The case is Young v Hawaii et al, 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 12-00336.
article here:
ht  tps://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-guns-court/us-appeals-court-to-revisit-open-carrying-of-guns-idUSKCN1PX2A9

Remove the space in HTTPS
Since Oahu won't listen it looks like we'll have to run this all the way down.
Being as how our "elites" won't allow us to conceal carry, I really look forward
at some future date to open carry in a police commission meeting.
Just like all the other people there.  Cops are people aren't they, just like
you and me?  Not some special  privileged class in our society.

Cops are people aren't they, just like
you and me?  Not some special  privileged class in our society.

Please submit testimony OPPOSING HB950, the LEOSA special privileges for special people bill, to he heard next Wednesday 02-13-19 in PVM (testimony due by Tuesday, 10AM).

Bill page (can submit testimony for there once signed in): https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=HB&billnumber=950&year=2019

Bill: https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2019/bills/HB950_.HTM

In my testimony I included the following:

The right thing to do here is gut and amend this bill to become the “TLCSA” (Typical Law-abiding Citizen Safety Act), which would grant all citizens the ability to bear arms openly and concealed without any need to seek approval of any kind from any government agency.

Cops are people aren't they, just like you and me? 

Not some special  privileged class in our society.

Good sarcasm.

We all know they are special "highly trained" and as such, should have many special privileges we peasants may not.

Cops are people aren't they, just like you and me?  Not some special  privileged class in our society.

I don't think the intention is to say they are special people who deserve some extra rights. I think it is more of a recognization that they have certain training and background checks and standards that make them trustable to carry firearms.

I personally think regular citizens should be allowed to carry their firearms (with a few exceptions) but we should also acknowledge a lot of the average citizens who will want to carry are not going to have the firearms training and legal knowledge we would like to see for SHTF situations and that does give reason for concern to a lot of people.

I don't think the intention is to say we are special people who deserve some extra rights. I think it is more of a recognization that we have certain training and background checks and standards that make us trustable to carry firearms.

FIFY

Statistics from states having issued millions of licenses to carry over a 30 year span  clearly show that license holders are MORE law-abiding than cops. If any group should be having their "right" to carry questioned based upon rate of frequency of criminal acts, it is the cops.

I don't think the intention is to say they are special people who deserve some extra rights. I think it is more of a recognization that they have certain training and background checks and standards that make them trustable to carry firearms.

I personally think regular citizens should be allowed to carry their firearms (with a few exceptions) but we should also acknowledge a lot of the average citizens who will want to carry are not going to have the firearms training and legal knowledge we would like to see for SHTF situations and that does give reason for concern to a lot of people.

In hawaii all gun owners

1)no felonies
2)no restraining order
3) not under indictment
4) no MJ usage or other schedule 1 narc
5) pass mental health check
6) gun is registered
7) handgun class completed
enrolled in RAPBACK (recent)

Yet All ccw permits denied. So if someone was allowed to carry, then we know all the above is true and verified theyre a good law abiding citizen. Compared to someone who is not armed, we have no clue of their history.

Ballard (and all chiefs) denies for political reasons. They could easilly approve permits for the reason "self defense", but choose not to.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Ballard (and all chiefs) denies for political reasons. They could easilly approve permits for the reason "self defense", but choose not to.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

That is because they are all self entitled assholes.

That is because they are all self entitled assholes.

Talk about hitting the nail on the head! Asshole is being kind IMHO....

Talk about hitting the nail on the head! Asshole is being kind IMHO....

I think the problem is far more scary than "assholes".
It is that the people in positions of power sincerely believe they know
what is best for you and are they are very sincere. 
They never question their actions.
Much like guards at a death camp, like Auschwitz,  they are doing deeds
for the greater good and any means justifies the ends.
Make no mistake,  this is what Democrats  believe.

FIFY

Dunno what the HPD troll posted, but it would seem he would believe in the "we are highly trained"  BS.

Just like that cop in Hillo that left his backup Glock in a knapsack and had it stolen.

Takes special highly trained polices to accomplish that.

In hawaii all gun owners

1)no felonies
2)no restraining order
3) not under indictment
4) no MJ usage or other schedule 1 narc
5) pass mental health check
6) gun is registered
7) handgun class completed
enrolled in RAPBACK (recent)

Yet All ccw permits denied. So if someone was allowed to carry, then we know all the above is true and verified theyre a good law abiding citizen. Compared to someone who is not armed, we have no clue of their history.

Ballard (and all chiefs) denies for political reasons. They could easilly approve permits for the reason "self defense", but choose not to.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

True, but what I am getting at is that there are still concerns about their skill level and competency. Police know we don't have any criminal history or other red flags which would give cause for concern but they don't have any idea whether we know what we are doing if we carry a gun. If CCW became legal tomorrow, there would be a certain percentage of people who might start carrying without any real training about drawing and firing a weapon and who might not understand the laws on justified use of deadly force. That is a real issue about CCW both on an individual level and a community level. Simply asserting our constitutional rights does not become a very convincing answer to that issue so it really doesn't do much to address the fears/concerns they have. I think we need to acknowledge those concerns as being legitimate then make our case. I don't think we can make any headway if we dismiss valid concerns outright.


On a side note, the background checks for our gun permits are not perfect if I understand correctly. There are times where there may be ample evidence that a person committed a violent felony but due to certain circumstances they are not convicted. I could be wrong but the department cannot deny us permits on arrests alone, a conviction is necessary.

That is because they are all self entitled assholes.

I think that position really fails to honestly address the issues at the heart of CCW.

I know its tempting to launch personal attacks when we don't like the consequences of their choices but to boil it down to something that simple is just not a fair criticism.

The assertions about the dangers of carry by "untrained" people is pure bullshit. I repeat, pure bullshit lies and/or ignorance.

How do we know this? Because 42 fucking states are "shall issue", i.e. no person not a "prohibited person" will be denied a license. And none of those states have had any problem with licensed carriers. The cops commit crimes at higher rates than the licensees. Not one single one of those states that moved from "may issue" to "shall issue" has gone back nor considered legislation to go back "may issue". Most of those states do not require any training of any kind. The 14 permitless carry states only offer the permits to carry in order for their citizens to acquire reciprocity with those other states that have agreements with the home state.

Of those 42 states that issue licenses to carry on a "shall issue" basis, 14 of them are also "permitless carry" (aka "constitutional carry") and require not only no training, but no seeking permission of any kind from any state agency to carry. NONE of these states has had any problems with otherwise law-abiding unpermitted carriers committing crimes (criminals always carry unpermitted despite being prohibited persons).

The assertions about the dangers of carry by "untrained" people is pure bullshit. I repeat, pure bullshit lies and/or ignorance.

They don't care how much training you got.  I was at FS in Oct for training, I will be there in 3 weeks for more training and again later this year.  I also get the USCCA member online training.  I practice couple times a week at my home range.  I guarentee you I will get denied a permit.  There are those here that probably have 50 times more training than me and they would get denied too.

True, but what I am getting at is that there are still concerns about their skill level and competency. Police know we don't have any criminal history or other red flags which would give cause for concern but they don't have any idea whether we know what we are doing if we carry a gun. If CCW became legal tomorrow, there would be a certain percentage of people who might start carrying without any real training about drawing and firing a weapon and who might not understand the laws on justified use of deadly force. That is a real issue about CCW both on an individual level and a community level. Simply asserting our constitutional rights does not become a very convincing answer to that issue so it really doesn't do much to address the fears/concerns they have. I think we need to acknowledge those concerns as being legitimate then make our case. I don't think we can make any headway if we dismiss valid concerns outright.


On a side note, the background checks for our gun permits are not perfect if I understand correctly. There are times where there may be ample evidence that a person committed a violent felony but due to certain circumstances they are not convicted. I could be wrong but the department cannot deny us permits on arrests alone, a conviction is necessary.

What it comes down to is our state higher ups don't want citizens to be armed.  I talked to many "beat cops" and majority support CCW.  There are millions of CCW holders in the nation.  If being poorly trained was an issue, we would know about it.  More people die from cars than guns (including suicides).  But yet we see many crazy drivers out there with a license.  So the argument could be made with anything "in order to have a CCW, you need training".

...There are times where there may be ample evidence that a person committed a violent felony but due to certain circumstances they are not convicted. I could be wrong but the department cannot deny us permits on arrests alone, a conviction is necessary.

  kind of statement is this?    So you are saying if you are accused of a crime you automatically should be denied your rights?  I've seen cops that have beat their wives and GF's.   Do they automatically get fired even though not convicted of a crime?  If they are not convicted they are not felons. 

You ready for Minority Report in Hawaii aren't you....   

The assertions about the dangers of carry by "untrained" people is pure bullshit. I repeat, pure bullshit lies and/or ignorance.

I would have to disagree. Certainly cops are not some perfect group of people who never miss a shot and always follow the law perfectly but generally speaking the less training one has the more risk. Surely on average you would expect people who have received training in combat shooting and legal issues to do better in a lethal force situation don't you think?

Take for example the case last year where a homeowner shot a man through his closed front door and now is being charged with manslaughter. As I understand the case, the homeowner was a good guy legally allowed to have the gun but he apparently didn't understand legal justifications for lethal force.

I have another personal example, my adopted brother was born partially mentally retarded. He is capable of living on his own and holding down a simple job like dishwasher and seems relatively normal when you talk to him. But his coordination is a little lacking and his decision making is poor when it comes to thinking into the future and the consequences of his actions. One side effect is he is poor at managing his money. He has no criminal record and no illness associated with violence but if he went out and bought a pistol and decided to carry it everywhere (he lives in Washington where it is legal) I would be worried.

Now I fully agree the actual danger is overblown by the left and the fear is not that justified, but what I think we need to face when dealing with the left is that to them the fear is real. If we just tell them their fear is wrong and they are stupid assholes we have accomplished nothing for our cause but instead made them dig deeper into their positions. We have a better chance at changing their minds through respectful dialogue than angry insults and sometimes that does mean acknowledging points the opposition makes even if we don't agree with them.

What it comes down to is our state higher ups don't want citizens to be armed.  I talked to many "beat cops" and majority support CCW.  There are millions of CCW holders in the nation.  If being poorly trained was an issue, we would know about it.  More people die from cars than guns (including suicides).  But yet we see many crazy drivers out there with a license.  So the argument could be made with anything "in order to have a CCW, you need training".

My personal stance is that Hawaii should be a Shall Issue state with one stipulation that in order to get the permit one must attend a class covering relevant firearm training and appropriate coverage of lethal force law. The training could be done by a certified NRA instructor so it wasn't government controlled and there really wouldn't be a way to back door block everything.

kind of statement is this?    So you are saying if you are accused of a crime you automatically should be denied your rights?  I've seen cops that have beat their wives and GF's.   Do they automatically get fired even though not convicted of a crime?  If they are not convicted they are not felons. 

You ready for Minority Report in Hawaii aren't you....   

I will give you a few examples of such situations.

1. Suspect violently assaults a tourist and robs them but the tourist does not want to prosecute. Class A felony and a crime of violence. The case could be open and shut, completely caught on camera, but the suspect will be released if the victim refuses to return to court to prosecute.

2. Mom and juvenile daughter live alone together. Mom gets a new boyfriend who sexually assaults the daughter and threatens the daughter with a deadly weapon to keep quiet. Cops are called and the guy gets arrested but the mom states that as the parent, her daughter does not have permission to testify in court. The boyfriend gets released because the prosecutors cannot proceed without the daughter being allowed to testify.

3. Suspect robs an elderly person at gun point but is caught and identified.  Before the case can go to trial the elderly person dies of natural causes. The prosecution doesn't have a complainant and the suspect gets released.


Here are three possible scenarios in which there could be overwhelming evidence that the individual is violent and a real danger to society but because of a technicality they cannot be denied a firearm. Yes I agree that conviction should be the standard but there are certain situations where relying only on convictions as necessary proof of a violent tendency/history is inadequate.  Do you see what I am getting at?

I wouldn't say that a denial of firearms should be automatic but perhaps there could be another court review process for when there is strong evidence they are a dangerous individual but there is no conviction due to some technicality.  Imagine there was someone caught planning a mass murder event but a key witness called cops and foiled it but come to trial the witness has died or moved and can't be located for trial. This individual gets released without testimony from the key witness and thus has no criminal record. The next month he buys a bunch of guns and kills a bunch of people. How could we defend allowing him to purchase firearms simply because there was no criminal conviction?