2aHawaii
General Topics => Legal and Activism => Topic started by: punaperson on August 23, 2014, 05:58:24 AM
-
The U.S. District Court ruled last month that the D.C. law banning CCW was unconstitutional, and gave the City Council 90 days to either write a law allowing law-abiding citizens to carry in public, or appeal the ruling. There was initially talk of writing a law, but now it appear they will appeal. Note the weasel words used by the City Council chairperson wherein he indirectly suggests that, yes, only a 100% ban was declared unconstitutional, so if they were to create a law that banned only 99.9999999% of people from carrying, that would meet the criteria of the law ("... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"). That's his "gray area"! I'm posting this as what I suspect will be a preview of precisely what will happen in Hawaii (the only jurisdiction in the U.S. besides D.C. where no one has a CCW license) should Peruta/Prieto/Baker ever get resolved in favor of the Second Amendment and the state be forced to craft a law allowing actual ("shall issue") CCW. I really intensely dislike these people.
"What the court said very clearly was that a complete 100-percent ban on anybody being able to get a license to carry a handgun was unconstitutional. But there's a gray area between 100-percent ban and everybody can carry. And that's what we're working through."
Video report and text of the video by Emily Miller:
http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/26341727/mendelson-says-he-will-appeal-dc-gun-carry-ruling#.U_cwY3HyAYc.facebook (http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/26341727/mendelson-says-he-will-appeal-dc-gun-carry-ruling#.U_cwY3HyAYc.facebook)
-
It will be interesting to see how the state appeals Baker, and their logic behind the appeal. I don't think they would be able to make the same argument as DC is doing, since very little of Hawaii could be even remotely considered "sensitive". Regardless, the 9th Circuit decision on granted the CA attorney general intervenor status could not come soon enough. If Peruta is overturned, Baker will be too.
-
It will be interesting to see how the state appeals Baker, and their logic behind the appeal. I don't think they would be able to make the same argument as DC is doing, since very little of Hawaii could be even remotely considered "sensitive". Regardless, the 9th Circuit decision on granted the CA attorney general intervenor status could not come soon enough. If Peruta is overturned, Baker will be too.
The transport laws all ostensiably deal with sensitive places. In Young I challenged those as well as the complete ban on rifle and shotgun carry in Hawaii. Once an opinion has been render in that appeal then we will have a much better definition of what a sensitive place is. Right now the Court have not really come up with a definition.
-
The transport laws all ostensiably deal with sensitive places. In Young I challenged those as well as the complete ban on rifle and shotgun carry in Hawaii. Once an opinion has been render in that appeal then we will have a much better definition of what a sensitive place is. Right now the Court have not really come up with a definition.
What do you mean when talking about the transport laws?
I have been trying to figure out how they would draw the line on carrying the firearm on one's person vs carrying it to the place of target shooting, repair, place of work etc. There is nothing that I can find requiring you to own a vehicle to transport a firearm, so can someone reasonably walk a mile to the range with their unloaded firearm? What about taking it on the bus to go to work? Of course it would have to be unloaded and in a gun case.
-
What do you mean when talking about the transport laws?
I have been trying to figure out how they would draw the line on carrying the firearm on one's person vs carrying it to the place of target shooting, repair, place of work etc. There is nothing that I can find requiring you to own a vehicle to transport a firearm, so can someone reasonably walk a mile to the range with their unloaded firearm? What about taking it on the bus to go to work? Of course it would have to be unloaded and in a gun case.
Walking should be fine, but if you're really far from your destination prepare to be doubted. Realistically though, when's the last time you were searched by a cop when walking down the street? I never have been. I'd be more worried about being robbed (irony...)
Anecdotally, most buses/trains are not gun-friendly.
Not a lawyer.
-
just checked the bus website and had difficulty finding any list of rules. Not a very well designed site, at least not aesthetically. Nevermind, found it from a google search. Guns, firearms, and weapons are not mentioned.
-
carried a rifle with my motorcycle on H1 slung on my back , bagged of course (contoured shape). Cop drives by slams his brake and pulls around back follow for half a mile and them drives off.
when I meant slammed his brake , literally smoke came from the tires.
-
similar
(http://www.advrider.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=263037&stc=1&d=1304386426)
-
carried a rifle with my motorcycle on H1 slung on my back , bagged of course (contoured shape). Cop drives by slams his brake and pulls around back follow for half a mile and them drives off.
when I meant slammed his brake , literally smoke came from the tires.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
carried a rifle with my motorcycle on H1 slung on my back , bagged of course (contoured shape). Cop drives by slams his brake and pulls around back follow for half a mile and them drives off.
when I meant slammed his brake , literally smoke came from the tires.
:rofl: :thumbsup:
-
carried a rifle with my motorcycle on H1 slung on my back , bagged of course (contoured shape). Cop drives by slams his brake and pulls around back follow for half a mile and them drives off.
when I meant slammed his brake , literally smoke came from the tires.
You should've fucked with him by pulling over and going through the nearest drive thru just see if he was willing to get some food and a soda to continue his pursuit.
-
carried a rifle with my motorcycle on H1 slung on my back , bagged of course (contoured shape). Cop drives by slams his brake and pulls around back follow for half a mile and them drives off.
when I meant slammed his brake , literally smoke came from the tires.
I bet he was trying to figure out if he had any reason or ability to stop you. But nothing in the law says you need to own a car to own a firearm.
-
I bet he was trying to figure out if he had any reason or ability to stop you. But nothing in the law says you need to own a car to own a firearm.
yeap
to and from the range
-
yeap
to and from the range
With no deviations for gas, bathroom relief, flat tire or mechanical problems, pick up a friend, etc. I'm glad you were able to avoid criminal activity that trip. :thumbsup:
-
With no deviations for gas, bathroom relief, flat tire or mechanical problems, pick up a friend, etc. I'm glad you were able to avoid criminal activity that trip. :thumbsup:
I was actually arrested when I have 18 with 4 guns in my car. this was at 2am in kalihi.
We were high schooler and went blasting away at tantalas dr.
Know what to say, when to say and remain silent, is what your maranda rights is all about. " I'm going to the KokoHead range in the morning", was all i said.
Good thing I had my targets, staplers, eyes and ears in my trunk, by the end they , the detective had to drop all charges and sent me home. Got my guns back too!!
"
hahahhaha!
-
I was actually arrested when I have 18 with 4 guns in my car. this was at 2am in kalihi.
We were high schooler and went blasting away at tantalas dr.
Know what to say, when to say and remain silent, is what your maranda rights is all about. " I'm going to the KokoHead range in the morning", was all i said.
Good thing I had my targets, staplers, eyes and ears in my trunk, by the end they , the detective had to drop all charges and sent me home. Got my guns back too!!
"
hahahhaha!
They didn't get you for shooting in a residential area or did you conveniently leave that part out?
-
With no deviations for gas, bathroom relief, flat tire or mechanical problems, pick up a friend, etc. I'm glad you were able to avoid criminal activity that trip. :thumbsup:
But the law doesn't say that...here's the text from the HRS:
[§134-24] Place to keep unloaded firearms other than pistols and revolvers; penalty. (a) Except as provided in section 134-5, all firearms shall be confined to the possessor's place of business, residence, or sojourn; provided that it shall be lawful to carry unloaded firearms in an enclosed container from the place of purchase to the purchaser's place of business, residence, or sojourn, or between these places upon change of place of business, residence, or sojourn, or between these places and the following:
(1) A place of repair;
(2) A target range;
(3) A licensed dealer's place of business;
(4) An organized, scheduled firearms show or exhibit;
(5) A place of formal hunter or firearm use training or instruction; or
(6) A police station.
Note that this statue is for guns other than a pistol or handgun. That statue is similarly worded and is found under HRS 134.25
No where does it say "directly between" or that you cannot stop to get gas or a soda. Also note it doesn't say anything about going to the airport.
That being said, do we suggest that due to the "grey" nature of the wording and the overall restrictive nature of Hawaii's firearms laws, that one does indeed go directly between those specific places allowed? Yes, we do....
-
But the law doesn't say that...here's the text from the HRS:
Note that this statue is for guns other than a pistol or handgun. That statue is similarly worded and is found under HRS 134.25
No where does it say "directly between" or that you cannot stop to get gas or a soda. Also note it doesn't say anything about going to the airport.
That being said, do we suggest that due to the "grey" nature of the wording and the overall restrictive nature of Hawaii's firearms laws, that one does indeed go directly between those specific places allowed? Yes, we do....
If that language does not mean "directly", then any number of stops or detours would be legal, including the fact that since you are always eventually heading back to your residence or place of sojourn it would be legal to have your firearm with you all the time. I'm pretty sure that's not how the law is interpreted, but I'd like to hear of any cases of prosecution or non-prosecution.
If I remember correctly, in the Baker case oral arguments the attorney for Baker claimed before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that if one was heading to the police station with a firearm for registration and made a turn onto another street not leading directly to the police station, that one had committed a class C felony (which implies the law means "directly, without deviation or stops at any other location").
-
I believe that much of the issue about making stops en route to an approved location stems from New Jersey's firearms transportation laws, where you cannot make ANY deviations. In NJ if you stop for gas, food, etc its an automatic felony. Considering how anti-gun this state is, I don't want to be the test case. While it doesn't say "directly between" in the HRS, it also doesn't say that you can make any intermediate stops between your home/sojourn and the approved locations. As usual, discretion is on the DA to press charges.
-
If that language does not mean "directly", then any number of stops or detours would be legal, including the fact that since you are always eventually heading back to your residence or place of sojourn it would be legal to have your firearm with you all the time. I'm pretty sure that's not how the law is interpreted, but I'd like to hear of any cases of prosecution or non-prosecution.
If I remember correctly, in the Baker case oral arguments the attorney for Baker claimed before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that if one was heading to the police station with a firearm for registration and made a turn onto another street not leading directly to the police station, that one had committed a class C felony (which implies the law means "directly, without deviation or stops at any other location").
Baker may have argued that point, but I don't believe the court either affirmed the interpretation or expanded on the courts immediate definition. As mentioned, other states (New Jersey) have language that is unambiguous about going directly between those places it is legal to have a firearm. In 2009 a man was arrested at LAX with several guns. He had a legal California "Assault weapon" and California has more strict laws on transporting an "assault weapon" saying that you cannot stop anywhere en route to your legal destination with said assault weapon. Long story short, he was aquitted of any charges related to transporting his "assault weapon."
The point being, that the statutory language isn't clear on whether or not it is legally permissible to stop while otherwise legally transporting firearms in Hawaii. The strict interpretation, IMHO, is that it does not. In reality, we know that at least one person was arrested at Ala Moana for having guns in his vehicle after visiting a range and I know of at least one instance where a police officer told a person carrying guns to stop and get gas because it would be worse to run out of gas than to stop....
-
I believe that much of the issue about making stops en route to an approved location stems from New Jersey's firearms transportation laws, where you cannot make ANY deviations. In NJ if you stop for gas, food, etc its an automatic felony. Considering how anti-gun this state is, I don't want to be the test case. While it doesn't say "directly between" in the HRS, it also doesn't say that you can make any intermediate stops between your home/sojourn and the approved locations. As usual, discretion is on the DA to press charges.
Sorry, if the statues are silent on a subject it is generally considered "legal." Therefore any attempt to discern meaning from a statue by what isn't written is a mistake. As an example, Vermont, which is a Constitutional Carry state, doesn't have a law that says it is OK for any legal possessor of a gun to carry it concealed or openly. There just isn't a law that addresses open or concealed carry, therefore it is legal. The same principle is true, at least for a short time, in Washington D.C. when the Court struck down the prohibition on carrying concealed firearms. Since the law was invalid there was no prohibition against carrying a concealed firearm, and therefore legal to do so.
-
The point being, that the statutory language isn't clear on whether or not it is legally permissible to stop while otherwise legally transporting firearms in Hawaii. The strict interpretation, IMHO, is that it does not. In reality, we know that at least one person was arrested at Ala Moana for having guns in his vehicle after visiting a range and I know of at least one instance where a police officer told a person carrying guns to stop and get gas because it would be worse to run out of gas than to stop....
What was the specific statute violation cited in the arrest? Was he prosecuted? Was he convicted? If so, what was the sentence? Just wondering if the state wanted to pull a Shaneen Allen and make a criminal example of an otherwise law-abiding citizen.
-
What was the specific statute violation cited in the arrest? Was he prosecuted? Was he convicted? If so, what was the sentence? Just wondering if the state wanted to pull a Shaneen Allen and make a criminal example of an otherwise law-abiding citizen.
The Ala Moana guy had his car broken into and his weapons stolen. I believe he was charged with 'place to keep' (class C Felony), I do not know what became of this case. Which is messed up, being a victim twice IMO... and they have no problem making you an example... again IMHO...
-
The Ala Moana guy had his car broken into and his weapons stolen. I believe he was charged with 'place to keep' (class C Felony), I do not know what became of this case. Which is messed up, being a victim twice IMO... and they have no problem making you an example... again IMHO...
I do believe there was a case in Kailua where someone stopped at a bar with his firearm in his truck. He was jumped by 3 people and tried to leave but they followed him to his car and outnumbered all he had was his firearm in the car and he shot or shot at the three people. He was arrested but prosecutors did not charge him as far as I know. I don't know any details of this case I just heard about it so I am not sure.
Ok, this seems to be the case but it does not say whether he was tried or not.
http://archives.starbulletin.com/2003/10/30/news/briefs.html (http://archives.starbulletin.com/2003/10/30/news/briefs.html)
-
I do believe there was a case in Kailua where someone stopped at a bar with his firearm in his truck. He was jumped by 3 people and tried to leave but they followed him to his car and outnumbered all he had was his firearm in the car and he shot or shot at the three people. He was arrested but prosecutors did not charge him as far as I know. I don't know any details of this case I just heard about it so I am not sure.
Ok, this seems to be the case but it does not say whether he was tried or not.
http://archives.starbulletin.com/2003/10/30/news/briefs.html (http://archives.starbulletin.com/2003/10/30/news/briefs.html)
Thanks for that info. :shaka:
He was tried. He was convicted of "Place to Keep Pistol or Revolver (Count V)". He appealed the conviction and lost the appeal (http://www.state.hi.us/jud/opinions/ica/2006/ica26831sdo.htm (http://www.state.hi.us/jud/opinions/ica/2006/ica26831sdo.htm)). This is based upon "Hawaii Revised Statutes 134-25 – Place to keep pistol or revolver; penalty" which states "(b) Any person violating this section by carrying or possessing a loaded or unloaded pistol or revolver shall be guilty of a class B felony." He apparently wasn't convicted of the other charges (attempted murder, etc.). Using a Google search I couldn't find anything about the actual trial or briefs, etc. Maybe it's available on some Hawaii state judicial website.
I'm still interested in whether or not there have been arrests and/or prosecutions for merely having properly stored firearms off the direct route to/from one of the approved destinations, as opposed to cases of theft or other crimes involving firearms that happened to be off route.
I'd be very hesitant to be a test case... rather make sure that no firearm case is visible in the vehicle if I ever needed to make a "detour" for any reason. And, of course, I wouldn't do that unless it was an "emergency".
-
Thanks for that info. :shaka:
He was tried. He was convicted of "Place to Keep Pistol or Revolver (Count V)". He appealed the conviction and lost the appeal (http://www.state.hi.us/jud/opinions/ica/2006/ica26831sdo.htm (http://www.state.hi.us/jud/opinions/ica/2006/ica26831sdo.htm)). This is based upon "Hawaii Revised Statutes 134-25 – Place to keep pistol or revolver; penalty" which states "(b) Any person violating this section by carrying or possessing a loaded or unloaded pistol or revolver shall be guilty of a class B felony." He apparently wasn't convicted of the other charges (attempted murder, etc.). Using a Google search I couldn't find anything about the actual trial or briefs, etc. Maybe it's available on some Hawaii state judicial website.
I'm still interested in whether or not there have been arrests and/or prosecutions for merely having properly stored firearms off the direct route to/from one of the approved destinations, as opposed to cases of theft or other crimes involving firearms that happened to be off route.
I'd be very hesitant to be a test case... rather make sure that no firearm case is visible in the vehicle if I ever needed to make a "detour" for any reason. And, of course, I wouldn't do that unless it was an "emergency".
I don't know of any other cases where an otherwise legally stowed firearm taken off the direct path from an approved place to another approved place resulted criminal charges. Like you said, I don't want to be the test case....
-
If that language does not mean "directly", then any number of stops or detours would be legal, including the fact that since you are always eventually heading back to your residence or place of sojourn it would be legal to have your firearm with you all the time. I'm pretty sure that's not how the law is interpreted, but I'd like to hear of any cases of prosecution or non-prosecution.
If I remember correctly, in the Baker case oral arguments the attorney for Baker claimed before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that if one was heading to the police station with a firearm for registration and made a turn onto another street not leading directly to the police station, that one had committed a class C felony (which implies the law means "directly, without deviation or stops at any other location").
One fella had his vehicle broken into at Ala Moana, pistols stolen and shotgun.. charged with multiple felonies on places to keep violation. This affirmed our teaching on don't stop with your guns. Another instance man got caught at a gas station with a gun, failed on a defense of evils (some dude was threatening him, so he was packing). Busted with gun - felony charges stuck.
I haven't seen a CCW charge yet, but I've seen a bunch of place to keep violations in the databases.
-
Really thinking out of the box, theoretically you could claim federal peaceable journey laws if you own a boat capable of transiting to another state or have it in the appropriate TSA-compliant hard case + a carryon bag. Most people don't do it anymore, but you can in fact just show up and buy a ticket.
Naturally this is far more believable on the mainland - just claim you're driving to another state. Obviously for any substantial distance it's impossible/unsafe to not stop at some point.
-
D.C. Mayor clarifies "gray area"... just as we suspected...
D.C. leaders will propose ‘concealed carry’ law to address federal judge’s gun ruling
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/dc-leaders-will-propose-concealed-carry-law-to-address-federal-judges-gun-ruling/2014/09/17/8ccf2636-3df6-11e4-b0ea-8141703bbf6f_story.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/dc-leaders-will-propose-concealed-carry-law-to-address-federal-judges-gun-ruling/2014/09/17/8ccf2636-3df6-11e4-b0ea-8141703bbf6f_story.html)
Some excerpts:
The bill, modeled on laws enacted in New York, New Jersey and Maryland, will allow District residents who own registered handguns and nonresidents who have state-issued gun-carrying licenses to apply to D.C. police for permits.
The wearing of a holstered weapon in public view would not be allowed under the proposed law, [Council member] Mendelson said.
D.C. Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier would issue permits to carry weapons under the new regulations, and applicants would have to demonstrate that they require a firearm because of a specific danger. [Sound familiar? Basically what Peruta determined to be unconstitutional... known in Hawaii as "an exceptional case".]
“I happen to be one who does not support people walking around with guns — concealed or otherwise,” he [the mayor] said.
Applicants who are denied licenses could appeal the chief’’s decision to a five-member review board appointed by the mayor. [Seriously, you couldn't make this stuff up for a movie/television show script and have anyone think it was "realistic"...]
..........
As I remarked in the opening statement of this thread, I suspect this is the same strategy that Hawaii will use when/if CCW if forced upon the state by the courts. I thought "a right delayed is a right denied".
-
Several updated quotes from the past couple of days regarding the new "may issue" law for D.C. requiring "specific need" (apparently REALLY specific AND documented). I wonder if the result will be the same as here in Hawaii where the "exceptional case" requirement has resulted in 0 (zero) citizens being granted government permission to defend themselves outside their home or businesses with the weapon of their choosing? I bet even D.C. will kindly allow more people than Hawaii to exercise their right of self-defense. Though begrudgingly issuing one or two permits to wealtly political donors isn't really that much of an achievement.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/09/robert-farago/d-c-concealed-carry-law-living-high-crime-neighborhood-sufficient-reason-obtain-permit/ (http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/09/robert-farago/d-c-concealed-carry-law-living-high-crime-neighborhood-sufficient-reason-obtain-permit/)
The District is seeking to let the police chief decide whether people have a reason to carry a concealed firearm, and officials said living in a high-crime neighborhood would not be a sufficient reason to obtain a permit. People who’ve received death threats or have been the victims of domestic violence are among those who could be granted permits. [Perhaps if the death threat is carried out and you are dead they will then grant you the permit. Dead people do vote in D.C., so why not dead people with CCW?]
“It has to be personalized. It has to be something specific,” D.C. Attorney General Irvin Nathan said.
*****
Alan Gura, an attorney for plaintiffs in the lawsuit, said the proposal did not comply with the judge’s order.
“In America, the police don’t determine what rights we have good reason to enjoy,” Gura said. “You don’t need a good reason to speak, to worship, to vote or to carry a gun for self-defense.”
-
I wonder if a pistol round fired through your front window is enough evidence to justify CCW in these states that require a verifiable threat?
I see a potential self-employment opportunity!!
We'll provide enough evidence of stalking with intent to cause harm as is required by law to obtain a CCW.
-- Harassing phone calls at all hours for phone bill evidence
-- Vandalized home and car
-- Pre-fired bullets with authentic-looking bullet holes in windows
-- Private session to inflict physical evidence of violence:
--- Intense enough to be documented by a physician
--- Safe enough to avoid lingering pain or long term scarring
--- Pain killers available in advance for a more comfortable experience (additional fees apply)
We have contractors able to repair windows, car paint damage, flat tires, damaged mailboxes and other miscellaneous "vandal-caused" damages and at very competitive prices.
With advanced notice, replacement window panes can be ordered and ready to install the same day of your police report.
Contact us for references and photocopies of actual CCW licenses issued!
Ask about our family discount!
:D
-
I'd like to see the judges be the first to drop off their ccw applications with the police chief. With the justification "because I can"
-
Several updated quotes from the past couple of days regarding the new "may issue" law for D.C. requiring "specific need" (apparently REALLY specific AND documented). I wonder if the result will be the same as here in Hawaii where the "exceptional case" requirement has resulted in 0 (zero) citizens being granted government permission to defend themselves outside their home or businesses with the weapon of their choosing? I bet even D.C. will kindly allow more people than Hawaii to exercise their right of self-defense. Though begrudgingly issuing one or two permits to wealtly political donors isn't really that much of an achievement.
“In America, the police don’t determine what rights we have good reason to enjoy,” Gura said. “You don’t need a good reason to speak, to worship, to vote or to carry a gun for self-defense.”
Please, don't exaggerate. There have been 4 CCW permits issued in Hawaii since 2000, the year the AG started providing the yearly firearms reports. I mean really, how many people actually need an effective means of self-defense here in the idyllic, crime free paradise we call home?? [Do I need a sarcasm icon here?]
-
Please, don't exaggerate. There have been 4 CCW permits issued in Hawaii since 2000, the year the AG started providing the yearly firearms reports. I mean really, how many people actually need an effective means of self-defense here in the idyllic, crime free paradise we call home?? [Do I need a sarcasm icon here?]
Are those four (4) permits currently active? Do you happen to know which island(s) issued those permits? Any information on the particular "exceptional circumstances" that warranted issuing the licenses in those cases? Was one of those the Kauai court-ordered 6 month temporary issuance?
I've based my zero (0) statement on the Government Accountability Office (GAO) report of July 2012: GUN CONTROL: States’ Laws and Requirements for Concealed Carry Permits Vary across the Nation; Report to Congressional Requesters, July 2012, GAO-12-717, (http://www.gao.gov/assets/600/592552.pdf (http://www.gao.gov/assets/600/592552.pdf)) wherein the chart showing the numbers of currently active permits (resident and nonresident) for the various states shows Hawaii at zero (0) across the board. There is a note stating that two of the counties failed to provide information, so maybe those two went rogue and provided licenses to politically-connected big donors people with a genuine "exceptional case" requiring possible self-defense with a firearm outside their home or business. I kinda doubt it though. I'm sticking with zero currently active CCW licenses until I see proof otherwise. I'd like to see some, and I'd like to talk to those licensees.
As for sarcasm, how could one view the situation in this state, with plenty of crime and crime victims, yet a system ("our" government) that refuses to recognize their, and our, right to bear arms for self-defense, and not be sarcastic? It's either that or weep.
-
Are those four (4) permits currently active? Do you happen to know which island(s) issued those permits? Any information on the particular "exceptional circumstances" that warranted issuing the licenses in those cases? Was one of those the Kauai court-ordered 6 month temporary issuance?
I've based my zero (0) statement on the Government Accountability Office (GAO) report of July 2012: GUN CONTROL: States’ Laws and Requirements for Concealed Carry Permits Vary across the Nation; Report to Congressional Requesters, July 2012, GAO-12-717, (http://www.gao.gov/assets/600/592552.pdf (http://www.gao.gov/assets/600/592552.pdf)) wherein the chart showing the numbers of currently active permits (resident and nonresident) for the various states shows Hawaii at zero (0) across the board. There is a note stating that two of the counties failed to provide information, so maybe those two went rogue and provided licenses to politically-connected big donors people with a genuine "exceptional case" requiring possible self-defense with a firearm outside their home or business. I kinda doubt it though. I'm sticking with zero currently active CCW licenses until I see proof otherwise. I'd like to see some, and I'd like to talk to those licensees.
As for sarcasm, how could one view the situation in this state, with plenty of crime and crime victims, yet a system ("our" government) that refuses to recognize their, and our, right to bear arms for self-defense, and not be sarcastic? It's either that or weep.
Side question. You say you want to talk to those licensees people, those that have a current permit.
Do you think it should be public information who has a ccw license, a database, public information?
When you get your ccw license, will you be ok being put on a list, database, and be public record/information?
-
Side question. You say you want to talk to those licensees people, those that have a current permit.
Do you think it should be public information who has a ccw license, a database, public information?
When you get your ccw license, will you be ok being put on a list, database, and be public record/information?
All information about CCW licensees, as with the information about all firearm registrees, ought, IMHO, to be kept in the highest security circumstance possible.
The only way I'd be able to talk with such licensees (if there are any) would be 1. if they came forward publicly to tell their story, or 2. if they could/would communicate anonymously via some secure method.
I don't expect to be talking to anyone.
By the way, IF there were four (4) CCW licensees of one duration or another issued in Hawaii in the past 14 years, then apparently (since I'm sure we would have heard about it had one of the four committed a gun crime) we can add those four (4) CCW licensees to the list of 13 million law-abiding American citizens in other states that have had CCW licenses in the past 20 years and have exhibited a far lower than average (or even LEO) crime rate.
-
Thanks for the clarification
-
All information about CCW licensees, as with the information about all firearm registrees, ought, IMHO, to be kept in the highest security circumstance possible.
The only way I'd be able to talk with such licensees (if there are any) would be 1. if they came forward publicly to tell their story, or 2. if they could/would communicate anonymously via some secure method.
I don't expect to be talking to anyone.
By the way, IF there were four (4) CCW licensees of one duration or another issued in Hawaii in the past 14 years, then apparently (since I'm sure we would have heard about it had one of the four committed a gun crime) we can add those four (4) CCW licensees to the list of 13 million law-abiding American citizens in other states that have had CCW licenses in the past 20 years and have exhibited a far lower than average (or even LEO) crime rate.
Technically, non-personally identifying information would be obtainable under the UIPA requests. You would have to be willing to sue though; this is based on my experience in just obtaining the CCW / gun permit forms. We had to get the ACLU involved just to get two counties to produce those documents alone.
-
Are those four (4) permits currently active? Do you happen to know which island(s) issued those permits? Any information on the particular "exceptional circumstances" that warranted issuing the licenses in those cases? Was one of those the Kauai court-ordered 6 month temporary issuance?
I've based my zero (0) statement on the Government Accountability Office (GAO) report of July 2012: GUN CONTROL: States’ Laws and Requirements for Concealed Carry Permits Vary across the Nation; Report to Congressional Requesters, July 2012, GAO-12-717, (http://www.gao.gov/assets/600/592552.pdf (http://www.gao.gov/assets/600/592552.pdf)) wherein the chart showing the numbers of currently active permits (resident and nonresident) for the various states shows Hawaii at zero (0) across the board. There is a note stating that two of the counties failed to provide information, so maybe those two went rogue and provided licenses to politically-connected big donors people with a genuine "exceptional case" requiring possible self-defense with a firearm outside their home or business. I kinda doubt it though. I'm sticking with zero currently active CCW licenses until I see proof otherwise. I'd like to see some, and I'd like to talk to those licensees.
As for sarcasm, how could one view the situation in this state, with plenty of crime and crime victims, yet a system ("our" government) that refuses to recognize their, and our, right to bear arms for self-defense, and not be sarcastic? It's either that or weep.
I don't know if the permits are "active" as the AG report does not include that factoid. The fourth permit was issued in 2013 so there is a possibility it is still within the original 1 year term. Two of the permits were Oahu and two were Kauai (if my memory is correct...you can go back thru the AG's reports to confirm if needed). As for the circumstances that led the respective Chiefs to determine those applicants had met the "exceptional need" criteria, again, the AG's report does not elaborate so I don't know.
-
From the D.C. Council discussion of the "may issue if you meet our almost unmeetable standard of necessity/good cause" law.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/09/23/it-likely-wont-shock-you-to-know-d-c-lawmaker-feels-this-way-about-gun-owners-but-the-fact-that-she-said-it-out-loud-just-might/ (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/09/23/it-likely-wont-shock-you-to-know-d-c-lawmaker-feels-this-way-about-gun-owners-but-the-fact-that-she-said-it-out-loud-just-might/)
D.C. Lawmaker Makes Shockingly Blunt Comments About Gun Owners at Council Meeting
Speaking in support of a proposed amendment that would create a public database of concealed carry permit holders, councilwoman Yvette Alexander (D-Ward 7) made her feelings on gun owners very clear.
“Who cares about the confidentiality of a gun owner? We don’t want it, so expose yourself,” she said, according to the DCist.
* * * * *
By "we" I presume she means herself and the other elitist statist members of the D.C. council that believe gun owners really don't have a right to own a gun, much less carry one concealed in public. By "it" I believe she is referring not only to CCW, but actual mere ownership of a firearm. She believes that having these CCW and ownership records open to the public would pose no problems, including the possibility that stalkers or domestic abusers could find the new addresses of their potential victims, or that such addresses (CCW and/or owners) could be targeted for burglaries. I wonder if that public revelation of ownership/CCW will apply to all security personnel and law enforcement in D.C.? I bet she makes an "exemption" for them, and herself and her cronies. (Another politician arguing for making public such information asked what the problem could be with making such information public. When someone tweeted back for her to make her home address public, she refused. Go figure.) Her comments are chillingly similar to those of the Moms Demand Action member mentioned on another thread today echoing Goebbels' words re "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear". Our "betters" at work, for us, "serving" the public.
(http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/image1.jpg)