the Heller decision, it was like a college professor [Gura] debating a kindergartener....Vand Dyke was all about emotion while Gura was calm and logical)and how it might affect Hawaii. To date Hawaii's courts have interpreted the Second Amendement, and the State analog, Article 1, Section 17, as a "collective right" not an individual one. So, any decisions made on that basis should be subject to review. So, there is a possibility that things could change, however I wouldn't hold my breath.

[Heavies]

An interesting read registration.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/819251/posts

[2aHawaii]

To date Hawaii's courts have interpreted the Second Amendement, and the State analog, Article 1, Section 17, as a "collective right" not an individual one. So, any decisions made on that basis should be subject to review.

HiCarry,
You wouldn't happen to know of any offhand would you?

[MarlboroLTS]

AND TODAYS STAR ADVERTISER ARTICLE.....
http://www.staradvertiser.com/editorials/20100630_Hawaii_gun_laws_are_sound.html
 
"
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., who wrote the majority opinion in the 5-4 decision, acknowledged that it may "lead to extensive and costly litigation."
 
However, Hawaii Attorney General Mark Bennett has expressed confidence that the state's present gun controls would survive any legal challenge.
 
Indeed, Harvey Gerwig II, president of the Hawaii Rifle Association, said he has no plan to challenge the rigidity of the islands' handgun restrictions. He said the organization instead will address the issue of delays in gaining permission to get a handgun.
 
Gerwig noted that Hawaii's law requires a person to fill out paperwork and make multiple trips to the police department before being allowed to own a handgun. He wants a one-stop, one-time process. However, the state's meticulous requirements are not unreasonable. They are a primary line of defense in determining whether an applicant has been convicted of a felony or involuntarily committed to a mental health facility, and therefore prohibited by federal law from obtaining a firearm.
 
Hawaii is among only four states that allow involuntary commitment if a mentally ill person poses an "imminent danger" to himself and others."
 
Ok....First thing that comes to mind, What about the "bearing" of arms? Hawaii has a "concealed permit" program, but it is "May-Issue", (read May-Not-Issue)....not Shall-Issue. Every couple of years Sen. Slom authors a bill to change that (the latest being SB-2495), without much support. Last time I read the 2A, it says "the right of the people to keep AND bear arms shall not be infringed".
 
43 states, either by permit or by law, allow open-carry of handguns. Why not here?
 
Only 6 states, to include Hawaii, REQUIRE registration of firearms. Some state courts and State AGs have ruled that registration is unconstitutional, or illegal based on the state laws. Why still Hawaii?
 
With respect to the state constitution on arms, word for word the same as the 2A, with 2 extra commas. Hawaii's laws aren't even in line with that. WHY?
 
Hawaii is considered by many groups to be one of the most RESTRICTIVE states in the nation. WHY?
 
And Harvey Gerwig II "said he has no plan to challenge the rigidity of the islands' handgun restrictions?" ......WHY???

[HiCarry]

To date Hawaii's courts have interpreted the Second Amendement, and the State analog, Article 1, Section 17, as a "collective right" not an individual one. So, any decisions made on that basis should be subject to review.

HiCarry,
You wouldn't happen to know of any offhand would you?

To date Hawaii's courts have interpreted the Second Amendement, and the State analog, Article 1, Section 17, as a "collective right" not an individual one. So, any decisions made on that basis should be subject to review.

HiCarry,
You wouldn't happen to know of any offhand would you?

The case I am referring to is George Young. A link to more info is here: http://www.usacarry.com/forums/hawaii-discussion-firearm-news/3795-lawsuit-filed-hawaii-over-denial-right-concealed-carry.html

[HiCarry]

AND TODAYS STAR ADVERTISER ARTICLE.....
http://www.staradvertiser.com/editorials/20100630_Hawaii_gun_laws_are_sound.html
 
Ok....First thing that comes to mind, What about the "bearing" of arms? Hawaii has a "concealed permit" program, but it is "May-Issue", (read May-Not-Issue)....not Shall-Issue. Every couple of years Sen. Slom authors a bill to change that (the latest being SB-2495), without much support. Last time I read the 2A, it says "the right of the people to keep AND bear arms shall not be infringed".
 
43 states, either by permit or by law, allow open-carry of handguns. Why not here?
 
Only 6 states, to include Hawaii, REQUIRE registration of firearms. Some state courts and State AGs have ruled that registration is unconstitutional, or illegal based on the state laws. Why still Hawaii?
 
With respect to the state constitution on arms, word for word the same as the 2A, with 2 extra commas. Hawaii's laws aren't even in line with that. WHY?
 
Hawaii is considered by many groups to be one of the most RESTRICTIVE states in the nation. WHY?
 
And Harvey Gerwig II "said he has no plan to challenge the rigidity of the islands' handgun restrictions?" ......WHY???

\
Why? Because despite the best efforts of a few dedicated folks, we cannot get enought real support of gun owners to change the laws via legislative action, nor financial support to finance a court challenge.

As to the statement about the HRA not targeting the restrictive nature of Hawaii's gun laws, Mr. Gerwig must have been misquoted...HRA is actively involved in evaluating how best to use our limited resources to effect meaningful change. If every gun owner pitched in to help, with meaningful help not just vocal dissatisfaction, we might just change a few things.....

[Tom_G]

If every gun owner pitched in to help, with meaningful help not just vocal dissatisfaction, we might just change a few things.....

Amen, brother!

[rant]
I know that this is the internet, and I know that I should have a thick skin, and I know that I should just ignore the things that rub me the wrong way.  However, I also know that I put enough hours into this to qualify as a part-time job.  And it really does piss me off when some whelp comes along just shouting about how things aren't good enough. 

HRA was involved in the passage of 2 pro-gun laws this time around.  We helped block several anti-gun laws last legislative session, and the one before that, and the one before that.  We walk the walk, and if we aren't up to the task of waving our magic revolver to miraculously change 50 years of accumulated gun oppression, look in the mirror to see whose fault it is.

If you're unhappy with the pace of change, I suggest you ask yourself a few pointed questions.  How many legislative sessions did you sit in?  How many times did you submit testimony?  How many board meetings for the HRA have you participated in?  Are you even a member?  How many fund raisers did you volunteer at?  How many people have you introduced to the world of shooting sports? 
[/rant]

Of course, the preceding rant in no way applies to anyone on this forum. 

[2aHawaii]

The case I am referring to is George Young. A link to more info is here: http://www.usacarry.com/forums/hawaii-discussion-firearm-news/3795-lawsuit-filed-hawaii-over-denial-right-concealed-carry.html

Thanks for the reference. From that site, it looks like his case would now have a couple legs to stand on.

The Hawaii County Corporation Counsel, on 15 September 2007, initiated a "Motion to Dismiss" based on the following: "2. Young's lack of facts to support a cognizable legal theory also mandates dismissal of his Complaint. Young has no Second Amendment right to bear arms ... "the Second Amendment guarantees a "collective" rather than an individual right.

"Moreover, since the Second Amendment protects the people's right to maintain an effective state militia, and does not establish an individual right to own or possess firearms for personal or other use, Young lacks standing to challenge Section 134, HRS."

[HiCarry]

The case I am referring to is George Young. A link to more info is here: http://www.usacarry.com/forums/hawaii-discussion-firearm-news/3795-lawsuit-filed-hawaii-over-denial-right-concealed-carry.html

Thanks for the reference. From that site, it looks like his case would now have a couple legs to stand on.

The Hawaii County Corporation Counsel, on 15 September 2007, initiated a "Motion to Dismiss" based on the following: "2. Young's lack of facts to support a cognizable legal theory also mandates dismissal of his Complaint. Young has no Second Amendment right to bear arms ... "the Second Amendment guarantees a "collective" rather than an individual right.

"Moreover, since the Second Amendment protects the people's right to maintain an effective state militia, and does not establish an individual right to own or possess firearms for personal or other use, Young lacks standing to challenge Section 134, HRS."

Yep, and Mr. Young was advised by several people at the time he filed his suit that "now" was not a good time and that a bad outcome could set a problematic precedent for any future cases. He was also advised that going pro se, or representing himself in the action was not a good idea. That being said, he tried and you have to admire him for doing so.

As to what will happen now, I don't know IANAL so I don't know how such a backassward interpretation of the Second Amendent (the "collective right" theory) in that case would affect a new case in light of Heller and McDonald. But, I am talking to a couple of lawyers to see how we might position ourselves to take advantage of the decisions in the near future.

[2aHawaii]

But, I am talking to a couple of lawyers to see how we might position ourselves to take advantage of the decisions in the near future.

I anxiously await more information about that when you can share more.