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