For those not familiar with the situation in Puna re "homeowner fire insurance"... the reason many rural Puna subdivisions now have their own "volunteer fire departments" is because prior to establishing such departments virtually no homeowners could get fire insurance because nearly all those rural homes were "too far" from a fire department station. These volunteer departments meet the insurance company requirements of "near enough" firefighting equipment so they will now issue fire insurance to those within the requisite distance of the "station". The fact that the volunteers need to get a call, get from their homes or location wherever they are when they get the call to the station, suit up, then get the truck to the fire itself, by which time the home will be fully engulfed or beyond... it's the distance that matters to the insurers, not the response time or quality of equipment and/or firefighting training. Gotta love the insurers. They go by the "numbers", even if they pick the wrong numbers to analyze, and thus miss the forest for the trees.

Well we all know that's how corporations (and government for that matter) work.  I guess that just proves you can't teach "smart" to "stupids".  Just like the left-wing Democrats in our Legislature; absolutely no common sense.  For some reason, they think that allowing concealed carry in Hawaii would result in "wild west shootouts" and "blood in the streets", etc.  They just don't understand that "law-abiding gun owners" do not behave irrationally and we obey the law.  We know how great and serious a responsibility it is to be armed in public (as I've carried in a couple of states on the mainland and NEVER got in a situation that required me to draw my weapon) so we don't do "wild west shootouts" and the like.  But, like I said, you can't teach that to "stupids".

BTW, I just heard on Fox News that 3 cases are coming before the Court in the coming month, besides the Trinity Lutheran Church issue; they stated that the Peruta vs. San Diego case has been appealed to SCOTUS so that is one they may deal with in the coming months.  If they overturn the 9th Circuit's decision, HI will become a "shall issue" state unless HI wants to appeal the SCOTUS ruling (highly unlikely as it will cost them a lot of money and net the same result).

Typical Democrats; just like Pelosi & company are against guns yet it's funny their own security has guns. What hypocrites!  I don't know about a new trial for Baker; the best would be to just appeal to SCOTUS though I'm not sure how much money that's going to take.  With Gorsuch being confirmed, I'm certain they would overturn the 9th Circuit's decision (like they've done on so many times with the 9th).

Well, they'd only be hypocrites if their lives had the same value as ours and they got special dispensation to protect theirs in ways we weren't allowed... but they, and their families, are far more important than you and I, who are mere serfs, and thus don't deserve the same level of self-defense capabilities as they do. They are superior beings, and thus deserve special treatment, and all that talk about "God-given" or "natural" inalienable rights (including to self-defense and the best tools to accomplish that) pre-existing any government and the government's main role is to protect those rights from abuse is simply the jabbering of old dead white guys who had no concept of a changing world and thus those ideas no longer apply to you, bumpkin.

Baker is over, there is no case/decision to appeal to anyone, let alone SCOTUS... unless... either side opts to begin the case again, and I rather doubt the state will do that, so it's up to Baker (and we'd be many years from a final decision if appeals were made). We'll possibly find out next Monday if Peruta (See the Peruta cert thread) is granted cert (heard at the same oral arguments date as Baker and Richards (did not ask for cert from SCOTUS). IF, a very big if, Peruta is granted cert, and IF, an even bigger if, it won, I bet Hawaii would still refuse to adopt "shall issue" and require many more years of litigation to force Hawaii specifically to adopt "shall issue" even though the writing could be clearly on the wall if the Peruta decision were written a certain way about certain issues. I know the Progressive Collectivist Statist legislature, executive and judicial branches are not going to relent without fighting all the way...

As I understand the law, you can carry anywhere on your property, no matter how large it is.  So, if you're shooting video of their faces and their actions and then they threaten to beat you up, you can then draw/show your weapon and tell them you're armed and will not hesitate to shoot so they need to stop and drop to the ground so you can call the cops.  If they run towards you and those guys are all physically larger than you (disparity of force due to size and number of assailants) you now have reason to fear for your life.  Warning them to stop (and them knowing you are armed) and if they continue towards you, they're now displaying opportunity to cause you harm; before they get within 10 yards of you, you should be able to shoot them to stop their attack.  Ordinarily, I would think the other 2 would stop immediately after hearing the shot go off; unless they're on drugs or something. If they keep advancing, keep shooting to stop them, not to kill, but just to stop them.  Then, you've fulfilled your obligation and can call 911 for immediate help (how long that would be in Puna is yet another story.)

The law doesnt define residence. So keep in mind, hawaiis AG will look for reasons to go after someone exercising their 2a right. They may ask, if u knew someone was robbing you, or damaging ur property, why did u go outside to investigate. Ur not the police. U would have been safe inside ur home vs. Going outside.
Its how u articulate why u went outside.
Hawaii has a modified castle law. We have no duty to retreat inside our residence or place of business. But still on the hook for civil liability and proving that deadly force was necessary.

Remember we cant defend our property here. Unlike nevada where u can and cant get sued for exercising castle doctrine.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

When I asked the NRA about any legislation regarding federal reciprocity which includes non-resident permits, I was told that H.R.38 allows non-resident permits.  That is FALSE.  I got hold of the text of the bill and it clearly states that a "non-resident" (ie. tourist visiting another state) who possesses a concealed carry permit issued by his home state is allowed to carry in all states that have a carry statute.  That would eliminate all permit holders who have non-resident permits.  I've written to Congressman Hudson (drafter of the bill) to ask that an amendment be put in that allows non-resident permit holders to have the same standing as those who have resident permits issued by their home state.  As I've stated many times before (not just here) I have a Utah non-resident permit and the requirements for me to obtain it is the same criteria as a Utah resident.  Classroom and range time are identical, so it would be "wrong" for the Utah permit holder to be able to visit Hawaii and carry his weapon but I wouldn't be able to here merely because of the status of the permit, not the training or proficiency requirements of the permit holder.  Anyway, once Congress gets done with "healthcare & taxes", hopefully they'll have time to spend on this bill and "fix it" so we here would be able to legally carry here once the amended bill clears Congress and is signed by President Trump.

When I asked the NRA about any legislation regarding federal reciprocity which includes non-resident permits, I was told that H.R.38 allows non-resident permits.  That is FALSE.  I got hold of the text of the bill and it clearly states that a "non-resident" (ie. tourist visiting another state) who possesses a concealed carry permit issued by his home state is allowed to carry in all states that have a carry statute.  That would eliminate all permit holders who have non-resident permits.  I've written to Congressman Hudson (drafter of the bill) to ask that an amendment be put in that allows non-resident permit holders to have the same standing as those who have resident permits issued by their home state.  As I've stated many times before (not just here) I have a Utah non-resident permit and the requirements for me to obtain it is the same criteria as a Utah resident.  Classroom and range time are identical, so it would be "wrong" for the Utah permit holder to be able to visit Hawaii and carry his weapon but I wouldn't be able to here merely because of the status of the permit, not the training or proficiency requirements of the permit holder.  Anyway, once Congress gets done with "healthcare & taxes", hopefully they'll have time to spend on this bill and "fix it" so we here would be able to legally carry here once the amended bill clears Congress and is signed by President Trump.

This issue with HR38 has been gone over in excruciating detail in the thread dedicated to it: https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=25711.0
Read the bill.
The language of the bill was changed in December (prior to submission) and submitted in January to allow for a person with a non-resident permit to carry in their state of residence as long as that state has a process/law for issuing CCW licenses/permits (i.e. CCW is not banned). It does not require that anyone in the state actually has obtained a license/permit, so Hawaii would be included, along with all the other "may issue"/de facto "no issue" states and counties.

Read the bill.
The language of the bill was changed in December (prior to submission) and submitted in January to allow for a person with a non-resident permit to carry in their state of residence as long as that state has a process/law for issuing CCW licenses/permits (i.e. CCW is not banned). It does not require that anyone in the state actually has obtained a license/permit, so Hawaii would be included, along with all the other "may issue"/de facto "no issue" states and counties.

Here's the part of the bill submitted in January that I have a problem with:

Ҥ 926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms

“(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof (except as provided in subsection (b)) and subject only to the requirements of this section, a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, who is carrying a valid identification document containing a photograph of the person, and who is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm or is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides, may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State that—

“(1) has a statute under which residents of the State may apply for a license or permit to carry a concealed firearm; or

“(2) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes.

That "in the State in which the person resides" seems to indicate that your permit has to be issued by your state of residence.  A lot of people use the "driver license" example where your license is good in all states, but think about it; I'm not aware of us being able to obtain a "non-resident driver's license".  They're all issued by your state of residence, so if they're applying the same "standard", wouldn't that suggest the carry permit has to be issued by your home state? 

As for people saying that Hawaii could just change their law to "no issue", I don't think that's an issue because it would be unconstitutional.  SCOTUS already ruled that "no issue" is unconstitutional in the MacDonald case against Chicago.  Anyway, I'm no lawyer so I'll just be happy if HR38 really includes non-resident permits and passes both houses and becomes law so that those of us who have non-resident photo-ID concealed-carry permits will be able to carry here in Hawaii.

Here's the part of the bill submitted in January that I have a problem with:

Ҥ 926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms

“(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof (except as provided in subsection (b)) and subject only to the requirements of this section, a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, who is carrying a valid identification document containing a photograph of the person, and who is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm or is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides, may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State that—

“(1) has a statute under which residents of the State may apply for a license or permit to carry a concealed firearm; or

“(2) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes.

That "in the State in which the person resides" seems to indicate that your permit has to be issued by your state of residence.  A lot of people use the "driver license" example where your license is good in all states, but think about it; I'm not aware of us being able to obtain a "non-resident driver's license".  They're all issued by your state of residence, so if they're applying the same "standard", wouldn't that suggest the carry permit has to be issued by your home state? 

As for people saying that Hawaii could just change their law to "no issue", I don't think that's an issue because it would be unconstitutional.  SCOTUS already ruled that "no issue" is unconstitutional in the MacDonald case against Chicago.  Anyway, I'm no lawyer so I'll just be happy if HR38 really includes non-resident permits and passes both houses and becomes law so that those of us who have non-resident photo-ID concealed-carry permits will be able to carry here in Hawaii.

Okay. Had to take a deep breath.

You see that word "or" in there?

"...who is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm or is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides, may possess or carry a concealed handgun..."

"Or" means either clause separated by the word "or" is operable/valid.

"a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm" means any license from any state, which obviously, if we can invoke logic, would include a state other than one's state of residence.

OR

"permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm or is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides" means a person would have reciprocity if they had a permit from their state of residence.

Get it? "Or"/"either/or"/"either"/"one OR the other".

Hawaii could litigate national reciprocity for, possibly, decades. One strategy would be to limit the places where carry would be banned. As I've presented in other threads, the Hawaii AG's position in legal documents (amicus briefs) submitted to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals state that anywhere/everywhere outside the home where the public may be should be considered a "sensitive place", as per the SCOTUS that CCW/open carry may be banned from "sensitive places" (such as government buildings and schools). Another would be to have onerous financial requirements such as 200 hours of training. Another would be to have "good moral character" requirements that, for whatever reasons, ended up taking two years of investigation to verify. And there are others. If they play these one at a time and they all get appealed all the way to SCOTUS, even if the state loses at SCOTUS they got a good 20 years of stalling in the bank.

One "simple" solution would be for all (or at least a majority) of Hawaii's FUDD gun owners to get off their asses and actually take action at the political level and get other people into office who actually would adhere to rather than violate their oath of office to uphold the constitutions. But we all know that ain't gonna happen, so things will continue as they are now...

But we all know that ain't gonna happen, so things will continue as they are now...

OK, I get the "or" part; I was just thinking that libs would say if you fail in either one, that would disqualify you.  But, yes, we live in a state that's politically horrible because it's always gone Democrat.  Most of the problem seems to be the "immigrants" (different immigrant problem than the mainland) who are here legally and can vote, but they, for some reason, always votes for the "D".  They care nothing of the candidate or what the candidate stands for or doesn't stand for; they just keep voting by party.  Isn't it any wonder why that even when a candidate is so horrible that the entire country voted for that President, only Hawaii was for the Democrat (Reagan apparently won 49 of 50 states).  Even Alaska voted Republican and both Hawaii & Alaska was admitted in the same year into the Union.  I guess if we want to be armed outside the home, we may have to just move (I know so many people who were born & raised here that have all moved to Vegas; not that I would ever move there, but there's a lot of other "gun friendly" states with decent weather.)

BTW, here's a URL to get the current status of the Peruta appeal to SCOTUS:  http://michellawyers.com/guncasetracker/perutavsandiego/

BTW, here's a URL to get the current status of the Peruta appeal to SCOTUS:  http://michellawyers.com/guncasetracker/perutavsandiego/

Yeah, well Michelle and Associates are as incompetent at maintaining current information at their website as they were/are in litigating Peruta. Their latest listing is for APRIL 12, 2017... So they're just 10 weeks behind the times, which I'd hardly call "current status". Ridiculous.

They do provide a link to the SCOTUS Peruta page (also provided elsewhere in this forum in the Peruta thread) where you can update yourself on what's happened in the past 10 weeks: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

By the way, please note that the legal team of SAF/Gura dropped out of the case (companion to Peruta, Richards v. Prieto) after the Ninth Circuit en banc decision and chose not to appeal to SCOTUS. Who's more likely to understand the merits of the case as presented and argued in the lower courts (and thus worthy or not of appeal to SCOTUS), Gura (litigator for Heller and McDonald) or Michelle and Associates?

Also note that the "fake" open carry case now being brought by Michelle and Associates (having seen that they totally screwed up with Peruta after 8 years) has been scheduled for district court trial on February 6, 2018 at 9:00 a.m. It's my belief that they've totally screwed up that case as well, but I guess we'll have to wait and see... maybe another 8 years (though I hope either Norman and/or Nichols will before then have been at least accepted by SCOTUS for cert).

They do provide a link to the SCOTUS Peruta page (also provided elsewhere in this forum in the Peruta thread) where you can update yourself on what's happened in the past 10 weeks: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

I guess they now think that gun owners have a disease or we are diseased by firearms...  used to wonder what the hell CDC has to do with guns, but I guess liberalism permeates all organizations whether governmental or NGOs...

I guess they now think that gun owners have a disease or we are diseased by firearms...  used to wonder what the hell CDC has to do with guns, but I guess liberalism permeates all organizations whether governmental or NGOs...

That was my error in pasting a wrong link. Not that it isn't interesting reading... but the SCOTUS Peruta page is: https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/16-894.htm

[Not updated yet to show today's denial of cert.]

SCOTUS has spoken. They refused to hear the Peruta case.

SCOTUS has spoken. They refused to hear the Peruta case.

Apparently, only Justice Thomas (with Gorsuch supporting) dissented on that decision to not hear the case. I guess the only way SCOTUS will settle it once and for all is if the federal reciprocity bill passes and is singed into law by President Trump, then the anti-gun groups will appeal to SCOTUS. Supposedly, the fact that only Thomas & Gorsuch were "in" on the dissent doesn't necessarily mean 2A would lose such an appeal so there's some hope yet. Of course, Congress would have to get health care and taxes out of the way before they'd even begin to look at the reciprocity bills.

I guess nobody really cares since this happened over a month ago, but... Baker officially doesn't exist anymore. It's over. Dead as a doornail. History. Or, as the legal document states: "concluded in toto". Might as well close this thread unless people want to discuss the legal strategy (which the plaintiff explains throughout this thread) and how that worked out.

And, yes, this link to the actual court document is provided free of charge by one of those "open carry idiots who do more to hurt us then [sic] help us"--Surf.

http://blog.californiarighttocarry.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/92-Stipulation-and-Order-Dismissing-Lawsuit-with-Prejudice.pdf

ORDER AND STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL
OF ALL CLAIMS AND PARTIES WITH PREJUDICE

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between all of the parties currently remaining in this action, pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that all claims be dismissed with prejudice.

No trial is currently set in this matter as the proceedings were stayed pending resolution of Plaintiff’s interlocutory appeal.

As a result of this Stipulated Dismissal, this action is concluded in toto. No other claims and/or parties remain.