How about we add SBR to our Hawaii legislative to-do list ??

concealed carry, SBR.  both are necessities, imo.  and hopefully an end to the stupid 10 round mag limit.  having to buy special mgs for your gun.  so stupid.

List of thibgs Hawaii should do first.

1.CCW is primary without CCW our firearms is restricted to home defense and range toy duties.
2. Lift the mag cap reloading a mag is just as fast as have XXX number of rounds in mag moot point to even have a limit in the first place.
3. SBR would be good easier to transport to the range on a motorcycle. However, if anyone carrying on their person and something were to happen where they had to use it it will just give fuel for the anti gun crowd to use against us.
4. OCW NO NO NO look what happen to California it was set up to fail.

For 1 and 2 the state could tax us for extra income and we be happy to have CCW and SBR. Win Win. Okay some of you don't want to have a fee but it is better than nothing. The mag cap should be lifted all together unless that tack a tax fee for each hi-cap mag sold thru LGS.

Add supressors/cans to that list too!!!

Add supressors/cans to that list too!!!

+1.  I'd love to have a suppressor on my home defense handgun.  I don't wanna blow out my girlfriend's and my own hearing if I have to send some rounds in the middle of the night.

ETA: It would also be convenient while hunting.  I know that for some European countries, it's MANDATORY to use a suppressor while hunting.

List of thibgs Hawaii should do first.

1.CCW is primary without CCW our firearms is restricted to home defense and range toy duties.
2. Lift the mag cap reloading a mag is just as fast as have XXX number of rounds in mag moot point to even have a limit in the first place.
3. SBR would be good easier to transport to the range on a motorcycle. However, if anyone carrying on their person and something were to happen where they had to use it it will just give fuel for the anti gun crowd to use against us.
4. OCW NO NO NO look what happen to California it was set up to fail.

For 1 and 2 the state could tax us for extra income and we be happy to have CCW and SBR. Win Win. Okay some of you don't want to have a fee but it is better than nothing. The mag cap should be lifted all together unless that tack a tax fee for each hi-cap mag sold thru LGS.

i think that's a bit of a sham of a reason not to pursue SBR's.  there is no real reason not to allow SBR's, imo.  CCW would take care of that situation almost immediately anyways, if something were to happen.

i agree on the order of priority though.

+1 more on ccw. Take a lesson from our recent cold war history. The Soviet Union never launched any nukes cause they'd get the same back. IMO just knowing someone might be packing would deter its fair share of crimes. Its not the end all be all solution. There will never be any single iron clad solution to violence.

Just to bring people up to speed.

HDF is currently involved in three different federal firearm cases here in Hawaii.

1.) Baker v. Kealoha (Honolulu CCW case; 9th Circuit, waiting opinion)
2.) Fisher v. Kealoha (Honolulu permit to acquire and domestic violence charges; Entered in as Amicus, essentially an intervening party -  currently headed for summary judgement motions)
3.) Young v. State  (Appeal brief filed in the 9th Circuit for denial of ccw permit on Big Island).

So Fisher now is on appeal to the Ninth Circuit.  I am representing Mr. Fisher on appeal along with his original attorneys,

Youngs has been fully briefed.  The post above me is inaccurate. 
Young deals with Hawaii's complete ban on rifle/shotgun carry, taser ban, switchblade ban and at the very least transport laws. 
It is awaiting a decesion from the Ninth Circuit. 

Anything new on Livingston vs Ballard (filed 030/29/2019) or did I miss it ?   

Anything new on Livingston vs Ballard (filed 030/29/2019) or did I miss it ?   

It's on hold pending Young v HI, which is on hold pending NYPSRA vs NYC at SCOTUS.

Likely going to be several years before any movement on that case.

It's on hold pending Young v HI, which is on hold pending NYPSRA vs NYC at SCOTUS.

Likely going to be several years before any movement on that case.

Thank you. 

Friday, April 03, 2020
The Court CONTINUES the Status Conference previously set for 04/08/2020 at 9:00 a.m. to 07/08/2020 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 5 before MAGISTRATE JUDGE ROM TRADER. (MAGISTRATE JUDGE ROM TRADER)(jp)

Livingston, et al v. Ballard, et al is limited to handguns, a dumb mistake.  Even if Young prevails, there is no shortage of ways Livingston can lose.  For example, in the Flanagan v. Becerra "carry" case, all but one of the natural born plaintiffs disavowed any intention or desire to openly carry a firearm in their deposition and there is no articulated, concrete plan by any of the plaintiffs to openly carry a firearm, anywhere or for any reason.  The NRA/CRPA lawyers were so busy arguing that California can ban Open Carry in favor of concealed carry they either by design or incompetence failed to make their case about Open Carry in any legally cognizable way.  As a result, the district court did not rule on an Open Carry claim that was not there.

Flanagan v. Becerra is the third NRA/CRPA concealed carry appeal.  The previous two lost as will Flanagan.  Livingston will no doubt add to the large number of concealed carry lawsuits lost in this circuit.

Livingston, et al v. Ballard, et al is limited to handguns, a dumb mistake.  Even if Young prevails, there is no shortage of ways Livingston can lose.  For example, in the Flanagan v. Becerra "carry" case, all but one of the natural born plaintiffs disavowed any intention or desire to openly carry a firearm in their deposition and there is no articulated, concrete plan by any of the plaintiffs to openly carry a firearm, anywhere or for any reason.  The NRA/CRPA lawyers were so busy arguing that California can ban Open Carry in favor of concealed carry they either by design or incompetence failed to make their case about Open Carry in any legally cognizable way.  As a result, the district court did not rule on an Open Carry claim that was not there.

Flanagan v. Becerra is the third NRA/CRPA concealed carry appeal.  The previous two lost as will Flanagan.  Livingston will no doubt add to the large number of concealed carry lawsuits lost in this circuit.

,  but thank you for the info

Go to:
https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/search/isysquery/7d4c7220-7e23-47ac-b4d4-e2d081b53a24/21-30/list/
and VOTE  Oppose!!!