Post by: Funtimes on August 24, 2011, 07:28:04 AM
NEWS RELEASE
Hawaii Defense Foundation
P.O. Box #1798 Aiea, Hawaii 96817
(808) 664-1827 Fax: 808-748-3376
Hawaii Defense Foundation
P.O. Box #1798 Aiea, Hawaii 96817
(808) 664-1827 Fax: 808-748-3376
For Immediate Release: 8/23/2011
Honolulu, HI – The Hawaii Defense Foundation's founding director and president, Christopher Baker, has filed a lawsuit against Honolulu Chief of Police Louis Kealoha, the Honolulu Police Department, the City and County of Honolulu, the State of Hawaii, and Governor Neil Abercrombie in connection with civil rights violations of the Second and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.
The complaint filed in the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii by attorneys Richard Holcomb, Alan Beck, and Kevin O'Grady alleges that Hawaii's license to carry statute and various other firearm regulations are unconstitutional. State law mandates that citizens may be provided licenses to carry only in "exceptional circumstance" or "where a need or urgency has been sufficiently indicated," all at the discretion of the county's Chief of Police. The complaint asserts that this language violates the Second Amendment, which secures the right of all responsible, law-abiding citizens to bear arms for the purpose of self-defense. Additionally, the complaint also addresses the use of non-lethal tools for self-defense such as electric guns, which are banned in in Hawaii.
"The Second Amendment protects the right to self-defense. Everyday around the islands good people are robbed, assaulted, raped, or in the worst cases murdered. It's simply a matter of physics, the Police can't be everywhere to stop criminals from committing violent acts. We must be allowed to carry the tools that give us a chance to protect ourselves from harm," says Chris Baker. "We want criminals to have to think about the consequences of attacking someone," he continued, "but right now, nothing serves as a deterrent to them - the odds are in their favor."
Hawaii Defense Foundation (www.TheHDF.org (http://www.TheHDF.org)) is a domestic not-for-profit corporation based in Honolulu, Hawaii. The Foundation serves the community by providing various services, such as: legal defense of civil rights, educational courses on firearm safety, self-defense training, and life saving techniques – such as first aid and CPR. The Foundation has many supporters and members across the State of Hawaii.
If you would like to show your support or are looking for additional information please contact the Foundation's Secretary, Erica Castillo, at (808) 664-1827 or info(at)hawaiidefensefoundation.org.
###
Copy of the complaint can be found:
http://www.hawaiidefensefoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/CV11-00513SOM-RLP.pdf (http://www.hawaiidefensefoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/CV11-00513SOM-RLP.pdf)
Copy of the press release:
http://www.hawaiidefensefoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Lawsuit-Press-Release.pdf (http://www.hawaiidefensefoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Lawsuit-Press-Release.pdf)
6/26/2012 Appeals Brief Filed with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals:
Appeals brief filed with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Appellant Brief File Copy 065 (http://www.scribd.com/doc/98399297/Appellant-Brief-File-Copy-065#)
http://www.hawaiidefensefoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Appellant-Brief-File-Copy-065.pdf (http://www.hawaiidefensefoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Appellant-Brief-File-Copy-065.pdf)
Post by: Kingkeoni on August 24, 2011, 07:45:00 AM
Its about time someone stepped up and put their proverbial "money where their mouth is"
Thank you.
Post by: antoinebugleboy on August 24, 2011, 09:06:11 AM
Post by: peregrine on August 24, 2011, 09:40:34 AM
I really hope and pray these attorneys have everything lined up.
My google FU has shown
K. O'grady
http://www.criminalandmilitarydefensehawaii.com/ (http://www.criminalandmilitarydefensehawaii.com/)
R. Holcomb
http://www.honoluluduilawyeronline.com/ (http://www.honoluluduilawyeronline.com/)
Post by: stegosaurus on August 24, 2011, 09:54:08 AM
P.S. Any media coverage on this?
Post by: Dregs on August 24, 2011, 03:13:35 PM
Post by: Vladimir on August 24, 2011, 03:50:53 PM
Post by: BananaClip on August 24, 2011, 05:13:54 PM
Post by: HiCarry on August 24, 2011, 05:36:17 PM
Post by: Cougar8045 on August 24, 2011, 08:10:02 PM
Way to go Chris....all that hard work prepping has paid off....IANAL but I have to admit I enjoyed reading your complaint and believe (for whatever that's worth...) that it was well written and convincing. Good Luck!^^^This.^^^
Chris, you're the man, and win or lose, we all owe you a lot!
Post by: vooduchikn on August 24, 2011, 08:22:20 PM
Way to go Chris....all that hard work prepping has paid off....IANAL but I have to admit I enjoyed reading your complaint and believe (for whatever that's worth...) that it was well written and convincing. Good Luck!^^^This.^^^
Chris, you're the man, and win or lose, we all owe you a lot!
Glad to see this happen. Patiently awaiting the outcome. Good job. Keep us up to speed.
No wonder i haven't heard hide nor hair from you in a while. Don't worry, your Dillon is safe with me.
(http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSQbjMfNXc0XbN2ie1FTRTYvUtCvpng2BfFHqB4JRHY5ypwHLfNsg)
Go about your business. This is not the reloader you are looking for... >:D
Post by: Funtimes on August 24, 2011, 09:31:37 PM
Post by: vooduchikn on August 24, 2011, 10:10:22 PM
I've been so slammed man. I slept two nights in front of my computer chair, never even saw my bedroom :(.
Get some rest man. You got a bunch of people behind you.
Time to reload soon, so you need to be rested. Sweat shop style reloading the night before the shoot is old policy! We are making ammo, not ADIDAS.
See you soon. Good luck Brother!
Post by: BMWRider on August 24, 2011, 10:19:42 PM
Post by: Funtimes on August 25, 2011, 12:35:36 AM
If you can't donate, please refer people to us for firearms training. I volunteer my time and the proceeds go towards legal funds and materials.
Post by: Heavies on August 25, 2011, 03:50:28 AM
You are one of those guys that lead folks to victory! Thank you for all your hard work and enthusiasm!
My prayers are with us on this one, I hope change can take effect here in Hawaii.
With all of the new firearm owners cropping up, there should be no problem getting support for the cause.
:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Donation inbound!! ;)
Post by: MisterEd on August 26, 2011, 07:02:21 AM
Just joined HDF, my check will go out in today's mail.
Thank you Chris, as well as O'Grady, & Holcomb for your efforts.
:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
aloha,
Ed
Post by: MisterEd on August 26, 2011, 07:04:29 AM
Ed
Post by: tuor on August 26, 2011, 08:54:57 AM
...so it begins..
/Gandalf
Thank you Funtimes and team, I'm anxiously looking forward to this.
Post by: Jaydawg on August 27, 2011, 02:06:24 AM
Thanks, Chris, for being the tip of the spear. Good luck and God Bless.
Post by: Heavies on August 27, 2011, 04:17:06 AM
Is the NRA affording any assistance to this?
Post by: Funtimes on August 27, 2011, 05:56:12 AM
How is media coverage on this?
Is the NRA affording any assistance to this?
Media Coverage outside of Hawaii is fairly good, especially on gun forums.
NRA = Not Really Assisting (with anything), which was expected.
The most gut wrenching fact is that we actually have received more support from off the island, then from within it. There are people here who support (and I am greatly thankful!), but they are very few and far between. I
Post by: pj_benn on August 27, 2011, 06:36:49 AM
Post by: Funtimes on August 27, 2011, 07:28:55 AM
Awesome stuff. I think theres more local support than it seems.
Let me know what rock to look under :) I will be happy to venture that way.
Post by: 2aHawaii on August 27, 2011, 11:01:42 AM
http://www.kitv.com/news/28983145/detail.html (http://www.kitv.com/news/28983145/detail.html)
Post by: vooduchikn on August 27, 2011, 01:23:06 PM
KITV had some coverage on the suit. There is some video and there are quite a few comments there and I've seen a few of you posting :)
http://www.kitv.com/news/28983145/detail.html (http://www.kitv.com/news/28983145/detail.html)
Sad how many mis-informed folks are posting on that article.
I love that a couple have to throw the "mainlander" card and make it look like this is people coming to Hawaii that want this....
There are some not so bright folks on there.
Post by: Cougar8045 on August 27, 2011, 02:22:43 PM
True story. As if human rights were restricted only to certain groups. Not to mention that the history of gun control is profoundly racist. The truly comical thing is, they want to keep "their" gun control laws, but gun control was designed by "mainlanders" (white folks) to keep guns out of the hands of brown people. (i.e. Hawaiians, Indians, blacks, etc.) "I demand that the white man keep on keeping us down! Damn haoles!"KITV had some coverage on the suit. There is some video and there are quite a few comments there and I've seen a few of you posting :)
http://www.kitv.com/news/28983145/detail.html (http://www.kitv.com/news/28983145/detail.html)
Sad how many mis-informed folks are posting on that article.
I love that a couple have to throw the "mainlander" card and make it look like this is people coming to Hawaii that want this....
There are some not so bright folks on there.
Post by: Vladimir on August 27, 2011, 04:21:02 PM
Post by: Heavies on August 27, 2011, 05:14:48 PM
Where and how can we donate?
http://www.hawaiidefensefoundation.org/ (http://www.hawaiidefensefoundation.org/)
Post by: Vladimir on August 27, 2011, 05:26:25 PM
Where and how can we donate?
http://www.hawaiidefensefoundation.org/ (http://www.hawaiidefensefoundation.org/)
Donated! It's not much but every little bit counts. Working part-time with bills and tuition fees sucks but sacrifices for a greater goal in the long run, much like this 2nd Amendment fight!
Post by: Funtimes on August 27, 2011, 06:45:35 PM
Post by: Kingkeoni on August 27, 2011, 08:40:50 PM
Thank you.
If I've already said it then thank you again.
Post by: Sgt.CUSMC on August 28, 2011, 03:46:44 PM
I joined HDF, and donated....as I'm on Hawaii Island, I wait with baited breath to see the results of the suit.
When (not IF), when HDF is successful, it stands to reason the other islands should also be "next in line" for HDF legal action. Does anyone know (or have an opinion) if HDF is concurrently moving forward on the outer islands? or going to wait until the Honolulu suit is settled?
My manao is to file at all counties within a short timeframe as each Chief of Police has the decision making power. Who knows, Maui and Hawaii Island might be "easier" given the number of hunters we have with permits, etc. Firearms are seen differently in rural areas compared to urban.
Where do we get statisitics (HPD, FBI, etc) covering violent crimes against persons, property, etc. that is broken down by respective counties?
Aloha, and Semper Fi,
Frank/ SgtCUSMC
Post by: Funtimes on August 28, 2011, 04:09:05 PM
This case will bind ALL counties of Hawaii. There is only one district court; rest assured, when we win -- all counties will comply.
Post by: antoinebugleboy on August 28, 2011, 04:44:52 PM
Post by: Heavies on August 28, 2011, 05:54:57 PM
Our friends in the mainland are posting this up on forums. If other forums you frequent do not have the issue posted link them up and ask for support! It's gonna take lots of time, money, and effort.
I couldn't thank Funtimes and all in the HDF enough for their efforts in this endeavor.
Post by: 230RN on August 29, 2011, 12:16:17 AM
Quote
By maintaining and enforcing a set of customs,
practices, and policies arbitrarily denying Mr. Baker̢۪s
permit to carry handguns based on a subjective
determination of their “an exceptional case†for the
permit, Defendants are propagating customs,
policies, and practices that violate Mr. Baker's rights
to equal protection of the laws under the Second a
nd Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution,
(Sample of this oft-used language, from paragraph
97 of the Complaint. Boldface mine.)
Aren't there criminal penalties for civil rights violations? Is there a possibility that the Chief and the Governor could be thrown in the hoosegow at some point? Serious question!
Cougar8045 pointed out:
Quote
Not to mention that the history of gun control is profoundly racist. The truly comical thing is, they want to keep "their" gun control laws, but gun control was designed by "mainlanders" (white folks) to keep guns out of the hands of brown people. (i.e. Hawaiians, Indians, blacks, etc.) "I demand that the white man keep on keeping us down! Damn haoles!"
This fact, while well-known in the firearms community, ought to be ditributed far and wide in your islands. Here's a sample:
http://www.lizmichael.com/racistgc.htm (http://www.lizmichael.com/racistgc.htm)
More articles on the racist aspects of gun control abound.
I believe, way back in English history, there were examples of Protestants not allowing Catholics to be armed (or the other way around). So it's not a new or even US phenomenon.
Terry, "haole," 230RN
ETA: What's Hawaiian for "jail" or "hoosegow?"
Post by: Armaggeddon_Armory on August 29, 2011, 01:49:56 PM
Aren't there criminal penalties for civil rights violations? Is there a possibility that the Chief and the Governor could be thrown in the hoosegow at some point? Serious question!
Yeah, if it were you or I, we would be locked away for years for violating someone else's civil rights, in this case, both aforementioned fat heads are only doing what they deem best for the overall good of the United States, and that good specifically is enabling the criminals and the goverment to unite. ::)
Post by: Vladimir on August 29, 2011, 08:24:49 PM
Hawaii Government Sued Over Restrictive Firearms Laws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMJjTtm2eaE#ws)
Post by: Funtimes on August 29, 2011, 09:55:25 PM
Post by: 230RN on August 30, 2011, 05:12:28 AM
Post by: Dregs on August 30, 2011, 03:51:23 PM
No criminal penalties, but there are civil ones. Now, if the violation is like abuse or brutality then yeah. But, for just the purposes of denying a right, you can seek vindication via $$$.
As someone not directly footing the bill, I'd rather see vindication with (http://www.easyfreesmileys.com/smileys/free-sad-smileys-211.gif) (http://www.easyfreesmileys.com/skype-emoticons.html)
For ANYONE that thinks taking away law-abiding people's rights is not only their duty, but their right.
Just a litto ol fantasy of mine :thumbsup:
Post by: Heavies on August 31, 2011, 06:18:17 AM
Suprizingly, there was just facts reported in the short artical, and no anti-gun propaganda. Very nice!
http://www.staradvertiser.com/newspremium/20110831_Suit_targets_police_chief_for_denying_gun_permit.html (http://www.staradvertiser.com/newspremium/20110831_Suit_targets_police_chief_for_denying_gun_permit.html)
Post by: Cougar8045 on August 31, 2011, 11:46:34 AM
Post by: vooduchikn on August 31, 2011, 01:58:09 PM
It was pretty good. I like it that HPD continues to refuse to make any comment on this; I guess they're thinking if they just ignore it, it will go away. Fat chance! :popcorn: :popcorn: The less they say, the more we can help change public opinion, since there's nobody arguing the opposition's point of view.
They have probably been advised by counsel to not comment.
Can someone with a login PM me the entire article. It wants me to login...not paying for another access that I will rarely use. Thanks.
Post by: Funtimes on August 31, 2011, 03:49:18 PM
Apparently, I am some raging lunatic, who knows nothing about laws, and will just shoot everyone that moves. ::)
Post by: Heavies on August 31, 2011, 03:55:24 PM
Covering the case right now, amongst the other stories of today.
Not sure if he is pro or not. ???
Post by: Colt808 on August 31, 2011, 03:59:35 PM
I see that Funtimes has made the front page of section B in today's Staradvertiser. :worship: Cool.
Suprizingly, there was just facts reported in the short artical, and no anti-gun propaganda. Very nice!
http://www.staradvertiser.com/newspremium/20110831_Suit_targets_police_chief_for_denying_gun_permit.html (http://www.staradvertiser.com/newspremium/20110831_Suit_targets_police_chief_for_denying_gun_permit.html)
I think what IS surprising would be how it took so long to report.
The comments on there are worth 1 dollar to read. I'd say just do it and have some fun for 24 hours :P.
Apparently, I am some raging lunatic, who knows nothing about laws, and will just shoot everyone that moves. ::)
Possibly, but they just don't know you.
NOTE: Those who have a subscription to the daily paper can access without paying anything extra to read/make comments. BUT I think it's important that people don't start going into "attack mode" towards those ignorant comments. It'd only be used to fuel their argument. :thumbsup:
Post by: Heavies on August 31, 2011, 04:48:29 PM
He talked about it for 3 min. , then switched the subject to bitching about Waikiki.
Must be a topic too hot for him to handle. ::)
Post by: Heavies on August 31, 2011, 04:53:59 PM
Quote
The comments on there are worth 1 dollar to read. I'd say just do it and have some fun for 24 hours .
I just noticed that. When did they start charging for Internet reads??
Oh well. Sorry but I refuse to support their biased propaganda pamphlet. :grrr:
I usually just skim someone's paper at work when I think something interesting is in there. :P
Post by: MisterEd on September 01, 2011, 10:01:38 AM
There's a nice write-up about the lawsuit in the Armed Citizen's Network September journal.
http://www.armedcitizensnetwork.org/images/stories/journal/Network_2011-9.pdf (http://www.armedcitizensnetwork.org/images/stories/journal/Network_2011-9.pdf)
The article starts on page 8
aloha,
Mister Ed < of course^2 >
Post by: Funtimes on September 01, 2011, 09:00:50 PM
Post by: Cougar8045 on September 01, 2011, 09:28:21 PM
Post by: Dregs on September 01, 2011, 09:52:26 PM
I'll be a millionaire.
Post by: Echo5Alpha on September 01, 2011, 10:34:17 PM
Post by: Funtimes on September 02, 2011, 12:02:39 AM
Post by: RKBA on September 02, 2011, 02:59:52 PM
Just wanted to inform everyone that in today's Star Advertiser there was a letter to the editor thanking Chief Kealoha for "not allowing another concealed carry gun on
the island." The author then states that Chris should, "take a self defense course or maybe find a new line of work if he fears for his life." Best part is the author is writing from Forestville, California which means he's not affected by any of our laws in the first place. I don't know what the COC is here so I'm not going to post the entire letter, but you can read it in its entirety at the Star Advertiser's website without logging on at:
http://www.staradvertiser.com/s?action=login&f=y&id=129019373 (http://www.staradvertiser.com/s?action=login&f=y&id=129019373)
The reason I'm pointing this out is this type of letter needs a response. Public perception can easily be swayed and my concern is a lack of response might be misinterpreted as minimal support on the pro 2A side. So if you have the time, I encourage you to join me and write the Star Advertiser with a rational and factual response to the claims of the letter writer. If we can get enough of them printed, it might make the community (and hopefully politicians) realize that the pro 2A
community in Hawaii is not limited to 3 or 4 people.
Lastly, I don't post on any forums and this is all new to me so I apologize if I broke any rules, didn't follow protocol, the COC, etc... Thanks :thumbsup:
Post by: Kingkeoni on September 02, 2011, 03:15:54 PM
But your link doesn't work...
Post by: 2aHawaii on September 02, 2011, 03:19:10 PM
It looks like the Star Advertiser is doing something wonky with their links and won't allow you to direct link to their pages. For people looking for the letter on their site, it can be found under Editorials and Letters to the Editor from the menu bar on the site.
Actually let me just post the contents of the letter here since it is a letter:
Quote
I thank Police Chief Louis Kealoha for not allowing another concealed-carry gun on the island (“Suit targets police chief for denying gun permit,†Star-Advertiser, Aug. 31). Chris Baker from Mississippi wants a gun to protect his wife while on the job as a process server. I suggest he take a self-defense course or maybe find a new line of work if he fears for his life. There are enough guns on the island and the last thing we tourists need to see or hear about are civilians who are afraid to do their job without a gun in their hand. George Quarles Forestville, Calif
These kinds of letters are very annoying. It's just a "drive-by" posting by, as you mentioned, someone that doesn't even fall under our laws. I guess with all the attention this case has garnered, it's expected for people like that to come out of the woodwork. What's worse is this person lives in a state where, on some accounts, gun laws are even stricter.
Anyway, back to why I called it a "drive-by" posting. It is an emotionally charged response to something that someone doesn't like. It doesn't contain any facts and these types of people aren't even the types to look at the facts anyway. A well written response with facts and not just emotion would be a good counter.
This got me thinking about another thing, which is probably slightly off topic. How many people and what types of people actually log in to the Star Advertiser website.With their new pay model, I'm guessing their readership will drop a bunch. Maybe not, but who really knows.
Well, thanks again for joining and posting. We're happy to have you here :D
Post by: 808shooter on September 02, 2011, 05:47:00 PM
Why was there a published letter to the editor from a person not in Hawaii?
Post by: Funtimes on September 02, 2011, 07:02:50 PM
Post by: Jaydawg on September 02, 2011, 07:32:44 PM
Post by: Funtimes on September 02, 2011, 07:38:00 PM
Of course, we are the only state left of San Francisco and right of North Korea.
Post by: Cougar8045 on September 02, 2011, 08:22:23 PM
Mr. Quarles' letter to the editor (Hawaii Doesn't Need More Guns, Sep. 02) shows he has little understanding of the facts and personalities involved in Mr. Baker's lawsuit. It is my understanding that Mr. Baker has recieved plenty of self defense training, both from the Department of Defense, and privately. The suggestion that he find a new line of work implies that Mr. Quarles would prefer to let the whims of violent criminals dictate the actions of law-abiding citizens, and is patently absurd. Finally, all of us in Hawaii have a vested interest in keeping the island pristine to preserve the tourism-based economy, but allowing the lawful carry of firearms by the citizens of our state has little, if anything, to do with the influx of tourism. Shall-issue permit systems have become the norm across the country, and it's time for Chief Kealoha and the State Legislature to start recognizing the natural right of Hawaiians to defend themselves from criminal predators. Mr. Quarles' vacations are important to our economy, but not as important as the safety and security of those of us who live here full-time.
Sincerely,
Cougar
Post by: 2aHawaii on September 03, 2011, 03:16:42 AM
Post by: Cynt on September 06, 2011, 03:11:01 PM
I also want to give $1 for every "Don't Tread on Me' shirt sold on SurvivalHawaii from now till it's won. We don't sell a ton of shirts but i hope every little bit will help.
http://www.survivalhawaii.com/?p=619 (http://www.survivalhawaii.com/?p=619)
Post by: 230RN on September 06, 2011, 06:26:06 PM
Their attorneys have probably advised them that they're treading on thin ice by denying folks their natural rights... not to mention their specifically enumerated rights as protected by the Second Amendment.
"Why was there a published letter to the editor from a person not in Hawaii?"
Because the letter reflected their anti-gun position.
I wonder what would happen if I wrote a pro-gun one from here in Colorado.
Well, on second thought, I don't wonder. Round file for that one.
"These kinds of letters are very annoying. It's just a "drive-by" posting by, as you mentioned, someone that doesn't even fall under our laws."
If I may point this out, although I am not affected by your laws, either, I am passionately interested in your situation out there. See? Not all "do-gooder" types are anti gun. (http://gunrightsmedia.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif)
Terry, 230RN
ETA: Almost forgot: Welcome aboard, RKBA! Love that handle!
Post by: RKBA on September 07, 2011, 10:11:48 AM
Looks like they're printing some of our letters. The first pro 2A letter was printed in yesterday's paper. Here's the text:
License-to-carry law in Hawaii pointless
Why did the state Legislature even pass Hawaii Revised Statue 134-9, License to Carry? Was it just to appease those of us freedom-loving Americans who want to protect ourselves and our families (since the response time for a Level 1 call in Hawaii is seven minutes), or was it done just because almost every other state in the union has one? If the residents of Hawaii would just stand up as one and tell their elected employees that this is nonsense, and that they will be exercising their rights that are protected, not granted, by the United States and Hawaii constitutions, we sould save this state tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees.
DBS- Waialua
They also printed Cougar8045's letter posted above (although they did edit the letter and one of the sentences left out was Cougars closing statement, which I thought was a key point):
Isle residents have right to defend themselves
George Quarles shows he has little understanding of the facts and personalities involved (Hawaii Doesn't Need More Guns, Sep. 02) . The suggestion that Chris Baker find a new line of work implies that Mr. Quarles would prefer to let the whims of violent criminals dictate the actions of law-abiding citizens. This is patently adsurd. Additionally, all of us in Hawaii have a vested interest in keeping the island pristine to preserve the tourism-based economy, but allowing the lawful carry of firearms by the citizens of our state has little, if anything, to do with the influx of tourism. Shall-issue permit systems have become the norm across the country, and it's time for Chief Kealoha and the Legislature to start recognizing the natural right of Hawaii citizens to defend themselves from criminal predators.
Sincerely,
Cougar
All in all though, so far so good. Obviously they're not printing all the letters sent to them, but they're printing some and that in and of itself is positive news. A big Mahalo to everyone taking the time to support the cause. :thumbsup:
Post by: Cougar8045 on September 07, 2011, 10:28:22 AM
Post by: vooduchikn on September 07, 2011, 10:32:42 AM
If I can take fifteen minutes to hammer out a letter to the editor, see my name in the paper, and call it supporting the cause, I'm all for it! :thumbsup:
Is is an issue that they edited your letter before they published it? Seems shady and self serving to me.
Post by: Cougar8045 on September 07, 2011, 10:43:22 AM
Post by: vooduchikn on September 07, 2011, 11:06:07 AM
I'm not too concerned about it. Their guidelines say ~175 words, I sent them 186. They chopped it a little bit, but I feel like the editing was mostly for clarity, and removing the last sentence actually made the letter better, imo. The last sentence could be read as a little bit confrontational, and the rest of the editing was simple stuff like substituting "Honolulu Chief of Police Louis Kealoha" for "Chief Kealoha". The letter they printed accurately conveyed my sentiments, so it's all good.
Just checking.
Post by: Gordyf on September 12, 2011, 08:14:37 PM
Is That it???
No more interest on this topic after 7 Sept??
How about more on the plaintiff, the lawyers, when we might see this in court./
Where does the HRA stand? They have been kinda quiet. Has the NRA gotten involved?
GOA? SAF? My guess is that we could use this kind of horsepower.
This is a really big opportunity that must not be wasted.
The entire gun rights community needs to be behind it 100%
Post by: Cougar8045 on September 12, 2011, 09:16:38 PM
???The whole thing has kind of teleported over to HawaiiCCW's facebook group. The state's reply to Chris's lawsuit is due by the 21st of this month, and the hearing on the injunction request is as follows: NOTICE of Hearing on Plaintiff's MOTION for Preliminary Injunction set for Court Hearing on 1/17/2012 at 10:00 AM before JUDGE ALAN C KAY. (lls, ). There's been quite a bit of interest, but I think that it's been developing more on the facebook page, probably because facebook is a more dynamic platform for discussion and whatnot. PM me the email you use for your facebook and I'll add you to the group, so you can get updates in real-time.
Is That it???
No more interest on this topic after 7 Sept??
How about more on the plaintiff, the lawyers, when we might see this in court./
Where does the HRA stand? They have been kinda quiet. Has the NRA gotten involved?
GOA? SAF? My guess is that we could use this kind of horsepower.
This is a really big opportunity that must not be wasted.
The entire gun rights community needs to be behind it 100%
Post by: 2aHawaii on September 13, 2011, 03:34:10 AM
I'm anxiously awaiting the 21st. That's not even that far away.
Post by: Heavies on September 13, 2011, 05:26:39 AM
I do not use facebook. Or any other of the like.
Thanks for the updates.
I have got email updates from the HDF. Sign up for them at the HDF website, and also a reminder to support by donation if possible. :shaka:
Post by: HiCarry on September 13, 2011, 12:47:45 PM
Post by: Funtimes on September 13, 2011, 02:09:18 PM
I can help you with your security settings on facebook if you are worried about that. Things like Google + and Facebook are not going away anytime in the next 5-10 years at least. Embrace the change ;).
HRA and Life support all of these efforts so far. While I think initially there was some significant hesitation, I think they finally came around due to the relationships Bill and I have developed. In fact, I met with the HRA President just last week for some super secret squirel stuff ;).
Post by: Gordyf on September 13, 2011, 07:11:19 PM
Death by apathy.
I feel much better now that I have some background, and that the HRA is behind this.
I will be following closely and a donation will be forthcoming.
Like so many of our generation Facebook is not my medium, but as said it is not going away soon.
Guess I Gotta Roger up.
Never forget. The world is run by those who show up! :shaka:
Post by: Funtimes on September 13, 2011, 08:52:41 PM
Post by: Cougar8045 on September 14, 2011, 09:36:24 AM
It's far from dried up, we are just getting started.There's a small, but dedicated cadre of people that seem to spend all their time on facebook, in order to stay abreast of late-breaking developments. What's that? No, not ME! I'm simply too busy! ;)
Post by: 2aHawaii on September 19, 2011, 07:20:58 AM
Post by: Cougar8045 on September 19, 2011, 11:26:26 AM
Post by: Funtimes on September 19, 2011, 03:24:32 PM
Post by: Cougar8045 on September 19, 2011, 08:36:59 PM
You ever turn in your final paper or exam early :P ? I haven't.lol, no, I sure haven't! Speaking of which, is it F***ING WEDNESDAY yet????? I'm so stoked to read the bs response I can barely stand it. As I was reading through here, I was thinking that today was the 20th, so imagine my disappointment. Like a kid who found out on the 24th that Christmas got pushed back a day! And, is if that weren't bad enough, instead of reading the state's response, tomorrow is flu shot day at work... :grrr:
Post by: Colt808 on September 19, 2011, 09:58:22 PM
lol, no, I sure haven't! Speaking of which, is it F***ING WEDNESDAY yet????? I'm so stoked to read the bs response I can barely stand it. As I was reading through here, I was thinking that today was the 20th, so imagine my disappointment. Like a kid who found out on the 24th that Christmas got pushed back a day! And, is if that weren't bad enough, instead of reading the state's response, tomorrow is flu shot day at work... :grrr:
Why so negative? The State may admit wrong doing and Kealoha could read a press release stating they will start issuing permits immediately...
Of course this will be followed by a joint statment from Santa, the Easter bunny, and Elvis regarding WMD's, zombies, and the Loch Ness Monster.
Post by: antoinebugleboy on September 19, 2011, 10:05:07 PM
lol, no, I sure haven't! Speaking of which, is it F***ING WEDNESDAY yet????? I'm so stoked to read the bs response I can barely stand it. As I was reading through here, I was thinking that today was the 20th, so imagine my disappointment. Like a kid who found out on the 24th that Christmas got pushed back a day! And, is if that weren't bad enough, instead of reading the state's response, tomorrow is flu shot day at work... :grrr:
Why so negative? The State may admit wrong doing and Kealoha could read a press release stating they will start issuing permits immediately...
Of course this will be followed by a joint statment from Santa, the Easter bunny, and Elvis regarding WMD's, zombies, and the Loch Ness Monster.
??? ::) :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Post by: Cougar8045 on September 19, 2011, 10:36:24 PM
Missed the fine print at first, good one. I was trying to decide if you were really that much of an optimist, or if you just hadn't ever read anything at all to do with these 2nd Amendment suits. Well played, sir, well played.lol, no, I sure haven't! Speaking of which, is it F***ING WEDNESDAY yet????? I'm so stoked to read the bs response I can barely stand it. As I was reading through here, I was thinking that today was the 20th, so imagine my disappointment. Like a kid who found out on the 24th that Christmas got pushed back a day! And, is if that weren't bad enough, instead of reading the state's response, tomorrow is flu shot day at work... :grrr:
Why so negative? The State may admit wrong doing and Kealoha could read a press release stating they will start issuing permits immediately...
Of course this will be followed by a joint statment from Santa, the Easter bunny, and Elvis regarding WMD's, zombies, and the Loch Ness Monster.
Post by: Dregs on September 20, 2011, 11:06:01 AM
Post by: Cougar8045 on September 20, 2011, 12:15:36 PM
i don't know why, but I'm giddy to see what they're going to say. If their response is just as baselessly anti-gun and confused regarding 2nd amendment rights as they have been portraying, then I'm going to laugh all the way to the first court hearing.Win.
And yes, it will be exactly as you predict.
Post by: Dregs on September 20, 2011, 01:56:30 PM
HDF Suit: State Response Due: September 21, 2011
Can someone tell me what "motion for Preliminary Injunction" means?
Is one side defending and the other attacking? (plaintiff, defendant)
Post by: 2aHawaii on September 20, 2011, 02:05:50 PM
Post by: Cougar8045 on September 20, 2011, 03:01:11 PM
Not an expert in proceedings but I believe the motion for Preliminary Injuction is when the court will hear the plaintiff's arguments to put a hold on the laws that infringe. If you read the motion, it mentions a few of the HRS 134 articles.I think you're spot-on. For a primary injunction to be granted, I believe the judge has to review the case, and if he decides that there is a high likelihood that the plaintiff will succeed on the merits of his/her case, the relief is granted pending the actual courtroom hearing.
Post by: HiCarry on September 20, 2011, 04:36:51 PM
Not an expert in proceedings but I believe the motion for Preliminary Injuction is when the court will hear the plaintiff's arguments to put a hold on the laws that infringe. If you read the motion, it mentions a few of the HRS 134 articles.I think you're spot-on. For a primary injunction to be granted, I believe the judge has to review the case, and if he decides that there is a high likelihood that the plaintiff will succeed on the merits of his/her case, the relief is granted pending the actual courtroom hearing.
Generally a preliminary injunction is granted when the plantiff can articulate that they will suffer an irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted. If the judge agrees that the harm is sufficient and would be irreparable, he could enjoin the defendent to cease enforcing certain laws or taking specific actions that would cause the irreparable harm. In this case, one possible outcome should the injunction be granted is that certain parts of HRS 134 would be unenforcable until the suit is resolved.
It is not supposed to be a determination of the relative merits of the case at hand. On the other hand a summary judgement is issued with there are no material disagreements about the facts of law involved in the case.
Post by: Pizzo on September 21, 2011, 06:33:05 AM
FYI, the boots are for the bull$hit......LMAO!! :rofl:
Post by: Cougar8045 on September 21, 2011, 07:07:23 AM
I think that the courts have set the precedent that an infringement of Second Amendment rights constitutes irreparable harm, which would be good for us if the judge considers not being able to carry a firearm an infringement of 2A rights. Needless to say, I'm sure he doesn't consider that any infringement, but hey, you never know!
Generally a preliminary injunction is granted when the plantiff can articulate that they will suffer an irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted. If the judge agrees that the harm is sufficient and would be irreparable, he could enjoin the defendent to cease enforcing certain laws or taking specific actions that would cause the irreparable harm. In this case, one possible outcome should the injunction be granted is that certain parts of HRS 134 would be unenforcable until the suit is resolved.
It is not supposed to be a determination of the relative merits of the case at hand. On the other hand a summary judgement is issued with there are no material disagreements about the facts of law involved in the case.
Post by: Kingkeoni on September 21, 2011, 07:09:54 AM
Well, the day has come......my fingers are crossed and I got my knee high boots on!
FYI, the boots are for the bull$hit......LMAO!! :rofl:
Then why are they pink?
Post by: Travboi on September 21, 2011, 07:16:43 AM
Post by: Cougar8045 on September 21, 2011, 07:20:52 AM
What time are they supposed to have their response by? Idk but im eager and cant wait to read it. I mean they trusted me with firearm at 17 to defend our country but i cant be trusted here to protect myself and my family.Well, obviously you're not as responsible when you don't have your Decision Making Shirt and Pants on! ::) The response may not come today; apparently the court is pretty slow getting things uploaded to the internet, which could mean that the first word we'd hear would be when the hard copy gets delivered to Chris Baker and atty's. I'm on the edge of my damn seat!
Post by: Pizzo on September 21, 2011, 07:25:00 AM
Well, the day has come......my fingers are crossed and I got my knee high boots on!
FYI, the boots are for the bull$hit......LMAO!! :rofl:
Then why are they pink?
Dang KingKeoni, how'd you know they're pink?! ???
Post by: Funtimes on September 21, 2011, 07:32:27 AM
Pretty much -- you will know as soon as I know.
Post by: 2aHawaii on September 21, 2011, 01:34:38 PM
Post by: Travboi on September 21, 2011, 02:21:31 PM
Post by: Travboi on September 21, 2011, 02:54:04 PM
Post by: antoinebugleboy on September 21, 2011, 03:03:44 PM
http://www.hid.uscourts.gov/ (http://www.hid.uscourts.gov/)
Post by: Cougar8045 on September 21, 2011, 03:34:18 PM
Post by: Dregs on September 21, 2011, 03:46:47 PM
Post by: antoinebugleboy on September 21, 2011, 03:53:07 PM
Where is it >.<
Yeah, where is it?
Post by: vooduchikn on September 21, 2011, 03:56:46 PM
I'm not a lawyer, but it reads as if their point is, "We don't know what he's even talking about, not that he could sue us anyways. Dismiss the case and give us money."
This.
Sounds like "even if we knew what he was talking about, we are above the law, immunity dammit!"
Post by: Cougar8045 on September 21, 2011, 03:58:00 PM
Post by: antoinebugleboy on September 21, 2011, 04:05:34 PM
Post by: Cougar8045 on September 21, 2011, 04:07:36 PM
FIRST DEFENSE: The court can't order the defendants to give Baker a license to carry.
SECOND DEFENSE: We don't know what Baker's talking about. Literally, that's what it says. "Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations..."
THIRD DEFENSE: Sovereign immunity. You can't sue us.
FOURTH DEFENSE: Eleventh Amendment immunity. You can't sue us.
FIFTH DEFENSE: Qualified immunity. You can't sue the governor.
SIXTH DEFENSE: It's not fair! Abercrombie didn't even DO anything!!!1 Y U R suing him 4?????????
SEVENTH DEFENSE: We can't be held liable for for acts or omissions, performance or failure to perform something that's discretionary. (We don't have to give licenses to anyone, so you can't sue us for screwing up the process.)
EIGHTH DEFENSE: Since we don't know what Baker's talking about, we can't form all of our defenses right now. We'll get back to you when we get our heads out of our asses. Defenses subject to change.
Based on the above BS, request you dismiss the case immediately and make Baker pay us for our attorney's fees. (Because, you know, the attorney general deputy attorney general are going to send a bill to Kealoha and the Guv'nah if Baker doesn't pay it.)
Post by: Cynt on September 21, 2011, 04:24:23 PM
Dry fire instead and send what you'd spend on ammo to the HDF. :shaka:
Post by: Dregs on September 21, 2011, 04:26:44 PM
Post by: Funtimes on September 21, 2011, 04:45:04 PM
Don't that just make you want to run through a few boxes of ammo...
Dry fire instead and send what you'd spend on ammo to the HDF. :shaka:
Quoted for emphasis!
I don't know Dregs. I'm not expecting the Chief's, but was expecting the cities / hpd response.
Post by: Dregs on September 21, 2011, 04:49:43 PM
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity))
United StatesMain article: Sovereign immunity in the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity_in_the_United_States)In the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States), the federal government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_government_of_the_United_States) has sovereign immunity and may not be sued unless it has waived its immunity or consented to suit. The United States has waived sovereign immunity to a limited extent, mainly through the Federal Tort Claims Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Tort_Claims_Act), which waives the immunity if a tortious (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tort) act of a federal employee causes damage, and the Tucker Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tucker_Act), which waives the immunity over claims arising out of contracts to which the federal government is a party.[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sovereign_immunity&action=edit§ion=20)] State sovereign immunityIn Hans v. Louisiana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_v._Louisiana) (1890), the Supreme Court of the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States) held that the Eleventh Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleventh_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) (1795) re-affirms that states possess sovereign immunity and are therefore generally immune from being sued in federal court without their consent. In later cases, the Supreme Court has strengthened state sovereign immunity considerably. In Blatchford v. Native Village of Noatak (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blatchford_v._Native_Village_of_Noatak&action=edit&redlink=1) (1991), the court explained that<blockquote>we have understood the Eleventh Amendment to stand not so much for what it says, but for the presupposition of our constitutional structure which it confirms: that the States entered the federal system with their sovereignty intact; that the judicial authority in Article III is limited by this sovereignty, and that a State will therefore not be subject to suit in federal court unless it has consented to suit, either expressly or in the "plan of the convention." [Citations omitted.]</blockquote>In Alden v. Maine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alden_v._Maine) (1999), the Court explained that while it has<blockquote>sometimes referred to the States’ immunity from suit as "Eleventh Amendment immunity[,]" [that] phrase is [a] convenient shorthand but something of a misnomer, [because] the sovereign immunity of the States neither derives from nor is limited by the terms of the Eleventh Amendment. Rather, as the Constitution's structure, and its history, and the authoritative interpretations by this Court make clear, the States’ immunity from suit is a fundamental aspect of the sovereignty which the States enjoyed before the ratification of the Constitution, and which they retain today (either literally or by virtue of their admission into the Union upon an equal footing with the other States) except as altered by the plan of the Convention or certain constitutional Amendments.</blockquote>Writing for the court in Alden, Justice Anthony Kennedy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Kennedy) argued that in view of this, and given the limited nature of congressional power delegated by the original unamended Constitution, the court could not "conclude that the specific Article I powers delegated to Congress necessarily include, by virtue of the Necessary and Proper Clause or otherwise, the incidental authority to subject the States to private suits as a means of achieving objectives otherwise within the scope of the enumerated powers."
However, a "consequence of [the] Court's recognition of pre-ratification sovereignty as the source of immunity from suit is that only States and arms of the State possess immunity from suits authorized by federal law." Northern Insurance Company of New York v. Chatham County (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Insurance_Company_of_New_York_v._Chatham_County) (2006 emphases added). Thus, cities and municipalities lack sovereign immunity, Jinks v. Richland County (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jinks_v._Richland_County&action=edit&redlink=1) (2003), and counties are not generally considered to have sovereign immunity, even when they "exercise a 'slice of state power.'" Lake Country Estates, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lake_Country_Estates,_Inc._v._Tahoe_Regional_Planning_Agency&action=edit&redlink=1) (1979).
4th defense: 11th amendment, the defendants are immune in federal court regarding plaintiff's claims.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleventh_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleventh_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution))
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.
5th defense: Plaintiff's claims against the guvnah are barred by qualified immunity.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity))Qualified immunity is a doctrine in U.S. federallaw that arises in cases brought against state officials under 42 U.S.CSection 1983 and against federal officials under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bivens_v._Six_Unknown_Named_Agents), 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for the violation of an individual's federal constitutional rights. This grant of immunity is available to state or federal employees performing discretionary functions where their actions, even if later found to be unlawful, did not violate "clearly established law." The defense of qualified immunity was created by the U.S. Supreme Court, replacing a court's inquiry into a defendant's subjective state of mind with an inquiry into the objective reasonableness of the contested action. A government agent's liability in a federal civil rights lawsuit now no longer turns upon whether the defendant acted with "malice," but on whether a hypothetical reasonable person in the defendant's position would have known that his/her actions violated clearly established law.As outlined by the Supreme Court in Harlow v. Fitzgerald (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harlow_v._Fitzgerald), 457 U.S. 800 (1982),[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity#endnote_citation) qualified immunity is designed to shield government officials from actions "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known."In 2001, the Supreme Court in Saucier v. Katz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saucier_v._Katz) established a rigid order in which courts must decide the merits of a defendant's qualified immunity defense. First, the court determines whether the complaint states a constitutional violation. If so, the next sequential step is to determine whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the official's conduct. The Court subsequently overruled Saucier in Pearson v. Callahan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearson_v._Callahan), holding that the two-step procedure was no longer mandatory.
Post by: Travboi on September 21, 2011, 04:56:03 PM
Post by: Heavies on September 21, 2011, 05:33:00 PM
I'd like to submit a new internet web cloud acronym, IAGIANAL :crazy:
How long for the judge to make a decision on the prelim?
Post by: 2aHawaii on September 21, 2011, 05:42:48 PM
How can you ask for a dismissal if you don't even know what half of the complaint is.
I'm guessing this is the usual, but c'mon....
Post by: Cougar8045 on September 21, 2011, 06:03:16 PM
Post by: Dregs on September 21, 2011, 06:06:31 PM
Just from doing some internet googlized reading.
Post by: Heavies on September 21, 2011, 06:24:40 PM
I'll bite: what does IAGIANAL mean?
I am GLAD I am not a Lawyer
I know, I know, I have to stop. :crazy:
Post by: Vladimir on September 21, 2011, 07:25:22 PM
Post by: 2aHawaii on September 21, 2011, 09:09:14 PM
Post by: onfloat on September 21, 2011, 09:11:38 PM
SECOND DEFENSE: We don't know what Baker's talking about. Literally, that's what it says. "Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations..."
I find it interesting that they cover paragraph 18 (The Second Amendment) with this defense. :-\
Post by: Travboi on September 21, 2011, 09:31:56 PM
Speaking in common terms, this is just normal proceedings. This is going to be a long road and last well into next year. It would be nice if Chris was able to get an injunction in January that would allow everybody to carry (among other things), but we'll still have to see about that.
This. We all know it will be long and tedious, but any change is a great one
Post by: Cougar8045 on September 21, 2011, 09:35:06 PM
Post by: Mr. Farknocker on September 21, 2011, 10:06:58 PM
From what I understand, the plaintiff has last word, and can submit a Reply to the Defendant's Answer.
Just from doing some internet googlized reading.
No, the Plaintiff does not have the last answer in response to the Defendants' answer. An answer is not a pleading to which a response is called for (i.e., such as the case where an opposition is filed by the State in response to the Plaintiff's motion for Prelim Inj.) A defendant who responds to a complaint must admit, deny or allege that he/she/it has insufficient information to admit or deny the allegations asserted. Someone who assert that they have insufficient knowledge to admit or deny an allegation is not asserting that they don't have a clue what is being alleged. Rather, the responding party is simply unable to admit or deny because the respondent doesn't have enough information to affirmatively admit or deny the allegation just as the defense reads. The defendants must also assert any known affirmative legal and equitable defenses in response to the complaint (e.g., failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, sovereign immunity, etc.). That's what you see in the State's answer.
BTW, I worked with the State's attorney, Kendall Moser, almost 20 years ago in a local insurance defense firm when he got out of law school. He's conservative, a straight shooter (pun intended) and a nice guy.
Post by: Dregs on September 21, 2011, 10:11:23 PM
From what I understand, the plaintiff has last word, and can submit a Reply to the Defendant's Answer.
Just from doing some internet googlized reading.
No, the Plaintiff does not have the last answer in response to the Defendants' answer. An answer is not a pleading to which a response is called for (i.e., such as the case where an opposition is filed by the State in response to the Plaintiff's motion for Prelim Inj.) A defendant who responds to a complaint must admit, deny or allege that he/she/it has insufficient information to admit or deny the allegations asserted. Someone who assert that they have insufficient knowledge to admit or deny an allegation is not asserting that they don't have a clue what is being alleged. Rather, the responding party is simply unable to admit or deny because the respondent doesn't have enough information to admit or deny the allegation just as the defense reads. The defendants must also assert any known affirmative legal and equitable defenses in response to the complaint (e.g., failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, sovereign immunity, etc.)
BTW, I worked with the State's attorney, Kendall Moser, almost 20 years ago when he got out of law school. He's conservative, a straight shooter (pun intended) and a nice guy.
And THAT, kids, is why we don't rely on teh internetz for inphomaishun.
I stand corrected and schmall kine schooled.
Post by: Dregs on September 21, 2011, 10:16:56 PM
No, the Plaintiff does not have the last answer in response to the Defendants' answer. An answer is not a pleading to which a response is called for (i.e., such as the case where an opposition is filed by the State in response to the Plaintiff's motion for Prelim Inj.) A defendant who responds to a complaint must admit, deny or allege that he/she/it has insufficient information to admit or deny the allegations asserted.
Someone who assert that they have insufficient knowledge to admit or deny an allegation is not asserting that they don't have a clue what is being alleged. Rather, the responding party is simply unable to admit or deny because the respondent doesn't have enough information to affirmatively admit or deny the allegation just as the defense reads.
The defendants must also assert any known affirmative legal and equitable defenses in response to the complaint (e.g., failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, sovereign immunity, etc.). That's what you see in the State's answer.
BTW, I worked with the State's attorney, Kendall Moser, almost 20 years ago in a local insurance defense firm when he got out of law school. He's conservative, a straight shooter (pun intended) and a nice guy.
Good sir,
I broke your comment down to 3 lines. I get line 1 and line 3. Question about line 2.
When the responding party is simply unable to admit or deny, because the respondent doesn't have enough information to affirmatively admit or deny the allegation just as the defense reads, how will that affect the respondent's position? The suit? The plaintiff? Basically, how does that position affect things?
Post by: Mr. Farknocker on September 21, 2011, 11:17:22 PM
From what I understand, the plaintiff has last word, and can submit a Reply to the Defendant's Answer.
Just from doing some internet googlized reading.
No, the Plaintiff does not have the last answer in response to the Defendants' answer. An answer is not a pleading to which a response is called for (i.e., such as the case where an opposition is filed by the State in response to the Plaintiff's motion for Prelim Inj.) A defendant who responds to a complaint must admit, deny or allege that he/she/it has insufficient information to admit or deny the allegations asserted. Someone who assert that they have insufficient knowledge to admit or deny an allegation is not asserting that they don't have a clue what is being alleged. Rather, the responding party is simply unable to admit or deny because the respondent doesn't have enough information to admit or deny the allegation just as the defense reads. The defendants must also assert any known affirmative legal and equitable defenses in response to the complaint (e.g., failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, sovereign immunity, etc.)
BTW, I worked with the State's attorney, Kendall Moser, almost 20 years ago when he got out of law school. He's conservative, a straight shooter (pun intended) and a nice guy.
And THAT, kids, is why we don't rely on teh internetz for inphomaishun.
I stand corrected and schmall kine schooled.
Don't feel bad. The rules regarding civil procedures, developed over centuries of trial and error, still confounds attorneys and is perceived by those who are not involved in the practice of law to be sheer madness.
Post by: Mr. Farknocker on September 21, 2011, 11:20:54 PM
No, the Plaintiff does not have the last answer in response to the Defendants' answer. An answer is not a pleading to which a response is called for (i.e., such as the case where an opposition is filed by the State in response to the Plaintiff's motion for Prelim Inj.) A defendant who responds to a complaint must admit, deny or allege that he/she/it has insufficient information to admit or deny the allegations asserted.
Someone who assert that they have insufficient knowledge to admit or deny an allegation is not asserting that they don't have a clue what is being alleged. Rather, the responding party is simply unable to admit or deny because the respondent doesn't have enough information to affirmatively admit or deny the allegation just as the defense reads.
The defendants must also assert any known affirmative legal and equitable defenses in response to the complaint (e.g., failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, sovereign immunity, etc.). That's what you see in the State's answer.
BTW, I worked with the State's attorney, Kendall Moser, almost 20 years ago in a local insurance defense firm when he got out of law school. He's conservative, a straight shooter (pun intended) and a nice guy.
Good sir,
I broke your comment down to 3 lines. I get line 1 and line 3. Question about line 2.
When the responding party is simply unable to admit or deny, because the respondent doesn't have enough information to affirmatively admit or deny the allegation just as the defense reads, how will that affect the respondent's position? The suit? The plaintiff? Basically, how does that position affect things?
It's generally interpreted as a denial of the allegation and must be proven by the claimant at trial since it was not admitted. Some defendants will answer by stating that the Defendant is without knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the matter asserted and therefore denies same, leaving Plaintiff to its proof....or something like that.
Post by: Cougar8045 on September 22, 2011, 12:10:29 AM
Post by: 2aHawaii on September 22, 2011, 02:57:48 AM
Don't feel bad. The rules regarding civil procedures, developed over centuries of trial and error, still confounds attorneys and is perceived by those who are not involved in the practice of law to be sheer madness.
Yup. Seems like sheer madness to me.
Post by: Funtimes on September 22, 2011, 04:18:22 AM
Now, we respond :).
Basic arguments:
1.) we were too long
2.) Fifth Amendment doesn't apply.
3.) Honolulu Police are not a legit party
4.) One of our reliefs they complain about.
5.) Chief of Police is not a party.
What I took notice of, is there no mention that the RKBA does not exist outside of the home. That has been in numerous MTD from other organizations. I think that is good.
Post by: 2aHawaii on September 22, 2011, 05:40:34 AM
Quote
Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dept., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988) (9th Cir.1990. “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to “state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.â€Â
My google-fu is failing to help me find this opinion from Balistreri v. Pacifica. From what I can see, part of this case went in the plaintiff's favor on the basis of due process and equal protection. There is also mention that a restraining order is enough to put the police on alert that the plaintiff was in danger.
I believe that Chris's complaint is probably much more well put together than the City argument of McHenry v. Renne (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1265135.html) from the Court opinion. The opinion said it was filled with political discussion and you couldn't tell who what complaint was alleged against what party.
Post by: Cougar8045 on September 22, 2011, 05:42:17 AM
MOTION to Dismiss Complaint Curtis E. Sherwood appearing for Defendants Honolulu Police Department, Honolulu, City and County of, Louis Kealoha (Attachments: # 1[RECAP] Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion, # 2[RECAP] Declaration of Counsel, # 3[RECAP] Exhibit A, # 4[RECAP] Exhibit B, # 5[RECAP] Exhibit C, # 6[RECAP] Exhibit D, # 7[RECAP] Exhibit E)(Sherwood, Curtis) (Entered: 09/21/2011)Do you think it matters? I was expecting a little but of a glimpse into their thinking with this response, but their cards are still pretty darn close to their vests. Surely they've got more than what they're showing here, don't they?
Now, we respond :).
Basic arguments:
1.) we were too long
2.) Fifth Amendment doesn't apply.
3.) Honolulu Police are not a legit party
4.) One of our reliefs they complain about.
5.) Chief of Police is not a party.
What I took notice of, is there no mention that the RKBA does not exist outside of the home. That has been in numerous MTD from other organizations. I think that is good.
Post by: Cougar8045 on September 22, 2011, 05:44:09 AM
Just making non-lawyer mental notes as I go through the documents. Please note that these don't mean anything.That makes sense, then. They're denying that the complaint contains any factual information at all, to support their motion to dismiss.QuoteBalistreri v. Pacifica Police Dept., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988) (9th Cir.1990. “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to “state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.â€Â
My google-fu is failing to help me find this opinion from Balistreri v. Pacifica. From what I can see, part of this case went in the plaintiff's favor on the basis of due process and equal protection. There is also mention that a restraining order is enough to put the police on alert that the plaintiff was in danger.
Post by: Dregs on October 01, 2011, 05:29:34 PM
Basically, 11th amendment & sovereign immunity.
Post by: Gordyf on October 01, 2011, 06:20:29 PM
Nice young man, very motivated, more than many of us.
He deserves all the support the local Gun community can provide.
Enough is enough. Went walking in the woods last weekend and felt a cool breeze on my butt. Feral dogs, feral pigs and feral people all are to be watched for.
Seems that the next date of consequence is in January. Waaaay too long but the wheels of justice grind slowly.
I have written my check... Have you?
Always remember the world is run by those that show up to support.
Post by: Dregs on November 02, 2011, 05:44:09 AM
Post by: 2aHawaii on November 02, 2011, 06:53:00 AM
Post by: Dregs on November 02, 2011, 08:24:09 AM
Post by: Dregs on November 02, 2011, 08:25:39 AM
Post by: Mr. Farknocker on November 02, 2011, 09:38:12 AM
http://www.hid.uscourts.gov/ (http://www.hid.uscourts.gov/)
Post by: Dregs on November 03, 2011, 02:14:34 PM
Post by: bass monkey on November 03, 2011, 04:09:56 PM
And sorry if my post is offensive. I can edit it.
Post by: vooduchikn on November 03, 2011, 07:04:23 PM
Wow that's awesome. Hopefully it goes all the way through and they don't try to offer him his ccw permit and still decline everyone else. Might not be able to answer since its on going but I assume they will turn down any offer and fight it all the way.
And sorry if my post is offensive. I can edit it.
Bass, read the complaint. Chris isn't fighting only for his own rights, but for the collective.
Post by: bass monkey on November 03, 2011, 07:25:19 PM
Post by: TeamSDSHawaii on November 16, 2011, 07:25:47 PM
Post by: thewrench on December 01, 2011, 02:07:53 PM
Post by: Funtimes on December 01, 2011, 02:10:54 PM
Post by: thewrench on December 01, 2011, 02:23:06 PM
Post by: Funtimes on December 01, 2011, 03:18:22 PM
Post by: Dregs on December 01, 2011, 04:24:01 PM
There has been a sweeping change in our nation regarding 2a, and seeing other states being "sued"; makes me wonder why Hawaii thinks it can win by using that as literally their only argument. 10th amendment and immunity.
Basically, how is Hawaii different than the other states that have successfully been "sued"?
** btw I kinda half-expect my above rant to go unanswered because it's part of a current legal battle. Just been killing me in my head for the past few months, I thought I'd express it. lol.
Post by: Tom_G on December 01, 2011, 09:33:53 PM
Side 1 - they don't have any reasonable defense, so they're grasping at straws.
Side 2 - they're right. Well, not right in the sense of the word we'd like to apply, but right in the sense of the word that the court will find in their favor, because that's the way this state is.
I mean, come on. Look at the Super Ferry!
Post by: bass monkey on December 01, 2011, 09:42:35 PM
Like When you was young and you asked your mom something.
Then she be like no.
And you ask her why
And she be like,
Cause I said so. And that was that.
Hahahhaha.
Does make you wonder if Hawaii thinks were special or have pull in the courts. On a side note though, from what I've been hearing Illinois is pretty special too regarding 2a laws. They had a section in the federal ccw bill that days they don't have to honor it or something like that. Supposedly they are worse then California for 2a
Post by: Funtimes on December 02, 2011, 08:43:09 AM
That's what im saying.
Like When you was young and you asked your mom something.
Then she be like no.
And you ask her why
And she be like,
Cause I said so. And that was that.
Hahahhaha.
Does make you wonder if Hawaii thinks were special or have pull in the courts. On a side note though, from what I've been hearing Illinois is pretty special too regarding 2a laws. They had a section in the federal ccw bill that days they don't have to honor it or something like that. Supposedly they are worse then California for 2a
Chicago, specifically, will be making lots of good 2A caselaw. The 7th Circuit court of appeals has some good judges.
Post by: Gordyf on December 07, 2011, 06:38:27 AM
Regards Bass monkey's comment of 12/01, I understand that Hawaii is special too under the Federal reciprocity law.
What I hear is that Hawaii does not have to extend CCW rights to it's own residents who may have an out of State permit
such as Utah or Florida. Only non Hawaii residents are covered.
Anything to this???
Post by: Growler67 on December 07, 2011, 09:48:17 AM
Post by: Cougar8045 on December 07, 2011, 10:43:26 AM
???In addition to what Growler said, it could be summarized by saying, no, Hawaii is not special; nobody can get an out-of-state permit and use it in their state of residence to get around their state's no-issue stance. However, if the bill passes, Hawaii will be forced to accept CCW permits from visitors. So my cousin could come to visit, and legally carry here, because this is not his home state and he holds a valid CCW permit from his own home state. The only semi-special state is Illinois, which currently has NO concealed carry permit for anyone, not even double-secret-probation CCW permits for special friends of the C.O.P. like Hawaii. Because they don't have any CCW permits at all, they won't be forced to honor other states' permits, either.
Regards Bass monkey's comment of 12/01, I understand that Hawaii is special too under the Federal reciprocity law.
What I hear is that Hawaii does not have to extend CCW rights to it's own residents who may have an out of State permit
such as Utah or Florida. Only non Hawaii residents are covered.
Anything to this???
Post by: vooduchikn on December 07, 2011, 10:57:09 AM
???In addition to what Growler said, it could be summarized by saying, no, Hawaii is not special; nobody can get an out-of-state permit and use it in their state of residence to get around their state's no-issue stance. However, if the bill passes, Hawaii will be forced to accept CCW permits from visitors. So my cousin could come to visit, and legally carry here, because this is not his home state and he holds a valid CCW permit from his own home state. The only semi-special state is Illinois, which currently has NO concealed carry permit for anyone, not even double-secret-probation CCW permits for special friends of the C.O.P. like Hawaii. Because they don't have any CCW permits at all, they won't be forced to honor other states' permits, either.
Regards Bass monkey's comment of 12/01, I understand that Hawaii is special too under the Federal reciprocity law.
What I hear is that Hawaii does not have to extend CCW rights to it's own residents who may have an out of State permit
such as Utah or Florida. Only non Hawaii residents are covered.
Anything to this???
Whats to keep this place from changing to a "no" issue state? Not much that I can see.
Post by: Cougar8045 on December 07, 2011, 01:10:05 PM
Nothing at all, really, unless some court somewhere grows a pair of nuts and decides that the word "bear" means what everyone thinks it means, from the Brady Bunch to the NRA. Bear means carry, everybody knows it, and that's why the ACLU, Brady Bunch, et al, subscribe to the collective right philosophy; if they acknowledge that it's an individual right, they must acknowledge that carrying arms is a Constitutionally protected act. Nobody seems to give a shit what the Constitution says about guns, though, so we'll be sitting out here waiting for a good long while. Maybe my grandkids will be able to move to Hawaii and carry concealed. But for now in Hawaii, the sheep and wolves outnumber the sheepdogs by about 7,254:1, so they can and probably will shift to no-issue if/when this bill passes, and the state government will spend millions (with widespread public support) fighting tooth and nail any change to their idiotic gun control laws. PCS, anyone????In addition to what Growler said, it could be summarized by saying, no, Hawaii is not special; nobody can get an out-of-state permit and use it in their state of residence to get around their state's no-issue stance. However, if the bill passes, Hawaii will be forced to accept CCW permits from visitors. So my cousin could come to visit, and legally carry here, because this is not his home state and he holds a valid CCW permit from his own home state. The only semi-special state is Illinois, which currently has NO concealed carry permit for anyone, not even double-secret-probation CCW permits for special friends of the C.O.P. like Hawaii. Because they don't have any CCW permits at all, they won't be forced to honor other states' permits, either.
Regards Bass monkey's comment of 12/01, I understand that Hawaii is special too under the Federal reciprocity law.
What I hear is that Hawaii does not have to extend CCW rights to it's own residents who may have an out of State permit
such as Utah or Florida. Only non Hawaii residents are covered.
Anything to this???
Whats to keep this place from changing to a "no" issue state? Not much that I can see.
Post by: vooduchikn on December 07, 2011, 02:09:48 PM
PCS, anyone????In addition to what Growler said, it could be summarized by saying, no, Hawaii is not special; nobody can get an out-of-state permit and use it in their state of residence to get around their state's no-issue stance. However, if the bill passes, Hawaii will be forced to accept CCW permits from visitors. So my cousin could come to visit, and legally carry here, because this is not his home state and he holds a valid CCW permit from his own home state. The only semi-special state is Illinois, which currently has NO concealed carry permit for anyone, not even double-secret-probation CCW permits for special friends of the C.O.P. like Hawaii. Because they don't have any CCW permits at all, they won't be forced to honor other states' permits, either.
Regards Bass monkey's comment of 12/01, I understand that Hawaii is special too under the Federal reciprocity law.
What I hear is that Hawaii does not have to extend CCW rights to it's own residents who may have an out of State permit
such as Utah or Florida. Only non Hawaii residents are covered.
Anything to this???
Whats to keep this place from changing to a "no" issue state? Not much that I can see.
Soon, very soon to a place where CC/OC, CLASS3/NFA all legal.
Post by: Cougar8045 on December 07, 2011, 02:33:37 PM
Right behind you.
Soon, very soon to a place where CC/OC, CLASS3/NFA all legal.
Post by: Anubis on January 07, 2012, 12:29:53 PM
The only semi-special state is Illinois, which currently has NO concealed carry permit for anyone, not even double-secret-probation CCW permits for special friends of the C.O.P. like Hawaii.
No surprise that some in Chicago are above the law.
From http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/5208647-418/conceal-carry-bill-fails-in-house.html (http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/5208647-418/conceal-carry-bill-fails-in-house.html) : "But supporters turned the protection argument around by going after Chicago aldermen, who are permitted to carry concealed weapons"
Post by: Cougar8045 on January 07, 2012, 01:16:29 PM
Oops, I guess they do have double-secret probation CCW after all. But of course members of the Politburo can be trusted with guns, Comrade!The only semi-special state is Illinois, which currently has NO concealed carry permit for anyone, not even double-secret-probation CCW permits for special friends of the C.O.P. like Hawaii.
No surprise that some in Chicago are above the law.
From http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/5208647-418/conceal-carry-bill-fails-in-house.html (http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/5208647-418/conceal-carry-bill-fails-in-house.html) : "But supporters turned the protection argument around by going after Chicago aldermen, who are permitted to carry concealed weapons"
Post by: thewrench on January 18, 2012, 12:40:44 PM
Post by: 2aHawaii on January 18, 2012, 12:42:46 PM
Post by: Funtimes on January 18, 2012, 01:49:59 PM
Post by: Cougar8045 on January 18, 2012, 01:59:56 PM
The only real update right now is we continue to do discovery matters. We are waiting for trial in March :( this is taking a long time. The judge was 'busy' on the 17th.Last time I was "busy" for a court date, they put out a bench warrant on me. And I didn't have it written on my calendar six months in advance, either. Just sayin'.
Post by: 2aHawaii on January 18, 2012, 02:23:06 PM
Post by: Funtimes on January 18, 2012, 05:26:31 PM
How does that go? I'll be washing my hair that night?
He seems like a good guy; if he was a bad guy it might golf or something =p.
Post by: crazy cat on January 18, 2012, 06:02:08 PM
Post by: DonRow on January 18, 2012, 10:24:51 PM
Post by: Funtimes on January 18, 2012, 11:40:38 PM
Typical state action, "drag your feet and maybe they'll lose interest." mentality.
They must not have met me ;p.
Post by: oneline on January 19, 2012, 06:44:09 PM
Post by: Heavies on January 19, 2012, 06:46:16 PM
27 years old, have never owned a firearm. Just recently have I begun discovering how important it is to exercise our rights. Joined HDF and taking my firearm safety class in Feb. Soon I will be a proud first time owner of a firearm.
:thumbsup:
Welcome to the forum!
Post by: Cougar8045 on January 19, 2012, 06:47:17 PM
27 years old, have never owned a firearm. Just recently have I begun discovering how important it is to exercise our rights. Joined HDF and taking my firearm safety class in Feb. Soon I will be a proud first time owner of a firearm.Good call!
Post by: Kingkeoni on January 19, 2012, 09:11:54 PM
27 years old, have never owned a firearm. Just recently have I begun discovering how important it is to exercise our rights. Joined HDF and taking my firearm safety class in Feb. Soon I will be a proud first time owner of a firearm.
"Welcome to the real world."
Post by: hnl.flyboy on February 02, 2012, 03:25:40 AM
Does anyone know either when it'll be back up, or another place where I can make a donation to HDF?
Post by: Funtimes on February 02, 2012, 02:01:44 PM
We are currently in the process of redoing the *entire* site. So its underconstruction.
Post by: Funtimes on February 13, 2012, 11:43:40 PM
Feb 13, 2012
Washington, DC -- The Brady Center filed a brief today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii urging the court to dismiss a challenge to Hawaii’s strong gun laws restricting the carrying of loaded guns in public.
“Hawaii’s strong gun laws protect families from the severe danger of loaded guns in public,” said Jonathan Lowy, Director of the Brady Center’s Legal Action Project. “We urge the court to follow more than a dozen other courts around the nation in recognizing that there is no right to carry loaded guns in our streets, parks, and playgrounds.”
The lawsuit, Baker v. Kealoha, challenges Hawaii gun laws limiting public carrying of loaded guns to “exceptional case[ s ] ” because of the severe risks posed by guns in public. The Brady Center’s brief urges the court to dismiss the lawsuit, citing legal rulings from around the nation that the Second Amendment is limited to a narrow right to possess guns in the home for self-defense and does not grant a right to carry loaded guns in public.
The Brady Center’s brief cites studies showing that guns in public expose all members of society to great risks, as guns are used far more often to kill and wound innocent victims than to kill and wound criminals, and guns are also used far more often to intimidate and threaten than they are used to thwart crimes.
The Brady Center’s brief also cites data showing that Hawaii’s strong gun laws have helped Hawaii achieve the lowest gun death rate in the nation, less than a third the national average.
The Brady Center is being represented by attorneys with the Brady Center’s Legal Action Project; Mark M. Murakami of Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert in Honolulu and; Jonathan Diesenhaus from Hogan Lovells in Washington, D.C.
Post by: Heavies on February 14, 2012, 03:03:15 AM
Brady Center Urges Court To Throw Out Challenge To Hawaii Gun Law
Feb 13, 2012
Washington, DC -- The Brady Center filed a brief today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii urging the court to dismiss a challenge to Hawaii’s strong gun laws restricting the carrying of loaded guns in public.
“Hawaii’s strong gun laws protect families from the severe danger of loaded guns in public,” said Jonathan Lowy, Director of the Brady Center’s Legal Action Project. “We urge the court to follow more than a dozen other courts around the nation in recognizing that there is no right to carry loaded guns in our streets, parks, and playgrounds.”
The lawsuit, Baker v. Kealoha, challenges Hawaii gun laws limiting public carrying of loaded guns to “exceptional case[ s ] ” because of the severe risks posed by guns in public. The Brady Center’s brief urges the court to dismiss the lawsuit, citing legal rulings from around the nation that the Second Amendment is limited to a narrow right to possess guns in the home for self-defense and does not grant a right to carry loaded guns in public.
The Brady Center’s brief cites studies showing that guns in public expose all members of society to great risks, as guns are used far more often to kill and wound innocent victims than to kill and wound criminals, and guns are also used far more often to intimidate and threaten than they are used to thwart crimes.
The Brady Center’s brief also cites data showing that Hawaii’s strong gun laws have helped Hawaii achieve the lowest gun death rate in the nation, less than a third the national average.
The Brady Center is being represented by attorneys with the Brady Center’s Legal Action Project; Mark M. Murakami of Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert in Honolulu and; Jonathan Diesenhaus from Hogan Lovells in Washington, D.C.
Shouldn't this be in the jokes thread?
Since when has it been recognized there is no right, Where do these idiots get their data?
I hope the court has some common sense.
Post by: DonRow on February 14, 2012, 06:26:10 AM
Where do these idiots get their data?Why from European country's of course.
God I hate the Brady bunch. Ok hates a strong word. I dislike them very much.
Post by: bass monkey on February 14, 2012, 06:42:35 AM
Post by: Cougar8045 on February 14, 2012, 08:52:25 AM
Why from European country's of course.I hate 'em.
God I hate the Brady bunch. Ok hates a strong word. I dislike them very much.
Post by: hnl.flyboy on March 05, 2012, 01:00:02 PM
Could this help our cause any? A federal judge set precedence in Maryland, but I don't know if this could somehow be used to our advantage in Mr. Baker's current lawsuit.
Post by: hnl.flyboy on March 05, 2012, 01:12:41 PM
Post by: Mr. Farknocker on March 05, 2012, 02:38:09 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/05/federal-judge-rules-maryland-gun-permit-law-unconstitutional/ (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/05/federal-judge-rules-maryland-gun-permit-law-unconstitutional/)
Could this help our cause any? A federal judge set precedence in Maryland, but I don't know if this could somehow be used to our advantage in Mr. Baker's current lawsuit.
Our Hawaii District Court follows case precedence from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. I think Maryland is part of the 4th Circuit. Courts may look to other Circuit decisions for direction if there is nothing to draw upon from its own Circuit but it is not bound by the decisions in another Circuit.
Post by: Cougar8045 on March 05, 2012, 03:29:49 PM
Post by: HiCarry on March 05, 2012, 05:22:32 PM
I would assume that Hawaii will just pretend that the Maryland decision never even happened, until and unless it gets upheld by the Supreme Court.With Peruta and Nordyke "simmering" in California, a decision 180 degrees from the MD decision will create a "circuit split" which usually fast-tracks the case to SCOTUS......
Post by: Cougar8045 on March 05, 2012, 09:49:42 PM
With Peruta and Nordyke "simmering" in California, a decision 180 degrees from the MD decision will create a "circuit split" which usually fast-tracks the case to SCOTUS......Excellent point as usual, good sir.
Post by: pastordennis on March 12, 2012, 03:06:16 PM
Post by: 2aHawaii on March 20, 2012, 01:07:01 PM
Tomorrow looks like it will be a big day.
Post by: Dregs on March 20, 2012, 04:24:54 PM
Post by: PeaShooter on March 20, 2012, 04:29:55 PM
Suddenly got the e-mail from HRA/HDF today that the big trial is tomorrow. I would like to attend if possible. Is anyone else going to go? I have never been to a court trial before and that is one of my reasons for wanting to go. Do we just show up? Do we have to wear formal clothes or something? Are we just going to be those guys that sit in the back row and watch and don't do anything? Sorry for all the questions. Maybe other people are wondering the same things...
I've never served Jury Duty before either. Got a summons a couple times but both times the trials were canceled before I actually had to go.
Post by: bass monkey on March 20, 2012, 05:58:47 PM
Allow enough time to find parking and make it through security
Your probably going to be one of the people that sit on the side
Post by: Cougar8045 on March 21, 2012, 12:22:46 PM
Post by: PeaShooter on March 21, 2012, 01:47:08 PM
Post by: rswarrior1700 on March 21, 2012, 02:59:05 PM
The trial was relatively brief and is over. I could comment in full detail but I think I should leave that up to Funtimes or HiCarry.
Over as in Over done, finish ?!??!?!
Sounds like not so good news.....
How was the turn out did lots of people show up.
Im stuck on campus today.
Post by: PeaShooter on March 21, 2012, 03:07:39 PM
Keep in mind that this was a preliminary trial, not necessarily the final trial. On the table were a couple of motions to dismiss by the state and HPD, vs a preliminary injunction for early favorable outcome by HDF.
I had no idea what kind of turnout was expected. But I thought it was a nice amount. We filled most of the courtroom seats. If there had been much more of us then it might have been overcrowded.
Post by: Cougar8045 on March 21, 2012, 03:41:24 PM
Post by: HiCarry on March 21, 2012, 04:44:57 PM
For those that showed up, thank you! However, if "we" are to move forward "we" really need to start thinking about how to finance the appeal. I would suggest that we all take a day or two off, get some rest, do something fun, and then get back to work. Now, more than ever, we all need to work together. The unfortunate reality of today's legal arena is that it takes money....lot's of money. National organizations have thus far been silent and kept their wallets closed. Local organizations like HRA and LIFE have contributed, but are not ever going to be able to finance this independently. So, while you're taking your mental health break, keep this thought in your mind: what can we do to raise money for this?
Idealy, it would be something with minimal logistic demands and high potential for sympathetic donations...like at the range and shooting events. I am going to suggest that we get some donation jars/cannisters at the upcoming Shooting Sports Fair....now it's your turn.
Post by: rswarrior1700 on March 21, 2012, 04:53:31 PM
There is a great write up of what happened at the Hawaii CCW FB page....Chris is understandably disappointed (as we all are) but is not giving up.
For those that showed up, thank you! However, if "we" are to move forward "we" really need to start thinking about how to finance the appeal. I would suggest that we all take a day or two off, get some rest, do something fun, and then get back to work. Now, more than ever, we all need to work together. The unfortunate reality of today's legal arena is that it takes money....lot's of money. National organizations have thus far been silent and kept their wallets closed. Local organizations like HRA and LIFE have contributed, but are not ever going to be able to finance this independently. So, while you're taking your mental health break, keep this thought in your mind: what can we do to raise money for this?
Idealy, it would be something with minimal logistic demands and high potential for sympathetic donations...like at the range and shooting events. I am going to suggest that we get some donation jars/cannisters at the upcoming Shooting Sports Fair....now it's your turn.
Sound like a good idea for Shooting Sports Fair, so HRA and Life help with the funding what about the NRA?
Post by: Tom_G on March 21, 2012, 05:07:04 PM
There is a great write up of what happened at the Hawaii CCW FB page....
Really? I've looked there, at the website, and on the HDF website, but don;t see anything other than mentions of the upcoming trial.
Post by: sirkaiks on March 21, 2012, 05:20:04 PM
Really? I've looked there, at the website, and on the HDF website, but don;t see anything other than mentions of the upcoming trial.it's on hawaii conceal carry's facebook pg
Post by: Tom_G on March 21, 2012, 05:26:42 PM
it's on hawaii conceal carry's facebook pg
https://www.facebook.com/Hawaiiccw?sk=wall (https://www.facebook.com/Hawaiiccw?sk=wall)
Here? The most current thing I see is 22 hours old, and says "good luck!"
[attachment deleted by admin]
Post by: PeaShooter on March 21, 2012, 05:37:37 PM
Maybe someone can repost the write-up here. From talking to other fellow attendees, I will say that reactions to the verdict were mixed. It depends on what you expected. Of course, I have my own opinions too. There are many things that I would like to say but I am wary of saying them online, and even offline.
I learned a ton by going to this trial and I am very happy that I went.
Post by: Heavies on March 21, 2012, 05:41:00 PM
I am not suprized. Very disappointed, but not suprized. This whole system has become a farce. People's responsiblity and morality is going down the crapper, criminals are coddled and condoned, and terrorists and murderers are glorified. Being a just, moral, hardworking citizen is not politically correct anymore.
I am also very disappointed in the NRA. They are doing nothing in support of this action, not even a story on it. Makes me sad that they have no interest in this case at all. In the big picture maybe money is better spent by the NRA elsewhere, so I will still continue to support them. Just sad that they could not have at least report the case out on the wire.
I hope that this election season can bring around real change for the better, both in this state and the nation. The path we all are heading down right now, I believe, will lead to disaster.
HRA, HDF, and 2AHawaii.com, thank you for the hard work on this. :thumbsup:
Post by: sirkaiks on March 21, 2012, 05:57:31 PM
https://www.facebook.com/Hawaiiccw?sk=wall (https://www.facebook.com/Hawaiiccw?sk=wall)actually it's a different page. i think it's a group. i'll try and post a link.
Here? The most current thing I see is 22 hours old, and says "good luck!"
Post by: sirkaiks on March 21, 2012, 06:05:09 PM
Post by: Gordyf on March 21, 2012, 06:37:58 PM
I was not able to find anything on facebook but a bunch of pictures of "friends" even using the link so kindly provided by sirkaiks.
How about something on our forum for those who are technically challenged.
Inquiring minds want to know.
Post by: Cougar8045 on March 21, 2012, 06:46:19 PM
Post by: DonRow on March 21, 2012, 06:56:46 PM
Well i cant see the FB too, but I am Sorry to hear that judgement. Not sure how that judge could find for the state seeing that this goes against the state and the United States Constitution.Because in Hawaii they use the constitution only when it fits there agenda... Other then that, they spit on it.
I am not suprized. Very disappointed, but not suprized. This whole system has become a farce. People's responsiblity and morality is going down the crapper, criminals are coddled and condoned, and terrorists and murderers are glorified. Being a just, moral, hardworking citizen is not politically correct anymore.
I am also very disappointed in the NRA. They are doing nothing in support of this action, not even a story on it. Makes me sad that they have no interest in this case at all. In the big picture maybe money is better spent by the NRA elsewhere, so I will still continue to support them. Just sad that they could not have at least report the case out on the wire.
I hope that this election season can bring around real change for the better, both in this state and the nation. The path we all are heading down right now, I believe, will lead to disaster.
HRA, HDF, and 2AHawaii.com, thank you for the hard work on this. :thumbsup:
Post by: Cougar8045 on March 21, 2012, 07:03:31 PM
Because in Hawaii they use the constitution only when it fits there agenda... Other then that, they spit on it.Spit? I think you're one letter off, friend... ;)
Post by: sirkaiks on March 21, 2012, 07:13:36 PM
Chris asked the guy who did the summary on facebook for permission to repost, but the guy hasn't come back with an answer yet. I'm leery of reposting someone elses' hard work, which is why I'm not doing copy-pasta for you guys.that's why i didn't copy paste also, plus you kind of have to read the whole post.
Post by: DonRow on March 21, 2012, 07:26:04 PM
Spit? I think you're one letter off, friend... ;)Damn auto correct :D
Post by: PeaShooter on March 21, 2012, 08:31:05 PM
Chris asked the guy who did the summary on facebook for permission to repost, but the guy hasn't come back with an answer yet. I'm leery of reposting someone elses' hard work, which is why I'm not doing copy-pasta for you guys.
In that case, I'll do my own version of the write-up here. If any of you guys don't like it or think I have said some things incorrectly, just say so and I'll erase or edit my own message.
The trial was short and lasted only one and a half hours. There were no witnesses called to the stand. The majority of the time consisted of Chris' lawyer Richard Holcomb presenting various arguments, and with the judge occasionally pointing out any logical fallacies. The judge treated the state's lawyers in the same way, and pointed out their logical fallacies equally often during the times they were presenting their arguments.
Chris' Request for a Preliminary Injunction, which would have temporarily but immediately allowed Chris to carry a handgun until all trial processes are concluded, was denied. The judge's primary reasoning was that a Preliminary Injunction requires Chris to demonstrate that he will suffer 'irreparable harm' if his request is denied, regardless of the Second Amendment, and he did not show this.
HPD's Motion to Dismiss the lawsuit against them was granted, primarily on technical grounds resulting from flaws in the subpoena. The judge did not mention whether or not this lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice, but I presume it was dismissed without prejudice, so Chris should be free to amend his complaint in order to attempt to sue HPD again.
The State's Motion to Dismiss the lawsuit against them was denied. The judge apparently denied their claims of sovereign immunity, among other claims. So the results of the trial were not completely negative. Chris' lawsuit against Neil Abercrombie and the State of Hawaii will presumably be heard and reconsidered in full at a later date, although whether once again in U.S. District Court or in a higher Appeals court, I don't know. It is this pending lawsuit in which the Second Amendment will have to be carefully considered. So actually this judge postponed the Second Amendment considerations. He said that it would be wise to wait until the recent Appeals court case dealing with the Second Amendment, Nordyke v. King, is concluded, and that Chris' lawsuit would in turn be influenced by its outcome.
The State's lawyers also had a Request for a Judgment on the Pleadings on the table. I'd never heard of this term before. The judge did not say anything about this in the verdict but I think it was understood that this was also denied, which was good for us. Basically, the lawsuit goes on.
edit: Crud, same time post. Maybe I should delete mine, oh well.
Post by: Funtimes on March 21, 2012, 08:31:51 PM
From our Hawaii CCW Facebook page:
Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction is denied. Plaintiff did not satisfy the four factor analysis to determine whether a preliminary injunction should issue. Plaintiff is unlikely to prevail on the merits. Plaintiff’s asserted harm is speculative. The balance of equities favors Defendants, not Plaintiff. Granting the preliminary injunction is not in the public interest.
City & County’s motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part. The Court dismisses HPD and Chief Kealoha in his personal capacity. Chief Kealoha is party only with respect to injunctive relief, if any.
The State’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is denied. The complaint is lengthy and not sufficiently precise. However, the court finds sufficient clarity under Ninth Circuit precedent that Plaintiff set out the various claims of the complaint.
Count 13 of the Complaint is dismissed. Injunctive relief is a prayer for relief, not an independent count or cause of action.
The City & County of Honolulu is not subject to 5th Amendment. The Fifth Amendment applies to the federal government, not a municipality.
Judge Kay’s written order will explain his reasoning.
4 hours ago · Like · 2
David Sgan
Here are my two cent comments from the peanut gallery.
1. At the outset of the hearing, Judge Kay asked whether the parties wanted to submit evidence in support or opposition to the preliminary injunction motion. None of the parties sought to admit further evidence in support of their position. Since Plaintiff has the burden of proof in a preliminary injunction motion, this may have been an important opportunity missed.
2. Judge Kay rejected Plaintiff’s reading of the HRS §§ 134-24, and 134-25, Place to Keep statutes, as a prohibition on in-home possession of loaded firearms, and therefore, a violation of the Supreme Court’s Heller and McDonald decisions. Judge Kay was highly critical, if not incredulous, towards Plaintiff’s statutory construction and interpretation.
3. The Court was critical of the “lumping together” of all the named defendants in the averments of the complaint. Judge Kay wants specific attribution of parties, facts, and theories of liability. He expressed his agreement with the C&C’s attorney that the complaint is excessively long. He also agreed that HPD is not “sui juris” as an entity, but is really just a department or organ of municipal government.
4. Now the good stuff with respect to the 2nd Amendment. Judge Kay is concerned about other courts staying their decisions until the 9th Circuit sitting en banc decides the Nordyke case. He asked each counsel what their position on staying this case pending a decision in the Nordyke case. The answers he got from counsel ranged from “the facts and issues in Nordyke are too different to this case” to “that case may be useful to provide an applicable standard of scrutiny to the right to keep and bear arms outside the home.” He then added that the “real issue in Nordyke” is the standard of review applicable in the Ninth Circuit. He mentioned Judge O’Scannlain’s “substantial burden” standard on Second Amendment rights, echoing the abortion standard, and perhaps foreshadowing the forthcoming en banc opinion.
5. As expected, the State and City’s position is that the Heller and McDonald decisions limited the right to keep and bear arms in the home and no more. Judge Kay doesn’t accept this position at face value. He is rightly concerned about the non-exhaustive list of either permissible or restricted sensitive areas discussed as obiter dictum in the Heller and McDonald decisions. Judge Kay criticized these Supreme Court opinions for their lack of clarity.
6. Judge Kay also talked aloud about a recent Fourth Circuit decision. He noted that the Fourth Circuit, without reaching a decision about the correct standard of review, expressed its reasoning that the Heller and McDonald cases must be read to recognize a general right to bear arms outside the home. This is because the Supreme Court expressly recognized and carved out “sensitive areas” where government may prohibit gun possession. If there were no such general 2A right, then there would be no need to carve out such gun-free zones. However, he also noted that the Fourth Circuit ultimately decided to await further instruction from the Supreme Court before issuing a decision consistent with that line of reasoning.
7. With respect to the issuance of carry permits by Chief Kealoha of HPD, Judge Kay was critical of Plaintiff’s avowed “exceptional circumstances” that would warrant issuance of a permit. Judge Kay relied on anecdotal evidence that Chris Baker was the only one out of 75 process servers who actually applied for a permit. Plaintiff’s counsel made some inroads by arguing that “exceptional circumstances” are not necessary in the presence of a constitutional right deprivation. If there is a constitutional right, then Chief Kealoha’s exclusive and unreviewable authority does not satisfy procedural due process. Judge Kay responded weakly and unpersuasively that Baker didn’t ask for an explanation following his denial. Plaintiff’s counsel scored points here.
8. With respect to the element of irreparable injury, Plaintiff’s counsel waded straight back into Judge Kay’s rejection of the argument that the Place to Keep statutes prohibit carrying loaded firearms inside your home. In other words, Hawaii law is and has been consistent with the Heller and McDonald decisions with respect to your right to keep and bear a loaded firearm in your home, work, place of sojourn, and at the range. Plaintiff’s counsel argued that even a momentary and minimal denial of a constitutional right constitutes irreparable harm. This is a familiar and valid concept recognized in Free Speech cases. Judge Kay had no response, but rejected the argument by implication in his order.
9. Judge Kay returned to his observation that none of the other process servers seem to have Baker’s need to carry a firearm in the course of their service duties. No one apprised the Court that some of Hawaii’s process servers are LEOs moonlighting, and don’t need to avail themselves of the permit process.
10. With respect to the public interest factor, Judge Kay is relying on his survey of cases, perhaps post-Miller and pre-Heller, to conclude that the “vast majority” of courts have ruled that granting injunctive relief in 2A cases is not in the public interest. Judge Kay’s public interest analysis is not very persuasive and presented (and may continue to present) an opportunity for Plaintiff to discredit.
The whole question of whether a judge even has the capacity to evaluate the “public interest” has been challenged in a variety of civil contexts including antitrust and securities regulations. As if to exact a concession, Judge Kay cited Defendants’ proffered statistics as evidence and the Court’s own “common sense” before asking Plaintiff’s counsel to comment or rebut. I think Judge Kay knows he’s on weak ground by using anecdotes (e.g., road rage, Zimmerman), suspect data, and his “common sense” in order to deprive Chris Baker of a fundamental constitutional right to keep and bear arms for self-defense outside the home.
I also think that Judge Kay is relying on the causal fallacy that rates of crimes committed with a firearm vary directly with gun sales and ownership. As far as I can tell, all the statistics used on either side of the various 2A debates and cases are highly suspect, grossly misleading, and wildly inconclusive. It reminds me of Prof. Coase’ quote, “if you torture the data long enough, it will confess." Nonetheless, the context of a preliminary injunction behooves Plaintiff to come forward with statistics and perhaps an expert to show and opine that the increased issuance of carry permits does not increase local violent crime rates.
Post by: 2aHawaii on March 22, 2012, 03:00:10 AM
Chris, it's hard to believe your some normal guy that has to work instead of some rich superhero </sarcasm> :P
Post by: drck1000 on March 22, 2012, 06:58:03 AM
Thank you very much for the efforts on this guys! Will be keeping an eye out for sure on how this progresses.
Post by: kong on March 22, 2012, 08:09:22 AM
Post by: HiCarry on March 22, 2012, 12:43:20 PM
Sound like a good idea for Shooting Sports Fair, so HRA and Life help with the funding what about the NRA?LIFE and HRA have already contributed funds for the effort, and will likely contribute more. Anything else we can do to support this, like using the SSF, we'd be happy to do. The NRA has been hesitant to contribute but maybe if enough NRA members were to call and "suggest" they help support, maybe they'd change their minds.....
Post by: HiCarry on March 22, 2012, 12:53:52 PM
A good out come, even if we have to wait a while, will benefit us all.
Post by: rswarrior1700 on March 22, 2012, 04:01:55 PM
Well I said this because I was speaking to a process server that I know and he told me a story of the Ward family dispute lawsuit back in the day(think Ward warehouse,etc). The story was that the when Ward past away had split his inheritance amongst his children, however those children thought they deserve more than the other so they sue each other to the last penny. End result they end up with nothing due to the money used for legal fees and whatnot, the firms representing from what I heard went bankrupt due to how long the trial was.
"Longer you stay in the firefight the less chance of survival."
I for one support you fully in getting this done and will donate when I can. Got a brick chucked to the head by a drunk Micronesian a few years back so yeah Hawaii is not safe place at all.
Post by: Cougar8045 on March 22, 2012, 04:40:00 PM
Besides, it sounds to me like we did pretty well so far, I half-expected the judge to simply declare that there is no constitutional basis for the suit and toss it out. Great job to all involved; hopefully I'll be able to make it to the next hearing when they go over the actual merits of the case. I don't know much about the law, but apparently this wasn't really the arguing portion of the case; just the procedural stuff.
Also, I think this might make it easier to raise funds and support from other organizations. Up until now, the case was sort of an abstraction that was "in the works". Now, it's more like, "This is happening, right now!", and I think that will help open some pocketbooks and hopefully garner some support from the big dogs. Keep the faith, all!
Post by: rswarrior1700 on March 22, 2012, 05:24:10 PM
Yeah, I agree with HiCarry. Let's not all get down, I'd compare this to the first half of the game. Now it's halftime, and we need to look at what adjustments we can make for the second half. Doesn't mean our game plan sucked to start with, or that we didn't try hard enough, or that we're going to lose. Everyone makes adjustments at the half! :thumbsup:Halftime since so put it that way
Besides, it sounds to me like we did pretty well so far, I half-expected the judge to simply declare that there is no constitutional basis for the suit and toss it out. Great job to all involved; hopefully I'll be able to make it to the next hearing when they go over the actual merits of the case. I don't know much about the law, but apparently this wasn't really the arguing portion of the case; just the procedural stuff.
Also, I think this might make it easier to raise funds and support from other organizations. Up until now, the case was sort of an abstraction that was "in the works". Now, it's more like, "This is happening, right now!", and I think that will help open some pocketbooks and hopefully garner some support from the big dogs. Keep the faith, all!
HRA BBQ THIS SUNDAY
FEATURING LOTS AND LOTS OF FIREARMS THIS SUNDAY
GREAT FOOD THIS SUNDAY
ALL HAPPENING THIS.....
SUNDAY SUNDAY SUNDAY[/SIZE=36PT]
Post by: rswarrior1700 on March 22, 2012, 05:28:01 PM
Halftime since so put it that way
HRA BBQ THIS SUNDAY
FEATURING LOTS AND LOTS OF FIREARMS THIS SUNDAY
GREAT FOOD THIS SUNDAY
ALL HAPPENING THIS.....SUNDAY SUNDAY SUNDAY[/size=36pt]
Post by: HiCarry on March 23, 2012, 09:39:32 AM
On another note, I just got the NRA-ILA legislative update and it reviews the current NRA supported cases. At the end, it has a section that says: "Tell us what you think." Maybe we should use that avenue to have everyone call and write the NRA-ILA and ask why they are not supporting our efforts here in Hawaii....
Quote
If you have any comments on the NRA-ILA Legal Update or suggestions for topics, please e-mail us at legalupdate@nrahq.org. Please do not send requests for legal assistance to this address. Those should be sent to the attention of NRA-ILA Legislative Counsel via phone at (703) 267-1161; fax to (703) 267-1164; or e-mail to ILALegal@nrahq.org.
Post by: Gordyf on March 25, 2012, 06:00:43 PM
Have to question the validity of the claim that there were only 14 folks that applied for a concealed permit last year, but maybe somebody out there can verify.
Notable that "all" were denied. Also notable and not reported was the fact that most process servers are active or retired LEO's and are permitted to carry.
Additionally worthy of note and reported was the fact that the Brady Bunch filed an Amicus brief. I can't help but notice that there was nothing from those National organizations that
that I have sent money to on fairly regular occasions. The NRA, GOA etc...The anti's don't miss a beat. WHERE WERE OUR ADVOCATES and their legal team???
I think any future disposable donation money will be with HDF and the rest can do without until this has run it's course. Local issues
Always trump.
Aloha
Post by: Funtimes on March 25, 2012, 08:13:33 PM
Post by: 230RN on March 26, 2012, 07:47:24 AM
Remember that, folk$.
It'$ a crying $hame that it co$t$ $o much to re-in$titutionalize a clearly and unequivocally $tated right in our founding document$.
:( :'(
Post by: mauiblue on May 21, 2012, 11:59:48 AM
Post by: eyeeatingfish on May 21, 2012, 01:26:12 PM
If this has been covered before, my apologies. Will the National right to carry bill working its way through Congress benefit us in Hawaii?
Theoretically it should. If the national law were passed and I cam across someone armed with a permit I would certainly not arrest, though I might document so I do not get yelled at at work. (I work law enforcement)
However one of two things could happen. A test case could go through and a judge could somehow decide that we don't have concealed carry since permits are almost never issued or the legislature could rewrite the law so there is no concealed carry whatsoever.
Post by: mauiblue on May 29, 2012, 09:25:14 PM
Post by: Funtimes on June 01, 2012, 05:35:37 AM
USCA Appeal Fees received $ 455 receipt number HI003934 re 55 , 54 , 53 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal, filed by Christopher Baker (eps)No COS issued for this docket entry (Entered: 05/29/2012)
2012-05-30 57 0 USCA Case Number CA 12-16258 for 55 Preliminary Injunction Appeal, filed by Christopher Baker. (eps )No COS issued for this docket entry (Entered: 05/30/2012)
2012-05-30 58 0 USCA Time Schedule Order as to 55 Preliminary Injunction Appeal, filed by Christopher Baker. (eps)No COS issued for this docket entry (Entered: 05/30/2012)
2012-05-31 59 0 Attorney Appeal Packet re 55 Preliminary Injunction Appeal, 53 ; 54 (Attachments: # 1 Instructions For Civil Appeals, # 2 Letter re Court Reporters, # 3 Instructions Transcript Designation & Ordering Form, # 4 Transcript Designation & Ordering Form, # 5 Notice of Appeal, # 6 Docket Sheet)(eps )CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry (Entered: 05/31/2012)
---- This is our latest. We are going to the next court, this is a very expensive battle coming so please send donations (Just paperwork is going to be probably around 1k-2k) ; freedom is not free.
Post by: Bacon on June 10, 2012, 04:47:08 PM
Post by: Funtimes on June 10, 2012, 05:01:16 PM
Is there anything else we can do besides donate? Any non-lawyer work that we could help with?
Writing articles, reviews of firearms, equipment, etc. can help. Taking photographs of a HDF gun safety class for us, videoing portion of a gun safety class for us. Linking articles relevant to firearms on the HDF facebook page, tweets about very relevant current events. Marketing (flyers posting), talking to people at the gun shops, gun stores, your friends etc. about the case. Graphics work, web site work, content, publishing type stuff. Letter writing (big companies) groups that are gun friendly etc. Finding an American Samoan that want's a firearm; finding a legal alien (someone with a green card) that wants a firearm. Finding someone age 18 who wants to own a long gun in their home. Volunteering to teach with the foundation regularly. Coming to help shoot with the students, helping clean guns etc. There are so many things that I spend lots and lots of time doing to prepare and do classes, promote and market HDF, and the like that it is really endless.
The first thing I always ask is what do you like to do? What are your skills?
Post by: Kingkeoni on June 10, 2012, 05:04:35 PM
Post by: Funtimes on June 10, 2012, 05:09:20 PM
-- Power Point
-- Video Editing
-- Membership Roster (possibly calling people).
-- Setting up the HDF online store.
-- Making content for the page
Post by: Funtimes on June 10, 2012, 05:10:04 PM
I'm willing to volunteer to help pistol instruction whenever you need.
Next Course - 24th of June =) 1297 Ala Kapuna Street # 406
Post by: Kingkeoni on June 10, 2012, 07:03:35 PM
Next Course - 24th of June =) 1297 Ala Kapuna Street # 406
What time?
Post by: Eaglesfan2386 on June 10, 2012, 07:07:22 PM
Post by: Funtimes on June 10, 2012, 08:12:47 PM
What time?
0800
Post by: hnl.flyboy on June 10, 2012, 10:33:01 PM
0800
Can other instructors come if they're free?
Post by: Funtimes on June 11, 2012, 05:21:09 AM
Can other instructors come if they're free?
We teach the first portion at my house, so I guess the answer would be "it depends." If the class isn't full (which would be bad) then I guess. Where we can get more assistance soon will be when we go to the range. It would help to already have a bench ready for the students at the public pistol side, and then have another person there so the students can shoot more.
Post by: MantisClaw on June 11, 2012, 06:16:01 AM
Post by: hnl.flyboy on June 11, 2012, 12:11:17 PM
We teach the first portion at my house, so I guess the answer would be "it depends." If the class isn't full (which would be bad) then I guess. Where we can get more assistance soon will be when we go to the range. It would help to already have a bench ready for the students at the public pistol side, and then have another person there so the students can shoot more.
I can show up real early to the range then.
Post by: Funtimes on June 12, 2012, 02:36:15 PM
What time does the class usually end up at the range?
We normally leave my house about 11:30-11:45, getting to the range about one hour later and then staying till 3:00 p.m. I've also considered starting the class at 0730, but I don't know if that would rub people wrong or not.
What takes me some time is setting up target stands, getting a bench, cleaning up and breaking down, and then cleaning guns. I would like to clean them a bit more, but I don't have the time to do it every week (for like 9 firearms). My goal is to make things easy enough and have a few people follow the same teaching guidlines and style that we normally have so that they can actually come and teach the class. This would allow us to have more classes, but not mean I have to spend every single weekend day teaching gun safety courses. Right now, I spend four to six days on weekends doing so - it is taxing.
However, I am pleased to announce that we just ran over 100 students this last course! I have also already booked my classes for the rest of the month and will be adding an additional class.
If someone would like to help on the 23rd of June, please let me know. I will need one other person to help with the range.
Post by: hnl.flyboy on June 12, 2012, 08:39:54 PM
If someone would like to help on the 23rd of June, please let me know. I will need one other person to help with the range.
That's easy. Chinese Gun Club has a pistol competition going on the 23rd. If you arrive after its done, I'll still be around.
Post by: Inspector on June 13, 2012, 05:59:05 AM
What does it take to become an NRA Instructor?
Post by: hnl.flyboy on June 13, 2012, 08:01:53 AM
Funtimes,
What does it take to become an NRA Instructor?
I found a class on NRAInstructors.org. Funtimes might know someone cheaper.
Post by: GZire on June 13, 2012, 09:54:37 AM
....................However, I am pleased to announce that we just ran over 100 students this last course! I have also already booked my classes for the rest of the month and will be adding an additional class....................
You had 100 people in your last course?
Post by: Funtimes on June 13, 2012, 10:51:24 AM
You had 100 people in your last course?
Negative. I guess I could have structured the sentence a little better. From the last course we taught, this year we have instructed over 100 people (106 exactly). This might not sound like a lot, but we only have myself and Derek teaching out of the HDF Home Office, two to three times a month so it is pretty good I think. I have explored the options of increasing course size, but I really rather not. I think our low instructor / student ratio is perfect and provides a solid level of personal attention that I feel the students need. Just last year, at this time, we were only doing classes of 1-4 people every few weeks (maybe twice a month).
100 would be insane... lol.
Post by: GZire on June 13, 2012, 01:13:19 PM
Post by: Bacon on June 14, 2012, 06:28:06 PM
Right now some top things on my mind:
-- Power Point
-- Video Editing
-- Membership Roster (possibly calling people).
-- Setting up the HDF online store.
-- Making content for the page
What kind of video editing do you need done?
That just sounded like the most interesting thing you listed, but I have experience in just about every area of computer/IT stuff. Any details on what you need would be great.
Post by: Funtimes on June 15, 2012, 05:07:12 AM
What kind of video editing do you need done?
That just sounded like the most interesting thing you listed, but I have experience in just about every area of computer/IT stuff. Any details on what you need would be great.
We have lots of video clips and stuff of gun classes, range days etc.; it would help to actually make a decent video out of some of it. Making little advertisements for our basic pistol classes etc. Really just trying to engage the audience and bring people into the sport and our cause.
We are also always looking to do something creative, we have had lots of ideas for say like a 40 second to 1 minute ad etc.
Post by: MisterEd on June 18, 2012, 05:55:15 AM
We have lots of video clips and stuff of gun classes, range days etc.; it would help to actually make a decent video out of some of it. Making little advertisements for our basic pistol classes etc. Really just trying to engage the audience and bring people into the sport and our cause.
We are also always looking to do something creative, we have had lots of ideas for say like a 40 second to 1 minute ad etc.
Chris, one of my daughters works at KHON selling commercials... might be able to get some discounted rates for HDF ads. I'll talk to her about it.
aloha,
:shaka:
Post by: Funtimes on June 26, 2012, 11:33:49 PM
Appellant Brief File Copy 065 (http://www.scribd.com/doc/98399297/Appellant-Brief-File-Copy-065#)
http://www.hawaiidefensefoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Appellant-Brief-File-Copy-065.pdf (http://www.hawaiidefensefoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Appellant-Brief-File-Copy-065.pdf)
Post by: vidar808 on June 29, 2012, 11:02:42 PM
Post by: dirsh on July 12, 2012, 02:50:07 PM
Post by: Funtimes on July 12, 2012, 07:49:46 PM
Judge says temporary ccw = me running around like george zimmerman and killing people with skittles and hoodies.
We say, "Judge - your crazy." And appealed this preliminary ruling to the 9th circuit. We now are waiting for our appeal to process (probably like 5 months - 1 1/2 years).
Post by: mauiblue on July 12, 2012, 09:57:18 PM
Post by: dirsh on July 12, 2012, 11:59:20 PM
Thanks for the summary funtimes
Post by: TeamSDSHawaii on August 14, 2012, 10:07:20 PM
We filed a suit for ccw. And requested for a temporary CCW permit until the case could be heard to its conclusion.
Judge says temporary ccw = me running around like george zimmerman and killing people with skittles and hoodies.
We say, "Judge - your crazy." And appealed this preliminary ruling to the 9th circuit. We now are waiting for our appeal to process (probably like 5 months - 1 1/2 years).
Well put...
Post by: bass monkey on August 14, 2012, 10:10:27 PM
Post by: Funtimes on August 15, 2012, 09:07:39 AM
After reading the responses from hpd in that Facebook thread, I don't like their attitude and am willing to help support you and the cause in any way possible. I know we talked about it before but I think I can be of great help now.
I got something for that thread. :)
Post by: Bigkahuna808 on August 22, 2012, 08:50:17 AM
Gun group sues Honolulu police over Facebook posts
http://bit.ly/PdarsB (http://bit.ly/PdarsB)
http://m.hawaiinewsnow.com/ms/p/a3/55/view.m?id=124279&storyId=19343168&news=Top%20Stories&news2=Main (http://m.hawaiinewsnow.com/ms/p/a3/55/view.m?id=124279&storyId=19343168&news=Top%20Stories&news2=Main)
Post by: eyeeatingfish on September 04, 2012, 09:16:31 PM
Also I think it is a waste of funds that could be better spent especially because I believe that the lawsuit won't win. Facebook is a private company, there is no freedom of speech on facebook. As a private website comments can be deleted and it is not infringing on anyone's freedom of speech. HPD is not going on the website and suppressing all comments it does not like, it is controlling what they want on their private page.
Post by: hnl.flyboy on September 04, 2012, 09:21:13 PM
I have to say that I think the lawsuit over the removal of the facebook posts is a mistake. I think it makes the group look crazy, either that or just whiners.
Also I think it is a waste of funds that could be better spent especially because I believe that the lawsuit won't win. Facebook is a private company, there is no freedom of speech on facebook. As a private website comments can be deleted and it is not infringing on anyone's freedom of speech. HPD is not going on the website and suppressing all comments it does not like, it is controlling what they want on their private page.
There's already a thread regarding the HPD lawsuit over 1st Amendment infringement.
http://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=4125.0 (http://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=4125.0)
Also, it's more than Facebook being a private company. The page was officially representing a .gov entity, with a .gov employee on the clock, on a .gov computer.
Post by: Funtimes on September 04, 2012, 09:41:14 PM
I have to say that I think the lawsuit over the removal of the facebook posts is a mistake. I think it makes the group look crazy, either that or just whiners.
Also I think it is a waste of funds that could be better spent especially because I believe that the lawsuit won't win. Facebook is a private company, there is no freedom of speech on facebook. As a private website comments can be deleted and it is not infringing on anyone's freedom of speech. HPD is not going on the website and suppressing all comments it does not like, it is controlling what they want on their private page.
Just for the record. We are winning.
All of our members have been unbanned; all other people have been unbanned; HPD is being compelled to develop policies that are consistent with the protections and mandates of the First Amendment.
The city has lost. It's also the first of a few messages that when the government steps out of line, citizens are watching.
Post by: Funtimes on September 04, 2012, 09:42:38 PM
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Notice of Docket Activity
The following transaction was entered on 09/04/2012 at 4:32:13 PM PDT and filed on 09/04/2012
Case Name: Christopher Baker v. Louis Kealoha, et al
Case Number: 12-16258
Document(s): Document(s)
Docket Text:
Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: HB): The court denies appellant’s motion to stay appellate proceedings in this preliminary injunction appeal pending issuance of the decision in Richards, et al. v. Prieto, et al., No. 11-16255. The Clerk shall calendar this appeal, No. 12-16258, before the panel that will be assigned to decide appeal No. 11-16255. Briefing is completed. The amicus brief submitted by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence is filed. Within 7 days of the filing of this order, the filer is ordered to file 7 copies of the brief in paper format, with a green cover, accompanied by certification, attached to the end of each copy of the brief, that the brief is identical to the version submitted electronically.[8309708] (WL)
What does this mean? We are lacing the gloves, because we along with the SAF, NRA, and potentially others are headed to court (Likely on the same day or within a short span of each other).
Post by: TeamMidori on September 04, 2012, 09:46:58 PM
Also update for the CCW case:
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Notice of Docket Activity
The following transaction was entered on 09/04/2012 at 4:32:13 PM PDT and filed on 09/04/2012
Case Name: Christopher Baker v. Louis Kealoha, et al
Case Number: 12-16258
Document(s): Document(s)
Docket Text:
Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: HB): The court denies appellant’s motion to stay appellate proceedings in this preliminary injunction appeal pending issuance of the decision in Richards, et al. v. Prieto, et al., No. 11-16255. The Clerk shall calendar this appeal, No. 12-16258, before the panel that will be assigned to decide appeal No. 11-16255. Briefing is completed. The amicus brief submitted by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence is filed. Within 7 days of the filing of this order, the filer is ordered to file 7 copies of the brief in paper format, with a green cover, accompanied by certification, attached to the end of each copy of the brief, that the brief is identical to the version submitted electronically.[8309708] (WL)
What does this mean? We are lacing the gloves, because we along with the SAF, NRA, and potentially others are headed to court (Likely on the same day or within a short span of each other).
Do u know any specifics regarding the other cases?
Post by: ren on September 04, 2012, 10:04:48 PM
Post by: Funtimes on September 04, 2012, 10:35:53 PM
I remain skeptical.
About?
Post by: hnl.flyboy on September 04, 2012, 10:43:15 PM
Also update for the CCW case:
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Notice of Docket Activity
The following transaction was entered on 09/04/2012 at 4:32:13 PM PDT and filed on 09/04/2012
Case Name: Christopher Baker v. Louis Kealoha, et al
Case Number: 12-16258
Document(s): Document(s)
Docket Text:
Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: HB): The court denies appellant’s motion to stay appellate proceedings in this preliminary injunction appeal pending issuance of the decision in Richards, et al. v. Prieto, et al., No. 11-16255. The Clerk shall calendar this appeal, No. 12-16258, before the panel that will be assigned to decide appeal No. 11-16255. Briefing is completed. The amicus brief submitted by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence is filed. Within 7 days of the filing of this order, the filer is ordered to file 7 copies of the brief in paper format, with a green cover, accompanied by certification, attached to the end of each copy of the brief, that the brief is identical to the version submitted electronically.[8309708] (WL)
What does this mean? We are lacing the gloves, because we along with the SAF, NRA, and potentially others are headed to court (Likely on the same day or within a short span of each other).
NRA / SAF helping out at all now? How soon will you guys head to court?
Keep up the good work!! Thank you for your service to Hawaii gun owners.. :thumbsup:
Post by: Funtimes on September 04, 2012, 10:47:25 PM
NRA / SAF helping out at all now? How soon will you guys head to court?
Keep up the good work!! Thank you for your service to Hawaii gun owners.. :thumbsup:
No. Unknown, maybe... but likely no. We don't know - but soon? (Nov maybe?)
And, thank you, but credit should go to my wife for staying with me through this and the people who keep me motivated. It's a very long and hard fought road with countless hours spent.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on September 05, 2012, 02:49:29 PM
There's already a thread regarding the HPD lawsuit over 1st Amendment infringement.
http://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=4125.0 (http://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=4125.0)
Also, it's more than Facebook being a private company. The page was officially representing a .gov entity, with a .gov employee on the clock, on a .gov computer.
I will take my comments there, thankyou
Post by: Funtimes on September 05, 2012, 04:40:20 PM
How soon will you guys head to court?
Based on some new information, maybe the first week of December. This is obviously - very subject to change.
Post by: Funtimes on October 09, 2012, 10:46:20 AM
The following transaction was entered on 10/09/2012 at 12:54:50 PM PDT and filed on 10/09/2012
Case Name: Christopher Baker v. Louis Kealoha, et al
Case Number: 12-16258
Document(s): Document(s)
Docket Text:
Notice of Oral Argument on Thursday, December 6, 2012 - 9:00 AM - Courtroom 1, 3rd Floor - James R. Browning US Courthouse - San Francisco, CA. Please return ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF HEARING NOTICE form to: SAN FRANCISCO Office. Please open attached documents to view details about your case. [8352270] (RB)
Post by: Dregs on October 09, 2012, 03:34:08 PM
Post by: dubya on October 10, 2012, 08:26:27 AM
Good luck, brother.
dubya
Post by: Funtimes on October 10, 2012, 10:14:40 PM
So you and the lawyers have to go to CA?
Yes, we have to spend $$$$ and fly out to SF for arguments.
Post by: MisterEd on October 16, 2012, 11:26:38 AM
Good luck in SanFran
Post by: Funtimes on October 16, 2012, 01:44:31 PM
Just wandered over to HDF and dropped a few buck$ into your travel fund...
Good luck in SanFran
Thank you! Much appreciated.
Post by: danwrx on October 19, 2012, 08:47:35 AM
Post by: xer 21 on October 30, 2012, 12:19:00 AM
Post by: OGC on October 30, 2012, 07:27:29 PM
Im sure a lot of us can spare some freq flyer miles from our Hawaiian Visa... plus with HDF being non profit, I think HA wont charge for the transfers?
Post by: hnl.flyboy on October 30, 2012, 08:28:51 PM
Can we donate miles? eliminate the cost of air travel?
Im sure a lot of us can spare some freq flyer miles from our Hawaiian Visa... plus with HDF being non profit, I think HA wont charge for the transfers?
I think they already got the tickets, but I like the way you think! :thumbsup:
Post by: zippz on November 10, 2012, 12:48:10 PM
Post by: new guy on December 03, 2012, 02:17:34 PM
Post by: Anubis on December 03, 2012, 03:26:10 PM
Post by: new guy on December 05, 2012, 02:52:32 PM
Post by: dirsh on December 05, 2012, 07:01:07 PM
Post by: new guy on December 06, 2012, 09:45:00 AM
Post by: 2aHawaii on December 06, 2012, 10:05:44 AM
Post by: new guy on December 06, 2012, 10:13:42 AM
Post by: Funtimes on December 06, 2012, 06:33:08 PM
Guess we'll just have to wait. I was looking for any kind of information.. even if it was just impressions on how the oral arguments went!! :shaka:
Sorry very day and night leading up to it. More than anything, I want to first say thanks to my attorney Richard for taking this on. The obvious things, is that it was not his speciality, but it says something about a man who will do something for another person - just to help him (and to also think that this has been hundreds of hours of the last year and some change, that is nothing to sneeze at). This is thankless work, and there will always be a critic.
First things first, Paul Clement went up; I personally thought he did exceptionally well, and had a great closing. The court seemed interested in what he personally thought on the case. This may have something to do with him being ex-solicitor general and arguing many, many cases before the Supreme Court. Anyways, he did great. His opposing counsel had a very hard act to follow, but also did well. There were lots of questions about scrutiny to these individuals, and it seemed to be repeated strict from our side, and intermediate from the others.
Alan Gura argued Second, and just kind of went where Paul left off, so that worked well. He was followed by the attorney for Yolo county, who I personally thought did bad and went way far off on tangent. In fact, at one point, the person directing the panel had to reel this guy in off the ledge, because he was going who knows where.
Rick went next and did alright, we survived. There were a few issues with how Hawaii has worded the law, and the court agrees with the reading, but not necessarily the position. The court inquired hard about there being Zero permits, as that was different. The opposing counsel brought up they give it to some people, and Judge Callahan was asking why not a process server? But that they will issue to someone to guard their money. There was some serious inquiries to where and and when a right began and ended, and the States interest in public safety. Opposing counsel argued that any time we leave the doorstep, their interest prevails. The court didn't seem, at least to me, to really like that thought.
You can listen to oral arguments here:
Edward Peruta, et al. v. County of San Diego, et al. found here: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view.php?pk_id=0000010109 (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view.php?pk_id=0000010109)
Christopher Baker v. Louis Kealoha, et al. found here: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view.php?pk_id=0000010116 (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view.php?pk_id=0000010116)
Adam Richards, et al. v. Ed Prieto, et al. found here: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view.php?pk_id=0000010111 (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view.php?pk_id=0000010111)
Post by: TeamMidori on December 06, 2012, 07:11:46 PM
Post by: 2aHawaii on December 06, 2012, 08:14:19 PM
Now, I believe it is a waiting game. Not sure how long actually. I'll let Chris answer that when he has a chance.
Post by: Funtimes on December 07, 2012, 05:38:11 AM
Thanks for the update.
Now, I believe it is a waiting game. Not sure how long actually. I'll let Chris answer that when he has a chance.
Don't know. There is a looming case kind of I front of everyone else that could screw things up. Months I would say.
From there, win is a win, and a loss we assess and decide either to file for cert, or proceed on in the district court with discovery and everything else.
Post by: new guy on December 07, 2012, 08:01:00 AM
Post by: Funtimes on December 07, 2012, 04:54:43 PM
"That's what Kachalsky essentially held and I can't blame Cal and HI counsel for pushing it. That I what I would do as a counsel in their shoes. What I found intriguing is that the court was not buying, at least in their questions. Baker's counsel was actually helped on the PI point by counsel for the State. Judge Callahan gnawing at the PI abuse of discretion standard and it was *HI* counsel who articulated the right answer on that and that answer should be sufficient to put the PI issue to rest.
But Baker's counsel did not do a bad job at all. -- much better than most arguments I hear in the courts of appeals. He wasn't as smooth as Clement and Gura, to be sure, but few oral advocates are and smoothness doesn't really matter much in these arguments. What matters with a panel this smart (and all three are very smart judges) are your responses to the court's questions and the logical coherence of those responses in terms of your underlying legal theory. On that score, Baker counsel made no significant errors and had some very good points. His response that the discovery showed ZERO permits for civilians, for example, was very telling and had an impact. I learned more about the panel's mindset from the Baker argument than I did from Richards and Peruta arguments. I very much like Judge Callahan's statement of judicial philosophy about following SCT decisions. These are the things you look for, not the artistry of counsel's words."
See http://www.mdshooters.com/showpost.php?p=1970730&postcount=83 (http://www.mdshooters.com/showpost.php?p=1970730&postcount=83)
Post by: TeamMidori on December 07, 2012, 07:47:43 PM
Post by: Funtimes on December 07, 2012, 09:29:09 PM
What is a PI
It's a preliminary ruling that you can request to have while the case is on going. Essentially, it would be like saying, "Look, while we hash this crap out - we should get issued a permit to carry." The only problem is that there is a higher threshold we have to meet than other cases to have a Preliminary Injunction go through
Post by: 2aHawaii on December 08, 2012, 05:20:03 AM
I found it interesting how the three cases were strung together and then the judges would make reference to the previous case. Learn something new every day.
Post by: Funtimes on December 08, 2012, 05:04:27 PM
I listened to the audio. I couldn't even believe the case that the defense was trying to raise :rolleyes: I agree where the attorney on the other forums said that Holcomb wasn't as smooth as the other two. But he was following two all stars. He did a rather good job.
I found it interesting how the three cases were strung together and then the judges would make reference to the previous case. Learn something new every day.
Yeah. Paul clement is arguably, one of the best attorneys in the country - period. I mean no joke, probably like top 5 in the country. :love:
Alan Gura is also very good, and one of the best 2A attorneys in the country - so it is hard to compare. I'm proud of my friend, and I think he did good by me.
Post by: sworbeyegib on December 14, 2012, 08:00:53 PM
Post by: Haoleb on December 14, 2012, 08:50:05 PM
Post by: Anubis on December 15, 2012, 06:16:12 AM
If the IL Attorney General appeals, I predict SCOTUS will deny cert because it is in precise alignment with those earler SCOTUS opinions. When the 7th Circuit opinion is affirmed, the fact that carrying outside the home is part of the 2A right will signal the end of may-issue everywhere.
Post by: 2aHawaii on December 15, 2012, 03:14:04 PM
Our cause could get an assist from the recent 7th Circuit Court opinion striking down Illinois' total prohibition on all forms of carry outside the home. The ruling conforms to Heller and McDonald, and explicitly states that carrying outside the home is included in the right to bear arms.
If the IL Attorney General appeals, I predict SCOTUS will deny cert because it is in precise alignment with those earler SCOTUS opinions. When the 7th Circuit opinion is affirmed, the fact that carrying outside the home is part of the 2A right will signal the end of may-issue everywhere.
I'm not as knowlegdable as some with the lawyer issues, but as far as I know, the decision in the 7th won't laterally affect the 9th. I think the tiering is vertical where decisions in the 9th will affect courts under that district and SCOTUS would affect everything below it.
That said, the favorable decision in the 7th is good news on its own.
Post by: Funtimes on December 15, 2012, 09:35:48 PM
I'm not as knowlegdable as some with the lawyer issues, but as far as I know, the decision in the 7th won't laterally affect the 9th. I think the tiering is vertical where decisions in the 9th will affect courts under that district and SCOTUS would affect everything below it.
That said, the favorable decision in the 7th is good news on its own.
It affects it greatly. Because one way or another, either they agree (and we win) or they disagree and we are split circuits which aids a SCOTUS review.
Post by: Bunker on December 15, 2012, 09:42:55 PM
It affects it greatly. Because one way or another, either they agree (and we win) or they disagree and we are split circuits which aids a SCOTUS review.
Sure glad you're keeping us straight on all the legal jargon with this. For us layman (speaking for myself) it's very useful info. :thumbsup:
Post by: 2aHawaii on December 16, 2012, 04:37:45 AM
Post by: Funtimes on December 16, 2012, 11:41:55 AM
Sure glad you're keeping us straight on all the legal jargon with this. For us layman (speaking for myself) it's very useful info. :thumbsup:
No problem to break it down even further, what helps is when two different areas (circuits) have different opinions. Overall, we want the constitution to kind of apply in the same way all the way across the land. For instance, we don't want freedom of speech to mean one thing in California and another thing in Florida. If we get to that point (a circuit split) and their opinions differ it increases the chance that the Supreme Court will weigh in on the case to settle the differences. We have to remember the Supreme Court only takes about 1% of the cases that people request it to hear, so we have to have a good controversy that will affect a lot of people. The splits really, really help us.
Post by: Anubis on December 16, 2012, 11:45:58 AM
Post by: Funtimes on December 16, 2012, 04:11:08 PM
If there is a split the Supreme Court wants to resolve, which of the 2 cases would it pick? Just the one it wants to reverse or both?
Well there has to be an appeal before them. The New York case is a likely target (with it being a denial).
Post by: Hi state on January 19, 2013, 10:00:47 AM
Post by: Funtimes on January 19, 2013, 07:00:34 PM
Interested if there are any new updates or progress?
We continue to wait. Should be "two weeks."
Post by: Hi state on January 19, 2013, 08:45:10 PM
Post by: Funtimes on January 19, 2013, 09:24:25 PM
Ok mahalos for the heads up
Please note the quotation marks ;). They are "air quotes" :P
Post by: Anubis on January 20, 2013, 06:04:35 AM
...Should be "two weeks."
Don't hold your breath waiting for an opinion. A similar case was argued 2011 Nov 17 in the 10th Circuit in Denver, then re-argued 2012 Mar 19, and still no opinion has been issued.
(Brief description: the court's case number is 11-1164, Peterson v. Martinez. Peterson sued because his out-of-state concealed-carry permit is not recognized in Colorado. He could carry openly elsewhere in Colorado, no permit required, but in Denver open carry is not legal; therefore his right to "bear" is infringed. Argued last March by the awesome Alan Gura.)
Post by: Pilaboy on January 21, 2013, 12:41:39 AM
Post by: Funtimes on January 21, 2013, 09:39:06 AM
Don't hold your breath waiting for an opinion. A similar case was argued 2011 Nov 17 in the 10th Circuit in Denver, then re-argued 2012 Mar 19, and still no opinion has been issued.
(Brief description: the court's case number is 11-1164, Peterson v. Martinez. Peterson sued because his out-of-state concealed-carry permit is not recognized in Colorado. He could carry openly elsewhere in Colorado, no permit required, but in Denver open carry is not legal; therefore his right to "bear" is infringed. Argued last March by the awesome Alan Gura.)
I think you missed the "air quotes"
Post by: Anubis on January 21, 2013, 09:42:14 AM
Post by: Funtimes on January 22, 2013, 01:36:25 AM
I noted the quotes indicating 2 weeks was a joke. I was demonstrating that it could literally take years to get a ruling, which could be considered a bigger joke.
We are on a preliminary injunction, so we don't expect it to take nearly that long. Standard is about 3-6 months.
Post by: danwrx on January 28, 2013, 12:55:31 AM
Post by: armsinc on January 28, 2013, 01:26:23 AM
Post by: PeaShooter on February 21, 2013, 02:42:06 PM
Post by: new guy on March 04, 2013, 03:23:27 PM
Post by: Funtimes on March 05, 2013, 08:57:25 AM
Bruddah Funtimes, have you or your attorney received any updates? :shaka:
When we know :) you will know. These things take a lonnnnnng time =(. I'm thinking about summer time?
Post by: new guy on March 05, 2013, 10:16:55 AM
Post by: Funtimes on March 05, 2013, 10:43:19 PM
Understood... just wanted to keep this issue at the forefront of our minds. :thumbsup:
And, because we're three months post-oral arguments, I was hoping there was might be some kind of news.
Will standby for updates!!
I wish brother, I wish.... one way or another - no matter which way it goes, I just want to know.
It's been a long two years of slugging and fighting this stuff. I've gotten gray hairs, and given up a lot. My fingers are crossed! :thumbsup:
Post by: Jaydawg on March 12, 2013, 05:44:00 AM
Quote
Also heard before the Ninth Circuit were arguments in Baker v. Kealoha, a non-NRA case that challenges Hawaii's near-complete ban on the issuance of concealed carry permits. Hawaii's statute says that a concealed carry permit shall be issued only "in exceptional case" or "where urgency or need has been sufficiently indicated," and gives police chiefs arbitrary power to decide whose case is "exceptional." (In practice, no permits are ever issued, a fact that the government's attorney carefully dodged during the argument.)
Post by: SOLEsource684 on March 31, 2013, 09:58:16 AM
Best of Luck!
Post by: MMA10mm on April 05, 2013, 06:14:20 PM
I live in Illinois, the only state with NO concealed carry (period - not even "lip-service" to it in the state laws w/ police Chiefs who never issue, such as in your state). We can't even apply to be denied... :(
However, our state rifle association just helped win a case in Court and the Judge ordered that if the state legislature did not enact a CCW law by June, by judicial edict (order), we could legally carry!! (I kind-of hope the legislature, which is controlled by corrupt, far-left democrats, doesn't get its act together, because they will probably make a restrictive law...)
Anyway - I wanted you all to know that there might be light at the end of the tunnel! Hawaii and the west coast federal appeals courts seem to be very left-leaning, so the battle may be hard, but with Heller and other recent US Supreme Court decisions, I think you'd win this if you had to appeal all the way to SCOTUS.
Good luck!!
Post by: new guy on May 25, 2013, 02:56:20 PM
Post by: Funtimes on May 25, 2013, 05:33:00 PM
What news from the Ninth Curcuit, bruddah Funtimes??
Still nada?
:shaka:
:sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping:
Post by: DuDuBoi on June 25, 2013, 07:38:58 AM
Post by: Funtimes on June 25, 2013, 09:42:55 AM
Soooo, anything yet?
Ninth circuit opinions average 18 months... grab a snickers.
Post by: islandlivin31 on July 01, 2013, 09:01:57 PM
Post by: 808gmac on August 14, 2013, 09:43:39 AM
Post by: Funtimes on August 14, 2013, 10:47:46 AM
can't wait to find out the result..hope it's positive
Thank you man. I kind of feel like I'm waiting for Christmas and it's a present from my grandmother. It's either going to be something I really like - or some sweater that I will be like :wtf: and wish I could send it back.
Post by: MisterEd on August 14, 2013, 02:22:16 PM
Post by: Q on August 14, 2013, 03:28:02 PM
Post by: Aiea78 on August 14, 2013, 07:39:58 PM
My request / application has been totally ignored at this point. Very disappointing whilst holding licenses already from other states let alone the 2nd Amendment which clearly states to keep and bear shall not be infringed. Nuts.
Post by: Shieldze1025 on August 22, 2013, 11:15:25 AM
Keep it up!
Post by: 230RN on November 19, 2013, 12:01:00 PM
Is there another thread about it somewhere?
Terry
Post by: Funtimes on November 19, 2013, 02:59:24 PM
What's been happening with this since Chris has apparently moved to CA?
Is there another thread about it somewhere?
Terry
We are still waiting on the decisions. Some rumors speculate that we will see it this year (I still say 18 months from arguments, which means summer '14). The Mel case, which was mentioned at our oral arguments, just had it's opinion released a few weeks ago. This case was basically holding up Peruta/Richards/Baker. With that case disposed of now, our clock should now be moving again.
Other than that, when the ruling comes down - we either have carry in the 9th circuit or we don't. This group of decisions will essentially open doors or close doors; the only saving grace would be that SCOTUS picks a case up (should we and the others lose), but that chances they will do that are probably slim; they take less than 1% of cases that go around, so numbers are in no ones favor.
Post by: DuDuBoi on December 17, 2013, 03:32:38 PM
:stopjack: Still keeping my fingers crossed here!
Post by: Aiea78 on December 17, 2013, 03:56:18 PM
Post by: Q on December 17, 2013, 05:06:58 PM
Post by: Darmok and Jalad @Tanagra on December 17, 2013, 08:49:17 PM
Guess both these guys cant say anything right without their teleprompter.
J-O-B-S
with emphasis on the B-S !!
Post by: Dolomite on December 22, 2013, 05:04:38 PM
Post by: Dolomite on December 22, 2013, 05:08:03 PM
Post by: Inspector on January 14, 2014, 12:35:25 PM
Does this decision help the case for Hawaii CCW?
http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/2014/01/calguns-foundation-wins-handgun-carry-lawsuit-los-angeles-sheriffs-department-sheriff-lee-baca/ (http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/2014/01/calguns-foundation-wins-handgun-carry-lawsuit-los-angeles-sheriffs-department-sheriff-lee-baca/)
Post by: Kingkeoni on January 15, 2014, 03:50:57 AM
(http://img.tapatalk.com/d/13/12/23/4adybasu.jpg)
Just exactly how do you plan to "explain" how you were "murdered"?
Aaah come on
Post by: Aiea78 on January 15, 2014, 04:35:37 AM
Post by: Kingkeoni on January 15, 2014, 05:37:13 PM
Read it again and you will get it.
Nope, it's still idiotic even after reading it twice.
Post by: Tom_G on January 15, 2014, 10:14:09 PM
Nope, it's still idiotic even after reading it twice.
Seriously? You're trolling, right? Please, please, tell me you're trolling!
Post by: Funtimes on January 15, 2014, 10:25:53 PM
Seriously? You're trolling, right? Please, please, tell me you're trolling!
how is he trolling lol? You can't explain shit after you are dead ;p
Post by: SWHunter on January 15, 2014, 11:54:40 PM
Post by: Funtimes on January 16, 2014, 07:35:02 AM
It says "them explain"
Ah. The bad grammar in it through me off :P #backtomyhole
Post by: Aiea78 on January 16, 2014, 11:19:20 AM
Post by: aieahound on January 16, 2014, 11:41:31 AM
He's just staring at the hot chick. :shake:
Post by: Kingkeoni on January 17, 2014, 05:22:58 AM
how is he trolling lol? You can't explain shit after you are dead ;p
:thumbsup:
Post by: Kingkeoni on January 17, 2014, 05:25:28 AM
KK's not even reading it.
He's just staring at the hot chick. :shake:
Were there words on the picture?
Post by: Funtimes on January 19, 2014, 04:09:45 PM
Post by: new guy on March 19, 2014, 06:14:48 PM
Post by: Hawaii Volcano Squad on March 19, 2014, 07:35:43 PM
Okay, seriously... :wtf:
Just publishing the frickin' opinion, already!!
The last filing in Baker v. Kealoha was August 2013. That said, they still need to play out the En Banc with Peruta from Brady and decide if they want to send the CA AG up to SCOTUS. There were 2 Peruta filings re the Brady En Banc yesterday. Dealt with lack of standing for Brady people to file and also that the court did not have time and was too busy for 12 judges to review all the stuff in the Brady filings. :popcorn:
My read of the Tea leaves is that the court is still divided 2-1, however there are complicated procedural issues that differentiate Baker from Peruta. Make take a while for the clerks to figure out a ruling for the judges that won't be overturned.
Post by: new guy on March 20, 2014, 08:37:47 AM
Post by: Hawaii Volcano Squad on March 20, 2014, 11:04:46 AM
I pray we may apply for CCW at long last in the meantime. I note the court was still divided 2-1 as I surmised.
That said, FIRST ROUND OF DRINKS IS ON ME! :thumbsup:
Post by: Funtimes on March 20, 2014, 11:42:35 AM
Keep your hats on I would bet an appeal to SCOTUS will be forthcoming, and this comes in a different position than Peruta. It may or may not survive SCOTUS if an appeal comes to pass.
I pray we may apply for CCW at long last in the meantime. I note the court was still divided 2-1 as I surmised.
That said, FIRST ROUND OF DRINKS IS ON ME! :thumbsup:
I've heard that they wouldn't appeal. If Peruta doesn't go En Banc, it would be pretty pointless for them to even try.
Now we have to see what's going to happen, so long as Peruta stays controlling - then the victory is ours and this game is over.
Post by: Hawaii Volcano Squad on March 20, 2014, 11:50:19 AM
Post by: MisterEd on March 21, 2014, 07:48:28 AM
"Hawaii Becomes Shall-Issue
The Ninth Circuit Court recently ruled in Peruta v. San Diego that California residents did not have to show a "pressing need" for a concealed weapons license. Thursday, the Ninth Circuit extended that to Hawaii by overturning a district court ruling and thus making the Aloha State a shall-issue state. The Court said, "In light of our holding in Peruta, the district court made an error of law when it concluded that the Hawaii statutes did not implicate protected Second Amendment activity. Accordingly, we vacate the district court's decision denying [the plaintiff's] motion for a preliminary injunction and remand for further proceedings consistent with Peruta." We're glad to see that even the Ninth Circuit acknowledges that the Second Amendment means what it says. "
Post by: Mahukaawenui on March 28, 2014, 02:32:06 PM
We need to change them first
Just seen in the Patriot Post this morning.... Not sure how it will all play out...
"Hawaii Becomes Shall-Issue
The Ninth Circuit Court recently ruled in Peruta v. San Diego that California residents did not have to show a "pressing need" for a concealed weapons license. Thursday, the Ninth Circuit extended that to Hawaii by overturning a district court ruling and thus making the Aloha State a shall-issue state. The Court said, "In light of our holding in Peruta, the district court made an error of law when it concluded that the Hawaii statutes did not implicate protected Second Amendment activity. Accordingly, we vacate the district court's decision denying [the plaintiff's] motion for a preliminary injunction and remand for further proceedings consistent with Peruta." We're glad to see that even the Ninth Circuit acknowledges that the Second Amendment means what it says. "
Post by: passivekinetic on April 23, 2014, 11:12:27 AM
Can someone please do a quick recap and explain layman-style what in the seven kingdoms is happening RFN?
Thanks!
Post by: 2aHawaii on April 23, 2014, 11:33:24 AM
I could be mistaken but it sure seems like something's up with this.
Can someone please do a quick recap and explain layman-style what in the seven kingdoms is happening RFN?
Thanks!
There is quite a bit going on and I am not sure on what affects what, but do know that all of this does tie in together in one way or another.
- Drake v. Jerejian: Waiting to see if it will be heard in the Supreme Court. I believe this one would be to make a binding decision affecting the whole US.
- Peruta v. San Diego: Won but waiting to see if the AG will be able to request an en banc review of the case. This is a case that affects the Baker decision
- Baker v. Kealoha: Won but C&C filed for en banc. I really don't know if this was within the specified timeline.
Post by: Funtimes on April 23, 2014, 11:44:08 AM
- Baker v. Kealoha: Won but C&C filed for en banc. I really don't know if this was within the specified timeline.
They had requested and were approved for an extension of time to file.
Post by: SOLEsource684 on April 23, 2014, 12:33:00 PM
They had requested and were approved for an extension of time to file.
How convenient for them >:D
Post by: passivekinetic on April 23, 2014, 01:04:12 PM
Drake v. Jerejian
Issue: (1) Whether the Second Amendment secures a right to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense; and (2) whether state officials violate the Second Amendment by requiring that individuals wishing to exercise their right to carry a handgun for self-defense first prove a “justifiable need” for doing so.
Peruta v. San Diego
A decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit pertaining to the legality of San Diego County's restrictive policy requiring that residents provide documentation of good cause that distinguishes the applicant from the mainstream and places the applicant in harm's way before issuing a concealed carry permit
Baker v. Kealoha
The case is Baker v. Kealoha (9th Cir. Mar. 20, 2014), and it’s unsurprising: The same Ninth Circuit panel struck down the California restrictions on gun carrying last month in Peruta v. County of San Diego, and the Hawaii restrictions are in important respects similar to the California ones...
Post by: Zaytsev2013 on November 17, 2014, 08:06:23 AM
By Selected News Articles @ 3:58 AM :: 529 Views :: Second Amendment
Pro-Second Amendment Ruling Stands--Ninth Circuit Rejects Attempts by California AG and Brady Campaign to Meddle with Peruta Decision
From NRA-ILA November 14, 2014
As we’ve been reporting, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit handed gun owners a tremendous victory in February by recognizing the Second Amendment protects a right to bear arms outside the home. The decision also invalidated the San Diego County Sheriff’s policy of issuing concealed carry permits only upon a showing of extraordinary need for self-protection that would distinguish the applicant “from the mainstream.”
http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/ID/13984/9th-Circuit-Rejects-Gun-Control-Group-Intervention-in-Hawaii-Concealed-Carry-Case.aspx?utm_source=November+16%2C+2014+News+from+Hawaii+Free+Press+&utm_campaign=November+16%2C+2014+Email&utm_medium=email (http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/ID/13984/9th-Circuit-Rejects-Gun-Control-Group-Intervention-in-Hawaii-Concealed-Carry-Case.aspx?utm_source=November+16%2C+2014+News+from+Hawaii+Free+Press+&utm_campaign=November+16%2C+2014+Email&utm_medium=email)
Post by: Lylefk on November 26, 2015, 08:55:45 AM
*edit oops, just read the other post as well.
Mahalo,
Lyle
Post by: PeaShooter on December 31, 2015, 10:42:45 AM
Post by: pitoboy on December 31, 2015, 01:47:59 PM
Post by: suka on December 31, 2015, 03:16:49 PM
:sleeping:
Post by: Inspector on January 05, 2016, 11:58:38 AM
Post by: macsak on January 05, 2016, 12:05:55 PM
So I am a little confused here. Did our law get changed from "May Issue" to "Shall Issue"? Or do we have to wait for all these decisions?
we have to wait until the appeal is complete, then wait for the city/ state to establish the rules and regulations if we win
Post by: Inspector on January 05, 2016, 01:38:49 PM
we have to wait until the appeal is complete, then wait for the city/ state to establish the rules and regulations if we winThanks Mac! :wave:
Post by: MauiLeatherwork on February 05, 2016, 08:17:39 AM
WHEN do we expect a ruling?
I understood it would be a long wait, but I must confess it's a bit painful! The Baker vs Kealoha case is what keeps me coming back to the forum to frequently check in.
Thanks!
Post by: Q on February 05, 2016, 09:26:45 AM
Forgive me if I'm asking a tiring question...
WHEN do we expect a ruling?
I understood it would be a long wait, but I must confess it's a bit painful! The Baker vs Kealoha case is what keeps me coming back to the forum to frequently check in.
Thanks!
After Peruta
Post by: punaperson on February 05, 2016, 09:32:00 AM
Forgive me if I'm asking a tiring question...There is no legal requirement of any time constraint that a decision be rendered. They can take as long as they want (It has been 2296 days since the original Peruta suit was filed.). Peruta/Richards (which controls Baker) is now the longest outstanding en banc case not having a published decision.
WHEN do we expect a ruling?
I understood it would be a long wait, but I must confess it's a bit painful! The Baker vs Kealoha case is what keeps me coming back to the forum to frequently check in.
Thanks!
Speculation: Charles Nichols, litigant in the open carry lawsuit (Nichols v. Brown, et. al.) before the Ninth, recently asked for a delay in hearing his case for 1. 90 days, or 2. until Peruta/Richards has been published, as the decision in that case will bear heavily on his case and it wouldn't make much sense to argue it without the results from Peruta/Richards. The clerk of the court (yesterday, February 4, 2016) granted a 60 day delay, thus leading some to think it possible that Peruta/Ricahrds will be announced prior to that 60 day deadline (April 8, 2016). Pure speculation. In the meantime, we have no legal option to exercise our rights. Just the way "they" like it.
Post by: punaperson on March 09, 2016, 07:46:44 PM
It has now been 2330 days since the Peruta case was filed! Woohoo! I wish I could say that's a record and that means that a decision MUST be coming soon (by the "law" of averages), but, alas, a mere 2330 days awaiting "justice" is nowhere near the record, so it could still be forever.
Quickest case scenario: district court ruling against Peruta is upheld by en banc panel, no SCOTUS appeal. We're just where we are now (no CCW licenses for you!). It's over, pending Young.
Next quickest scenario: Case remanded back to district court for do-over, Peruta loses again, appeals to Ninth, 3 judge panel sustains defeat, ask for en banc, defeated, appeal to SCOTUS, they (most likely) deny cert (don't take the case), or they take the case and the defeat is upheld. Six or seven years later, outcome: No CCW licenses for you! Young proceeds.
Longest time case scenario: I don't want to even think about that. :crazy:
Post by: Aiea78 on March 09, 2016, 11:57:57 PM
Post by: RSN172 on March 10, 2016, 08:02:25 AM
As far as HAWAII is concerned, I do not see CCW ever being allowed in my lifetime. I believe our best hope is Cruz gets elected POTUS, appoints a pro gun justice to replace Scalia and then Ginsberg retires and he appoints another pro gun justice and CCW becomes federal law.
Post by: punaperson on March 10, 2016, 08:16:57 AM
meanwhile aren't there a bunch of states now authorizing open carry. seems we have zero traction on anything so far.Of course we know why certain people and government agents oppose bearing arms, especially without government permission, as they have 223 years of evidence from Vermont of the rampant "gun crime", bloodbath in the streets, killings over fender benders, "accidental" discharges in public, etc. The only problem is that Vermont has one of the lowest overall crime rates in the United States, including homicides (lower than Hawaii). The (bearing) arms rights deniers have no evidence, but in some states and regions (Ninth Circuit) they do have political/judicial power to infringe our rights. And they do precisely that. Because they can. Meanwhile, in most of the rest of the United States:
Constitutional Carry States as of March 10, 2016
Vermont: July 9, 1793 (Affirmed in State v. Rosenthal - 1903)
Alaska: September 9, 2003
Arizona: July 29, 2010
Wyoming: July 1, 2011 (Legal Wyoming Residents Only!)
Arkansas: August 16, 2013
Kansas: July 1, 2015
Maine: October 15, 2015
West Virginia: May 24, 2016 (Legislative override of governor's veto on March 5, 2016)
Constitutional Carry Bill Statuses 2016
Dead
-Virginia
-Utah
-Colorado
Pending
-Michigan
-Tennesse
-New Hampshire
-Mississippi
-Idaho
-Indiana
-Missouri
-Kentucky
-Louisiana (constitutional amendment and legislative bill)
-Pennsylvania
Hybrid
-South Carolina [permitless concealed carry]
Passed [2016]
-West Virginia
Not that it necessarily means anything, but just compare the Hawaii state motto to that of West Virginia, which is "Montani Semper Liberi" (mountaineers (are) always free). Just sayin'...
Post by: ren on March 10, 2016, 07:20:05 PM
http://khon2.com/2016/03/09/honolulu-police-chief-exceeds-expectations-in-annual-evaluation/ (http://khon2.com/2016/03/09/honolulu-police-chief-exceeds-expectations-in-annual-evaluation/)
Post by: punaperson on March 10, 2016, 10:35:05 PM
Wolfwood: Seriously my carry case Baker has a en banc petition on it as well. I do not get any updates from the court and have no idea when a decision will be issued. The NRA's guys have no idea either. Come back in the summer is my guess.
* * * *
I did not know that the Baker (Hawaii) case had requested an en banc hearing. I thought since Peruta/Ricahrds/Baker were all heard and decided the same by the original three judge panel that the Peruta/Richards en banc decision would apply to Baker, and that would (likely) be the end of it. I'd be surprised if the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals took Baker separately, since it seems to argue essentially the same points as Peruta/Richards except referring to the Hawaii statutes language rather than California's. That would stretch out the time line even further...(http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/images/smilies/oji.gif)
Post by: PeaShooter on May 14, 2016, 01:12:59 PM
Post by: punaperson on May 14, 2016, 04:53:06 PM
I read somewhere that it's possible they are delaying a response so that if the case goes to Supreme Court, there might be a replacement for Scalia by then.There are approximately 101+ hypotheses regarding the length of time taken to render the en banc decision (including, seriously, that they will NEVER render a decision). No one offering those hypotheses really knows anything. The only people that know what's going on are the en banc panel judges and some of their clerks, and they ain't talkin'. So you and I and almost everyone else are out of the loop and just have to wait until one day, all of a sudden, there is the decision on the Ninth website... and I think we all know what that decision is going to be (at least, that's my hypothesis). :shake:
Post by: Sentrosi on May 17, 2016, 08:55:13 AM
There are approximately 101+ hypotheses regarding the length of time taken to render the en banc decision (including, seriously, that they will NEVER render a decision). No one offering those hypotheses really knows anything. The only people that know what's going on are the en banc panel judges and some of their clerks, and they ain't talkin'. So you and I and almost everyone else are out of the loop and just have to wait until one day, all of a sudden, there is the decision on the Ninth website... and I think we all know what that decision is going to be (at least, that's my hypothesis). :shake:
Right? It's too bad the right to a speedy trial doesn't apply to cases of infringement of constitutional rights. If we could figure out a way for it to be a crime rather than a civil matter... but then they could waive their right since it's the defendant's right isn't it? Sigh.
Post by: Drakiir84 on May 17, 2016, 09:26:34 AM
Post by: Funtimes on June 01, 2016, 12:45:46 PM
Post by: Sentrosi on June 09, 2016, 09:29:58 AM
Appeals court rules Americans don't have right to carry concealed guns
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/06/09/court-no-right-to-carry-concealed-weapons-in-public.html
Post by: wolfwood on June 09, 2016, 08:33:28 PM
There is still an open carry componet in both Hawaii appeals and the Court is going to have to address that issue in a later hearing.
Post by: punaperson on June 09, 2016, 09:42:12 PM
Post by: wolfwood on August 16, 2016, 10:09:27 AM
Post by: rhironaka808 on August 16, 2016, 11:37:18 AM
Post by: wolfwood on August 16, 2016, 01:24:52 PM
What does this men in lay mans terms?
The Court wants us to write about the open carry part of our lawsuit so that it can rule on that part.
Post by: drck1000 on August 16, 2016, 02:14:04 PM
What does this men in lay mans terms?
I was gonna have my attorney friend translate that for me.
I've been wondering if anyone every sued lawmakers for writing in such language, as to only serve to confuse the lay person (i.e. me). >:(
Kidding of course. At least mostly. :D
The Court wants us to write about the open carry part of our lawsuit so that it can rule on that part.
:thumbsup:
Post by: suka on August 16, 2016, 02:39:05 PM
Post by: wolfwood on September 06, 2016, 12:51:06 PM
we just filed our supplemental brief
Post by: GLisehora on November 07, 2016, 11:29:47 AM
https://www.scribd.com/document/323193146/Filed-Baker-Supp-Brief
we just filed our supplemental brief
Thank you Chris Baker, Richard Holcomb and Alan Beck!
Who is becoming the new Chief of Police and is anyone else up for re-applying for concealed carry permits again?
Post by: michaelkih on November 17, 2017, 08:49:29 AM
Post by: Drakiir84 on November 20, 2017, 09:54:57 AM
Any update on this, and any way that I can get involved here in Kauai?
We're basically still fucked.
Post by: 6716J on November 20, 2017, 11:01:31 AM
We're basically still fucked.🤙
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: 2ahavvaii on November 27, 2017, 12:06:49 PM
The Judiciary Committee is scheduled to vote Wednesday on a National Rifle Association-supported bill that would allow a gun owner with a state-issued concealed carry permit to carry a handgun in any state that allows concealed weapons.
Post by: 2ahavvaii on November 30, 2017, 01:29:57 AM
CCW reciprocity taking a small step forward. May bear watching. Reciprocity or a supreme court ruling striking down the "may issue" policy is just about the only ways we'd ever see CCW in hawaii.
The Judiciary Committee is scheduled to vote Wednesday on a National Rifle Association-supported bill that would allow a gun owner with a state-issued concealed carry permit to carry a handgun in any state that allows concealed weapons.
National reciprocity for concealed carry passed the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday is expected to receive a floor vote before the end of the year.
Post by: Alika on August 18, 2022, 11:00:01 AM
Post by: 7ommy6un808 on August 18, 2022, 01:44:38 PM
Do they need to be sued again?
Absolutely. Unfortunately, Hawaii has the “go ahead, sue me” attitude, and without legal/financial backing of HIFICO, FPC, or GOA, a lawsuit against the AG/Chief of Police is pretty much stale crackers.