2013 SB274: Concealed Carry Permits (Read 20859 times)

2aHawaii

  • Administrator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3629
  • Total likes: 65
  • Sheepdog
  • Referrals: 17
    • View Profile
    • 2aHawaii
Re: 2013 SB274: Concealed Carry Permits
« Reply #20 on: January 30, 2013, 10:14:50 AM »
I'm not saying that only police should carry guns. I'm saying that if a civilian is going to carry one they need to have adequate training. A simple handgun safety course is NOT good enough. Some people believe that it is their right and any required training is unacceptable. That's bullshit. Have some personal responsibly.

When the shit hits the fan and someone that carrying concealed decides to fire I want to be confident that they won't be killing someone innocent because they panicked and started just squeezing off rounds. You have to be accountable for each round fired from your gun.  Just because there is a threat does not mean you are justified to shoot. You have to be able to identify the different factors present then make the decision to shoot. All of this has to be done in your mind within 3-5 seconds. Sorry, but I don't think a normal civilian can do that without training.

I'm all for concealed carry, but there are people out there that should not carry concealed because they are a liability.

So who decided someone is qualified or not? What is "sufficient" training?

If you look across the rest of America in Shall Issue states, most of them have pretty minimal training requirements. It's not the wild west as many people would like you to believe. In the end, it's all gonna be up to the individual whether or not they are going to take a shot or not. Heck, people won't even know if they can until that very moment. It's the same way with LEOs.
I am not a lawyer.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." - United States Constitution Amendment 2 & Hawaii State Constitution Article 1 Section 17

Buying from Amazon? Click through here

spike thomas

Re: 2013 SB274: Concealed Carry Permits
« Reply #21 on: January 30, 2013, 12:05:50 PM »
Anyone from a well trained professional to a beginner has the capacity to make mistakes, use poor judgement, or go completely nuts because of some event in their lives that causes them to lose their sense of responsibility.  I say if an applicant has already been diagnosed with some mental problem that is sufficient enough to make them a serious liability, then don't issue them a ccw permit.  I don't believe that a person should have psychological screening done.  If the problem hasn't arisen by the time they're 21, then its doubtful to exist.  Everyone has issues from time to time.  I don't need my mental capacity to be judged by a doctor who is likely anti-gun and whose personal opinions are far different than mine.  I don't like the idea of being restricted based on if I've been convicted of a misdemeanor of violence, BUT I am willing to comply because I'm a responsible adult and though I may argue with my wife from time to time, we haven't had any altercations that would require law enforcement to get involved.  If you aren't responsible enough to control yourself with your family, then you probably shouldn't be carrying a weapon around people you don't even know in the case that someone makes you angry.  The bill says you must be 23.  I disagree.  I'd be far happier with the age limit of 21 although I personally think 18 is the wiser choice.  Those in the military who are 18 can and do carry pistols, assault rifles, machine guns, etc.  If you think those people don't have issues, look up PTSD.  Does that mean I don't think they should carry firearms?  NO.  They should and they do carry firearms.  It's their job to defend our country.  It's our job to defend ourselves.  If you're worried that you wont be able to pull the trigger if the time comes, then that's your personal problem.  You can't judge everyone based on how you might react.  I've not yet been put in a position like that,  but I'm fairly confident I could judge the likelihood of possibly hurting someone else should I need to shoot a criminal who is threatening my life or the lives of those around me.  If you do accidentally kill an innocent person while trying to defend yourself, standby because you should and will be held accountable.  There's no excuse for a mistake with a firearm.  The individual should be held responsible, not the community of concealed weapons carriers.  It's a heavy burden to carry a weapon responsibly, but it should be your right if you choose to do so.

hnl.flyboy

Re: 2013 SB274: Concealed Carry Permits
« Reply #22 on: January 30, 2013, 12:48:09 PM »
Some states allow exceptions for military members as "training" for a CCW.  Most Marines' training on handguns (from what I've seen) are laughably terrible.  So far, little incidents.
LEX MALLA, LEX NULLA

FPC, SAF Life, HDF Life, GOA, HRA, Fun Factory VIP

Heavies

Re: 2013 SB274: Concealed Carry Permits
« Reply #23 on: January 30, 2013, 05:09:53 PM »
Anyone from a well trained professional to a beginner has the capacity to make mistakes, use poor judgement, or go completely nuts because of some event in their lives that causes them to lose their sense of responsibility.  I say if an applicant has already been diagnosed with some mental problem that is sufficient enough to make them a serious liability, then don't issue them a ccw permit.  I don't believe that a person should have psychological screening done.  If the problem hasn't arisen by the time they're 21, then its doubtful to exist.  Everyone has issues from time to time.  I don't need my mental capacity to be judged by a doctor who is likely anti-gun and whose personal opinions are far different than mine.  I don't like the idea of being restricted based on if I've been convicted of a misdemeanor of violence, BUT I am willing to comply because I'm a responsible adult and though I may argue with my wife from time to time, we haven't had any altercations that would require law enforcement to get involved.  If you aren't responsible enough to control yourself with your family, then you probably shouldn't be carrying a weapon around people you don't even know in the case that someone makes you angry.  The bill says you must be 23.  I disagree.  I'd be far happier with the age limit of 21 although I personally think 18 is the wiser choice.  Those in the military who are 18 can and do carry pistols, assault rifles, machine guns, etc.  If you think those people don't have issues, look up PTSD.  Does that mean I don't think they should carry firearms?  NO.  They should and they do carry firearms.  It's their job to defend our country.  It's our job to defend ourselves.  If you're worried that you wont be able to pull the trigger if the time comes, then that's your personal problem.  You can't judge everyone based on how you might react.  I've not yet been put in a position like that,  but I'm fairly confident I could judge the likelihood of possibly hurting someone else should I need to shoot a criminal who is threatening my life or the lives of those around me.  If you do accidentally kill an innocent person while trying to defend yourself, standby because you should and will be held accountable.  There's no excuse for a mistake with a firearm.  The individual should be held responsible, not the community of concealed weapons carriers.  It's a heavy burden to carry a weapon responsibly, but it should be your right if you choose to do so.
This

Heavies

Re: 2013 SB274: Concealed Carry Permits
« Reply #24 on: January 30, 2013, 05:13:35 PM »
I don't think the goal should be that everyone is carrying, it should be just enough so that if the 4'7". 90 lb grandma gets attacked there is a good chance that someone near by is, and can assist in defending her. Just my 2 cents? You really think 4'7" 90lb and probably 9- year old grandman would be able to draw and take a safe shot at her attackers before she got beat down anyway?

I doubt she would even have enough time to react. I dont think attackers come at you straight on and will say ma'am in about 10 seconds I am going to attack you and steal your bag, so you might want to take your gun out of your purse first so you can defend yourself?

Attacks happen in a split second, and are by surprise. Most normal people wouldnt be able to draw and defend in time, must less an older woman who probably carries in her purse.

It is her RIGHT to defend herself if she chooses.  Why would you put a restriction on her because YOU feel she cannot handle the situation.  I know plenty grandmas that can handle most any situations, maybe physically not fair so well, but mentally hard as rocks. 

brettyboy56

Re: 2013 SB274: Concealed Carry Permits
« Reply #25 on: January 30, 2013, 05:46:21 PM »
It is her RIGHT to defend herself if she chooses.  Why would you put a restriction on her because YOU feel she cannot handle the situation.  I know plenty grandmas that can handle most any situations, maybe physically not fair so well, but mentally hard as rocks.

Im not arguing with you. If she can physically and mentally handle the situation, can properly handle a firearm and wants to take on the responsibility, by all means go for it. I just dont see a stereotypical 90lb, 4'7" grandma (whose probably 90 years old) be able to do so reasonably and responsibly is all. You said it yourself, she may physically not fair so well. That to me is a liability.

It's just like letting an 90 year old man whose sight may be going, drive a large semi (to further exaggerate my point). Yes they may be able to physically drive and mentally want to drive, but in old age, sight goes, reaction time slows down and fine motor skills go, all a bad combination when doing things like driving, or in the case were discussing, shooting a gun. At some point in everyones life we become more of a liability than anything else in certain situations like driving.

Would you trust that same person who is no longer able to drive shoot a gun? This is really common with surgeons and pilots and their careers. Would you allow that same person who is physically so-so perform open heart surgery on you? Mentally they could be sharp as hell and they could have performed the operation a million times, but one wrong twitch due to getting old and Heavies be dead.

Believe me im all for carrying and i do believe its everyones right to own and carry a gun - but regardless, there are some people, no matter their willingness to, that shouldn't be allowed to carry for liability reasons.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2013, 05:52:39 PM by brettyboy56 »

Cougar8045

Re: 2013 SB274: Concealed Carry Permits
« Reply #26 on: January 30, 2013, 05:47:55 PM »
So you know about LE training enough to assume that a rookie would not be competent enough to stop a threat in a situation? Or are you just talking out your ass? LE training involves at least 40 hours of basic firearms handling and qualifications. Then they go through scenario based training that is pass or fail. When its all done and complete they (LE) have likely completed at least 200 + hours of firearm based training. So do you still think a 8 hour handgun safety class is sufficient? I think not!
So you'd put your son or daughter, assuming you have one, next to the targets on the police range during live fire?  Let them use her as a prop during a live-fire room clearing exercise?  If not, are rookie cops really up to the standard you want?  The point is that very few people are qualified to take the shot you described.  I have no idea what HPD's firearms qualification requirement is, but since the whole academy course of training comprises about 880 hours, I rather doubt they spend a quarter of their time training with their service pistols. 
Quote
Really!!! So you think that a guy that beats the shit out his wife and, or kids should be able to get a gun? A guy that has a history of stalking, threatening, choking, hitting, a family member should be able to get a gun? Why! So the next time he flips out he can get that gun and kill his whole family and potentially kill the officers responding to the call. You still think the Lautenberg amendment is a POS? If you do, then I truly believe that you don't deserve to carry concealed because something is seriously wrong with your logic.
Calm down with the hysterics.  If the guy is so awfully evil as you describe, he should have been tried for felony assault.  You paint a graphic picture, but a domestic violence charge is on the table any time a pissed-off partner calls the cops.  If they show up and you admit, "She yelled at me to giver her her keys, so I threw them to her and they hit her in the face when she missed the catch," you're screwed.  No more guns for you, ever.  Misdemeanors are minor crimes, genius.  That's why misdemeanor domestic violence is usually taken care of with a fine.  You still think the Lautenberg amendment is a good law?  If you do, I truly believe that you don't deserve to carry concealed because you have no comprehension of human rights. 
I'm just a fluffy white bunny rabbit who lost his way. 

"If a thief be found breaking in, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him. ..."  -Exodus 22:2

Cougar8045

Re: 2013 SB274: Concealed Carry Permits
« Reply #27 on: January 30, 2013, 05:52:46 PM »
Some states allow exceptions for military members as "training" for a CCW.  Most Marines' training on handguns (from what I've seen) are laughably terrible.  So far, little incidents.
This, except the Navy.  We had a guy who completely missed the target from the 3yd line.  I took him aside and spent fifteen minutes with him, and then he qualified.  That's not to say I'm a super instructor, it's to underscore how pathetically low the Navy sets the bar for handgun qualification. 
I'm just a fluffy white bunny rabbit who lost his way. 

"If a thief be found breaking in, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him. ..."  -Exodus 22:2

Dblnaknak

Re: 2013 SB274: Concealed Carry Permits
« Reply #28 on: January 30, 2013, 06:16:14 PM »
  I have no idea what HPD's firearms qualification requirement is,

Exactly, NO IDEA, yet you assume.

  That's why misdemeanor domestic violence is usually taken care of with a fine.

Obviously you have no clue what domestic violence is and the penalty associated with it...

Heavies

Re: 2013 SB274: Concealed Carry Permits
« Reply #29 on: January 30, 2013, 06:23:39 PM »
Im not arguing with you. If she can physically and mentally handle the situation, can properly handle a firearm and wants to take on the responsibility, by all means go for it. I just dont see a stereotypical 90lb, 4'7" grandma (whose probably 90 years old) be able to do so reasonably and responsibly is all. You said it yourself, she may physically not fair so well. That to me is a liability.

It's just like letting an 90 year old man whose sight may be going, drive a large semi (to further exaggerate my point). Yes they may be able to physically drive and mentally want to drive, but in old age, sight goes, reaction time slows down and fine motor skills go, all a bad combination when doing things like driving, or in the case were discussing, shooting a gun. At some point in everyones life we become more of a liability than anything else in certain situations like driving.

Would you trust that same person who is no longer able to drive shoot a gun? This is really common with surgeons and pilots and their careers. Would you allow that same person who is physically so-so perform open heart surgery on you? Mentally they could be sharp as hell and they could have performed the operation a million times, but one wrong twitch due to getting old and Heavies be dead.

Believe me im all for carrying and i do believe its everyones right to own and carry a gun - but regardless, there are some people, no matter their willingness to, that shouldn't be allowed to carry for liability reasons.

You are agreeing then disagreeing.  Liability would be on any person who would take on the responsibility to carry.  Doesn't matter age, size, or physical stature.  Who is to make the determination of who is 'fit' to have the 'honor' of a CCW?  You can either believe it is every Americans right to protect themselves, barring the obvious restrictions that criminals and mentally ill are not allowed, but a old person, a physically disabled person, a 'nomal' person...  How can you make that determination?

Cougar8045

Re: 2013 SB274: Concealed Carry Permits
« Reply #30 on: January 30, 2013, 06:40:27 PM »
Exactly, NO IDEA, yet you assume.
Bravo, good catch.

Quote
Obviously you have no clue what domestic violence is and the penalty associated with it...
Obviously you need an education. First off, your wild word picture about homicidal maniacs throttling their wives nearly to death is specifically covered by Hawaii state law, and wouldn't need the Lautenberg amendment to bar firearms ownership.  HRS 79-906 states: "Where the physical abuse consists of intentionally or knowingly impeding the normal breathing or circulation of the blood of the family or household member by applying pressure on the throat or the neck, abuse of a family or household member is a class C felony."  That means that choking out the Mrs. would have barred you from ownership even if Lautenberg hadn't written his horrible amendment.  Let's look a little further at the penalty associated with it:  "For the first offense the person shall serve a minimum jail sentence of forty-eight hours; and (b)   For a second offense that occurs within one year of the first conviction, the person shall be termed a "repeat offender" and serve a minimum jail sentence of thirty days."  Holy hell, look out.  Two days in jail!  You're right, misdemeanor domestic violence is a horrific crime that the legislature takes very seriously. 
I'm just a fluffy white bunny rabbit who lost his way. 

"If a thief be found breaking in, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him. ..."  -Exodus 22:2

Dblnaknak

Re: 2013 SB274: Concealed Carry Permits
« Reply #31 on: January 30, 2013, 06:58:07 PM »
Earlier you stated:

That's why misdemeanor domestic violence is usually taken care of with a fine. 

And now you posted:

HRS 79-906 states: "Where the physical abuse consists of intentionally or knowingly impeding the normal breathing or circulation of the blood of the family or household member by applying pressure on the throat or the neck, abuse of a family or household member is a class C felony.  Let's look a little further at the penalty associated with it:  "For the first offense the person shall serve a minimum jail sentence of forty-eight hours; and (b)   For a second offense that occurs within one year of the first conviction, the person shall be termed a "repeat offender" and serve a minimum jail sentence of thirty days."  Holy hell, look out.  Two days in jail!

Sounds like you needed to educated earlier and now you did the research, so my mission is accomplished.

The Lautenberg amendment was passed to prevent the escalation of violence in the home, and a tool for the abused to separate themselves from the abuser. In all domestic violence cases a 24 hour stay away order is given to the aggressor so the victim can obtain a TRO. Also the state automatically becomes the complainant so the aggressor can't intimidate the victim into not prosecuting. 

crazy cat

Re: 2013 SB274: Concealed Carry Permits
« Reply #32 on: January 30, 2013, 08:36:23 PM »
Proposed shall issue carry law for Illinois, 'cause the Federal Court has said that not issuing carry permits is unconstitutional:

http://onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com/2013/01/shall-issue-concealed-carry-bill.html

I could live with that.....

HiCarry

Re: 2013 SB274: Concealed Carry Permits
« Reply #33 on: January 31, 2013, 05:34:24 PM »
Quote
Really!!! So you think that a guy that beats the shit out his wife and, or kids should be able to get a gun? A guy that has a history of stalking, threatening, choking, hitting, a family member should be able to get a gun? Why! So the next time he flips out he can get that gun and kill his whole family and potentially kill the officers responding to the call. You still think the Lautenberg amendment is a POS? If you do, then I truly believe that you don't deserve to carry concealed because something is seriously wrong with your logic.

I do have experience with domestic violence, over 25 years, seeing the aftermath of some of these people. But, that being said, there are three issues that make the Lautenberg Amendment a problem from my perspective:

First, for what other misdemeanor can you loose, forever, a core Constitutional right? None. So why is the Second Amendment subject to such strict scrutiny?

Second, there have been cases where sposes were convicted of "domestic violence" for rather trivial things, such as throwing car keys (not at, but to) their spouse during an argument. Or, two brothers, 17 and 18, are residing together and get into a shoving match. The police intervene and in court one or the other is convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence. There are many cases of similar nature that really shouldn't rise to the level of a lifetime ban of a core fundamental right.

Third, there are man, many cases where someone involved in a domestic violence case pled down to a misdemeanor based on the lawyer's recommendations (usually to avoid a long and costly court battle) and based on the fact that a misdemeanor wouldn't impact their life 20 years later. However, after passage of the Lautenberg Act, those convicted years earlier, who had no knowledge that their misdemeanor conviction would cause impact them in this manner, were immediately deemed ineligible to own firearms? How is this fair?

As to training, please remember that given the opportunity, government officials will make the training as difficult and costly as possible. Look at what the State AG did when formulating the regulations for retired officers to qualify under the LEOSA act: yearly retraining, available only on the Big Island at a cost of $500.00, Qualification tests that were more difficult than active duty cops.....

Do you really want someone who doesn't want you to won, let along carry firearms, determining what level of training is necessary to exercise your Constitutional rights? What other Constitutional rights require training? Heck, you don't even need to show an ID when voting.....

Kingkeoni

Re: 2013 SB274: Concealed Carry Permits
« Reply #34 on: February 01, 2013, 06:52:56 AM »
I do have experience with domestic violence, over 25 years, seeing the aftermath of some of these people. But, that being said, there are three issues that make the Lautenberg Amendment a problem from my perspective:

First, for what other misdemeanor can you loose, forever, a core Constitutional right? None. So why is the Second Amendment subject to such strict scrutiny?

Second, there have been cases where sposes were convicted of "domestic violence" for rather trivial things, such as throwing car keys (not at, but to) their spouse during an argument. Or, two brothers, 17 and 18, are residing together and get into a shoving match. The police intervene and in court one or the other is convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence. There are many cases of similar nature that really shouldn't rise to the level of a lifetime ban of a core fundamental right.

Third, there are man, many cases where someone involved in a domestic violence case pled down to a misdemeanor based on the lawyer's recommendations (usually to avoid a long and costly court battle) and based on the fact that a misdemeanor wouldn't impact their life 20 years later. However, after passage of the Lautenberg Act, those convicted years earlier, who had no knowledge that their misdemeanor conviction would cause impact them in this manner, were immediately deemed ineligible to own firearms? How is this fair?

Fourth, there have been thousands (dozens that I know of) cases where women lie and fabricate the occurrence of domestic violence just to spite their men.
I've seen many times where some poor schmuck just accepts the charges because he's tired of fighting with said lying tramp.
Now the wrongly accused person is stuck never being to enjoy his constitutional right.

 :tinfoil: why stop there... Lets just strip people of all their constitutional rights while we're at it.
Your number one Option for Personal Security is a lifelong commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation.

Someday someone may kill you with your own gun, but they should have to beat you to death with it because it is empty.

Dolomite

2013 SB274: Concealed Carry Permits
« Reply #35 on: February 01, 2013, 08:17:36 AM »
+1

SpeedTek

  • Trade Count: (+44)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4750
  • Total likes: 125
  • Car Nut, Machinist, Gunsmith & Monkey
  • Referrals: 2
    • View Profile
    • X-Ring on the WWW
Re: 2013 SB274: Concealed Carry Permits
« Reply #36 on: February 01, 2013, 08:46:55 AM »
I dont think police should carry guns. There are too many accidental innocent bystanders hit by stray bullets, maybe innocent children too. Plus the fact they can hurt innocent criminals. Because you are not guilty till proven guilty?  :wtf:
Political Correctness is FOS
I collect M1 Carbines, PM me if youre selling!
& Bolt Action 308s also 10/22 Rugers.
Buying STOCK Ruger 10/22 parts and bits, PM me.
Now doing Vintage VW Parts!

Hunter1007

Re: 2013 SB274: Concealed Carry Permits
« Reply #37 on: February 01, 2013, 09:36:48 AM »
Anyone know what the requirements for ccw in other states are? How does this proposal stack up? Just curious cause if lesser restricitions yield successful ccw in other states where there is a larger population than here, why would you want more restrictions in a smaller population?

clshade

Re: 2013 SB274: Concealed Carry Permits
« Reply #38 on: February 01, 2013, 10:48:44 AM »
"well regulated" is a difficult to implement and make everyone happy.

Considering that the definition of "well regulated" in Hawaii is that this this has been a no issue CCW state our idle musings on what degree of training should be necessary are largely academic. This is not likely to change any time soon though we can hope.

Here is a handy breakdown of Ohio's shall issue CCW requirements. http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/ohio-ccw-application-checklist

The training requirements are similar in nature to the class requirements laid out by Hawaii for pistol ownership: an X-hour long class with X-hours of range time. It is the NRA, by and large, that determines the content of the classes and not the law itself.

So one way of looking at it is that while the law may dictate that the training happens it is the trainers (usually military, ex-leo, and NRA) that determine who is certified to carry the firearm.

I haven't read this CCW bill in detail, yet. My first reaction was "Holy cow, this is ridiculously detailed." It probably needs to be to have a snowball's chance in hell here, though. Its not ideal, but if there is any chance that such a bill can make it through the legislature I think it is to our advantage to wholeheartedly support it even if we disagree with aspects of it. The chances of HI being anything other than a no issue state are slim to none otherwise.

clshade

Re: 2013 SB274: Concealed Carry Permits
« Reply #39 on: February 01, 2013, 11:15:00 AM »
Good lord. Just read through the bill. Its like wading through mud.

My initial reaction is that while it is fairly specific about what the training courses should cover those courses would likely cover them anyway. By making such things explicit in the law the goal it to make it very clear to people who oppose CCW that ONLY good guys with a specific skill set laid out by the training requirements will qualify for CCW.

3 other items that drew my concern.

1) Written psychological evaluation. It is reasonable but a potentially dangerous provision. It has the taste of an all or nothing approach: if you FAIL the psych exam does that go on your record and the next time you apply for a permit to acquire will you be then turned down? I'd like this to made clearer so that people don't get caught in that trap. Still, I understand the provision and I can see that if this bill passes there will be threads here about which folks to go see for your evaluation. And which not to.

2) Specific prohibition of carry in schools. For f*ck's sake, this specifically eliminates the only part of a CCW system that has any hope of preventing something like Sandy Hook. Why is it that we DON'T want someone who passes these rigorous evaluations and trainings to be a certified "good guy" to be armed in schools filled with our most treasured little ones? That makes no sense. I understand it for the purposes of getting any CCW shall issue provision passed in this toxic climate but this is silly. I'd leave that up to the schools themselves rather than codify it in the CCW law.

3) Same thing for school admin buildings.

Part of me thinks that if we're going to do it we should do it right. Part of me thinks that there is no chance of it happening anyway so if certain concessions will allow its passage than it would be worth it. I doubt that even such concessions will have any affect, though. Too many parties in the state are against CCW for a variety of reasons.