So HI is the only state's AG not to send a letter to their police departments on obeying the ruling. Must be on Hawaiian Time.

I watched on the news where they implied they could wait until next legislative session next year
I hope that is not true

I watched on the news where they implied they could wait until next legislative session next year
I hope that is not true

I'm sure this is what will happen and they make it sound like a good reason. "We need to change the law" excuse.

I watched on the news where they implied they could wait until next legislative session next year
I hope that is not true

The longer they drag their feet, the more of a chance for (1) lawsuits against the state/county, and (2) other states being sued and having their new gun laws ruled against, meaning HI lawmakers would be stupid to go down the same road.

If something is unconstitutional, they either have to halt the practice, or make changes to it immediately.  If they don't change the law now, they are going to have to stop requiring any reasons for firearm carry licenses.  To just do nothing until later isn't going to wash.

The longer they drag their feet, the more of a chance for (1) lawsuits against the state/county, and (2) other states being sued and having their new gun laws ruled against, meaning HI lawmakers would be stupid to go down the same road.

If something is unconstitutional, they either have to halt the practice, or make changes to it immediately.  If they don't change the law now, they are going to have to stop requiring any reasons for firearm carry licenses.  To just do nothing until later isn't going to wash.

The state doesn't care. They have their lawyers and attitude is "F-U, sue us". They know it will cost us or someone money to bring a lawsuit.  When I was on Maui, MAGS owner approached Alan Beck and offered to pay him right on the spot for a lawsuit because the county was dragging their feet.  This was in March, 3 months after Tasers became legal.  He turned it down and said he will call him later. 

Then once the suit was filed, the county magically passed the ordinance to allow the sale of tasers and they said they were going to do it anyway, so a lawsuit wasn't needed.  Sure, I'll believe that.

  I'm going to assume that compensation was due up front regardless of the outcome, which is understandable.  And which MAGS was willing to do, hence the "I'll write you a check right now".

So the point of this story is we went thru all of this with Tasers, handguns will be much more hoops to jump thru and I foresee additional lawsuits.

Today was the Roberts vs. Ballard (Taser) court case about compensation.  The state is claiming that since Roberts has his taser, the lawsuit is moot. Nevermind the fact that it was filed in 2018 and SCOTUS ruled at that time tasers were covered by the 2A.  But each time his case got stayed until another case was ruled on.  So I can image the attorney fee's for 3 years of work (2021 is when the new law was signed). Basically HI is saying we changed the law, which makes his lawsuit invalid. So no $ for attorney fee's.



Fast Forward -2:05:00 mark (First hearing)

BTW, Stephen was at our BBQ yesterday.

The state doesn't care. They have their lawyers and attitude is "F-U, sue us". They know it will cost us or someone money to bring a lawsuit.  When I was on Maui, MAGS owner approached Alan Beck and offered to pay him right on the spot for a lawsuit because the county was dragging their feet.  This was in March, 3 months after Tasers became legal.  He turned it down and said he will call him later. 

Then once the suit was filed, the county magically passed the ordinance to allow the sale of tasers and they said they were going to do it anyway, so a lawsuit wasn't needed.  Sure, I'll believe that.

  I'm going to assume that compensation was due up front regardless of the outcome, which is understandable.  And which MAGS was willing to do, hence the "I'll write you a check right now".

So the point of this story is we went thru all of this with Tasers, handguns will be much more hoops to jump thru and I foresee additional lawsuits.

Today was the Roberts vs. Ballard (Taser) court case about compensation.  The state is claiming that since Roberts has his taser, the lawsuit is moot. Nevermind the fact that it was filed in 2018 and SCOTUS ruled at that time tasers were covered by the 2A.  But each time his case got stayed until another case was ruled on.  So I can image the attorney fee's for 3 years of work (2021 is when the new law was signed). Basically HI is saying we changed the law, which makes his lawsuit invalid. So no $ for attorney fee's.

Fast Forward -2:05:00 mark (First hearing)

BTW, Stephen was at our BBQ yesterday.

The state can argue about attorney's fees all they want, but the primary contention in the case was resolved in the plaintiff's favor.  That's the important take-away.

I think the attorneys can make a motion or file a new lawsuit to be compensated even if the original case never went to a final ruling or settled. 

Isn't it up to the plaintiff to agree to drop their lawsuit?  If the judge dismisses it instead of ruling in his favor (based on the new precedence), than that's something the judge did wrong.  It's obvious one side prevailed.  To pull the plug on the case before issuing a decision formally is bad practice when so many cases are taken by lawyers willing to work on contingent.

Ur hope is gone.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

I disagree. I think the chief can take a reasonable amount of time to seek legal advice so as to comply with the ruling.

He may also be able to wait until the 9th circuit writes their opinion but I am not completely clear on how case law works in that interim period where the lower court has to change their ruling.

I disagree. I think the chief can take a reasonable amount of time to seek legal advice so as to comply with the ruling.

He may also be able to wait until the 9th circuit writes their opinion but I am not completely clear on how case law works in that interim period where the lower court has to change their ruling.

I would assume you would disagree.

All the other AG's have already sent statements to their Chief's. With CA being the 1st one the next evening of the SCOTUS ruling.  HI is the only one who's AG has done nothing.  And if the Chief valued the bill of rights, he could easily take the SCOTUS ruling for face value and begin issuing CCW/OC permits since the sole discretion is with him.

There is no need to wait for the 9th to rewrite their Young ruling. This is a stall tactic.  Next they will say "we need to change the law before we issue any carry permits", which I'm sure you will also agree with.

https://www.staradvertiser.com/2022/07/06/breaking-news/honolulu-police-department-received-48-applications-to-carry-guns-in-public-after-high-court-ruling/?fbclid=IwAR0WkZ2Q_XidgF_sDJhZdNXwj99k9yuKDWkgtxRKLLyKE3D3KRHgxzVYrbg

The last paragraph. Which they mean "how can we deny people and find a loop hole"

I disagree. I think the chief can take a reasonable amount of time to seek legal advice so as to comply with the ruling.

He may also be able to wait until the 9th circuit writes their opinion but I am not completely clear on how case law works in that interim period where the lower court has to change their ruling.

The city  sited that the AG is reviewing and the AG is awaiting a judgement on the Young case. Which we have no ETA on when the 9th will redo their ruling. So dragging feet as long as they can.

I think all of us deep inside knew that Hawaii would drag their feet on this issue. 

The only good(?) thing about the AG's dick move is that the whole nation is watching and confirming that Hawaii has indeed a corrupt, communist pig sty anti-American government, a kiss ass police chief, and a governer and AG hell bent on denying Hawaii's citizens the right to bear arms.

They really do have the "FU, so sue me....." attitude.

Maybe it's time to demonstrate and rally at the Capitol and Washington Place?

I think all of us deep inside knew that Hawaii would drag their feet on this issue. 

The only good(?) thing about the AG's dick move is that the whole nation is watching and confirming that Hawaii has indeed a corrupt, communist pig sty anti-American government, a kiss ass police chief, and a governer and AG hell bent on denying Hawaii's citizens the right to bear arms.

They really do have the "FU, so sue me....." attitude.

Maybe it's time to demonstrate and rally at the Capitol and Washington Place?

Unfortunately, no one cares about HI.  And they control the media. So no harm to them by delaying permits.

Unfortunately, no one cares about HI.  And they control the media. So no harm to them by delaying permits.

And that's why so many people have an ainokea permit.

"Nobody does anything illegal in Hawaii"

https://www.staradvertiser.com/2022/07/06/breaking-news/honolulu-police-department-received-48-applications-to-carry-guns-in-public-after-high-court-ruling/?fbclid=IwAR0WkZ2Q_XidgF_sDJhZdNXwj99k9yuKDWkgtxRKLLyKE3D3KRHgxzVYrbg

The last paragraph. Which they mean "how can we deny people and find a loop hole"

From the article;
"The State of Hawaii Organization of Police Officers expressed concern about how the ruling will impact interactions between police and the public."
They will start to see a lot of ainokea permits and a total lack of trust, cooperation, and respect.
From what I understand there hasn't been a large request for permits. Probably less than a hundred state wide. 
In a population of about 1.5 million,  that is a drop in the bucket.
You stupid liberals fear that?  We now know you are idiots.
Power drunk idiots.
 

I think all of us deep inside knew that Hawaii would drag their feet on this issue. 

The only good(?) thing about the AG's dick move is that the whole nation is watching and confirming that Hawaii has indeed a corrupt, communist pig sty anti-American government, a kiss ass police chief, and a governer and AG hell bent on denying Hawaii's citizens the right to bear arms.

They really do have the "FU, so sue me....." attitude.

Maybe it's time to demonstrate and rally at the Capitol and Washington Place?

LETS GO

From the article;
"The State of Hawaii Organization of Police Officers expressed concern about how the ruling will impact interactions between police and the public."
They will start to see a lot of ainokea permits and a total lack of trust, cooperation, and respect.
From what I understand there hasn't been a large request for permits. Probably less than a hundred state wide. 
In a population of about 1.5 million,  that is a drop in the bucket.
You stupid liberals fear that?  We now know you are idiots.
Power drunk idiots.
 

I think you might be right.  If caught with a concealed firearm, your defense would be the law is unconstitutional.  It doesn't even have to be appealed since there's already a ruling stating that fact.

Then you could sue for violation of your Constitutionally protected civil rights.

 

And that's why so many people have an ainokea permit.

"Nobody does anything illegal in Hawaii"

For real.   If Hawaii's politicians and AG dilly-dally on the SCOTUS ruling or go the NY route and start imposing more and new restrictions the ainokea permit will become a reality.

And for all we know it already is.

And that's why so many people have an ainokea permit.

"Nobody HERE does anything illegal in Hawaii"

I corrected your last statement.   Talking to different friends, I was surprised how many people they know that have been carrying for years in Hawaii.  One of my former customers was carrying and shot and killed a guy a few years ago on Oahu.  He was 76 and I think the other guy was around 30.  Road rage situation and obviously the younger guy thought he would beat the crap out of the old guy. What he didn't know is the old guy had served time for a previous firearm conviction and would not hesitate to shoot you. Bottom line is don't get involved in road rage or arguments to prove you are right or preserve your "honor". 

I corrected your last statement.   Talking to different friends, I was surprised how many people they know that have been carrying for years in Hawaii.  One of my former customers was carrying and shot and killed a guy a few years ago on Oahu.  He was 76 and I think the other guy was around 30.  Road rage situation and obviously the younger guy thought he would beat the crap out of the old guy. What he didn't know is the old guy had served time for a previous firearm conviction and would not hesitate to shoot you. Bottom line is don't get involved in road rage or arguments to prove you are right or preserve your "honor".

This is 1 talking point used by the anti 2a people. I remind them that road rage/disagreements in general are 2 people fighting, 1 is assaulting the other typically. Which is illegal.  So going "up and up" is bad.

I think you might be right.  If caught with a concealed firearm, your defense would be the law is unconstitutional.  It doesn't even have to be appealed since there's already a ruling stating that fact.

Then you could sue for violation of your Constitutionally protected civil rights.

 

Matt Hoover (CRS Firearms Youtuber), his defense is now citing the SCOTUS ruling for his machine gun charge.