Btw...
That poi that I pounded made some excellent dessert. You ever went to Waiahole poi factory to grab that Sweet Lady?

We had the fresh pounded poi with Magnolia Ube ice cream.
So ono.

OF have you ever had kalo bombs in Waianae? Unreal ice cream with pa’i ‘ai

Hahahaha

1.5T dollar deficit and warrantless spying on Americans . “Smart moves”

RMR HD?  Or you going with Holosun with RMR footprint?

This discussion has me looking into milling my CZ 75 SP-01 now. . . haven't shot that gun in a while and an RDS will likely have me shooting it more.

Either the rmr or the HD. The non HD rmr is like $510 and they will install optic for free. Gonna have them move the rear sight in front of the optic and purchase some Ameriglo XL tritium sights which they will also install for free.

Not sure if the rmr HD is worth the extra $150 over the type 2 rmr

How did the nitride finish come out?  I've been thinking of going that route on another slide, instead of cerakote. 

Sorry OP for the tangent. . .

No problem, I’m here for all of it haha!

Anyone recommend a good bow shop? I’d like to try out some bows and I wonder if anyone knows of a shop that has “demo” bows that will let you shoot before purchasing (is that even a thing here?) the 2 shops that I contacted before are “permanently” closed on google and the only shop I see still open is Bows unlimited.

The government is not our friend. Any ruling that upholds rights over government infringement is a win in my book. Illegals are criminals and will carry guns if they want to and hopefully there is language in this ruling that can be used to further our own causes.

Btw mahalo Kaleoarms for the help so far 

Now you are moving the goalpost. I explained part of Bruen and asked where it explicitly says common law cannot be used but now you are saying its not mentioned specifically but implied in the test? You gotta do better than that. If you don't want to that is fine, but I am not going to go and make your case for you.


From Bruen "The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation."

Herein lies the problem, if all new laws have to rest on historic tradition but you can't use laws prior to the forming of the country you end up with a situation where there can't be any laws. If everything has to be rooted in historical tradition but you exclude everything from before the constitution, then you eliminate all historical tradition.

Tell us you don’t understand Bruen without telling us you don’t understand Bruen.

I'm still considering how spicy to get. Ideally it would be enough to raise an eyebrow or two but not enough to get on another watch list.

I think you only get spicy if you have the support. Unfortunately we simply don’t have enough on our side. I have 2 guys at my work who are die hard gun guys, hate Hawaii government, yet when I ask them if they sent in testimony it’s “ahh no more time or I forgot” I think just being honest and showing them how it affects you personally is the best way to go about it.

From your reply:
- Because the text of article I, section 17, its purpose, and
Hawaiʻi’s historical tradition of weapons regulation support a
collective, militia meaning, we hold that the Hawaiʻi
Constitution does not afford a right to carry firearms in public
places for self-defense.

They were making the case that the Hawaii Constitution doesn't mean the same thing as the US constitution. The HSC gets to interpret the meaning of the Hawaii Constitution, SCOTUS rulings do not dictate how the HSC must look at the Hawaii constitution. Maybe its your reading skills rather than my memory skills.

Of course there has to be a specific action to be in defiance. Thats why I said if your kid criticized the bed time but still went to bed at 9 he wouldn't be in defiance.

I already clearly stated that I don't like the case but I don't let me not liking the outcome affect my analysis of the case. I am not defending their decision, I am pointing it out for what it is and what it isn't. Yes I understand why it is significant, because the HSC basically trolled and stuck their noses up at the SCOTUS, but their ultimate decision on this case (the last 2 pages basically) stayed within the bounds that SCOTUS had set out in allowing states to still implement licensing requirements. People are upset at the 50 pages of fluff, and rightly so, but being angry at that fluff seems to mislead you about the actual part of their decision, about Wilson's standing and their interpretation of the Hawaii constitution.,

Tyranny? Thats a bit of a hyperbole even for you. Maybe farther down the road, but not at this point.

So listening to legal experts on a podcast to help me understand better the complexities of constitutional law doesn't count as research but a lawyer on Youtube does? I read the whole decision, I "did the research" but that doesn't work for you either.  Sounds like you are shopping around for an answer you like.

Stop saying that SCOTUS allowed states to continue licensing. They did not, they were narrowing there ruling to cover may issue permitting schemes and NOT constitutional carry. They still need to justify the law using historical tradition and they did NOT.

Again your analogy is terrible, if you told your kid to wash dishes by hand and not the dishwasher because it’s broken and they went ahead and used the dishwasher anyway is that not defiance even though they washed the dishes?