2aHawaii
General Topics => Legal and Activism => Topic started by: punaperson on May 01, 2017, 08:50:10 AM
-
IF, and that's a big IF, we ever get around to having a hearing in the Hawaii legislature on any bill that would decriminalize our right to bear arms outside the home for self-defense this case will probably be put forward by the AG, et al. as proof that CCW (or open carry) endangers the public. As far as they're concerned this is convincing proof that citizens are incapable of using anything approaching rational judgment regarding appropriate use of firearms outside the home. In the woman's defense, who hasn't drawn a gun on a fumbling incompetent employee who is wasting your time at some business like the barbershop or Home Depot? Certainly time-wasting incompetence like that warrants AT LEAST brandishing, right?
I hope that any testimony using this example as "evidence" will include 1. Whether this person was the legal owner of the firearm, and 2. Whether this person was a legal CCW licensee according to the laws of Cleveland and Ohio. Minor detail I know, but still...
Mom pulls gun on Cleveland barber when son's haircut takes too long
http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2017/04/mom_pulls_gun_on_cleveland_bar.html
[Note: Security camera images included with the written article may be considered by some as "racist".]
CLEVELAND, Ohio -- The mother of a 7-year-old boy getting his haircut pulled a gun on the barber because she thought it was taking too long, according to a police report.
The woman complained several times before a manager came over to talk to the barber. The woman walked up and asked if he had something to say to her, according to a police report.
The woman pulled a handgun from her purse and pointed it at the barber, the report says.
"I got two clips. I'll pop you," she said, according to the report.
* * * * *
Thanks to David Codrea http://waronguns.blogspot.com/
-
IF, and that's a big IF, we ever get around to having a hearing in the Hawaii legislature on any bill that would decriminalize our right to bear arms outside the home for self-defense this case will probably be put forward by the AG, et al. as proof that CCW (or open carry) endangers the public. As far as they're concerned this is convincing proof that citizens are incapable of using anything approaching rational judgment regarding appropriate use of firearms outside the home. In the woman's defense, who hasn't drawn a gun on a fumbling incompetent employee who is wasting your time at some business like the barbershop or Home Depot? Certainly time-wasting incompetence like that warrants AT LEAST brandishing, right?
I hope that any testimony using this example as "evidence" will include 1. Whether this person was the legal owner of the firearm, and 2. Whether this person was a legal CCW licensee according to the laws of Cleveland and Ohio. Minor detail I know, but still...
Mom pulls gun on Cleveland barber when son's haircut takes too long
http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2017/04/mom_pulls_gun_on_cleveland_bar.html
[Note: Security camera images included with the written article may be considered by some as "racist".]
CLEVELAND, Ohio -- The mother of a 7-year-old boy getting his haircut pulled a gun on the barber because she thought it was taking too long, according to a police report.
The woman complained several times before a manager came over to talk to the barber. The woman walked up and asked if he had something to say to her, according to a police report.
The woman pulled a handgun from her purse and pointed it at the barber, the report says.
"I got two clips. I'll pop you," she said, according to the report.
* * * * *
Thanks to David Codrea http://waronguns.blogspot.com/
the manager and other employees are pretty calm about her pointing a gun everywhere
-
Brandishing and threatening someone with a gun for not cutting hair faster? Certifiable!
Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk
-
Decaf
:rofl:
-
What anti 2a people don't realize is CCW permitting is 1 thing, and brandishing a gun or using deadly force has an entire different set of rules to follow.
-
the manager and other employees are pretty calm about her pointing a gun everywhere
Was the gun out of battery? Like that video of the fast food place where the clerk remained super calm as he handed over everything in the register. The comments on that posting was pretty entertaining.
-
I see nothing in any of the articles that says she had any kind of permit to carry. In fact, police are still trying to identify and locate the woman.
"CCW" always implies a legally permitted act. This may have been someone illegally carrying a firearm in her purse.
I would refrain from jumping to conclusions or unintentionally characterizing this as a CCW-involved incident. If new reports verify she had a carry permit, then the term should be used.
Just my 2-cents.
:geekdanc:
-
I see nothing in any of the articles that says she had any kind of permit to carry. In fact, police are still trying to identify and locate the woman.
"CCW" always implies a legally permitted act. This may have been someone illegally carrying a firearm in her purse.
I would refrain from jumping to conclusions or unintentionally characterizing this as a CCW-involved incident. If new reports verify she had a carry permit, then the term should be used.
Just my 2-cents.
:geekdanc:
That was one of my points. There is no evidence (yet) that she was the legal owner of that gun, much less that she was carrying legally... BUT it's the kind of incident that is pointed out by the civilian disarmament advocates as evidence that carrying guns in public has bad results. If she was a legal CCW licensee, then it would be part of the data re cost/benefit analysis of the issue, but until we know that, it's just another criminal act that has no bearing on the consequences involved in legal (permitted/licensed) carry (of course we know the results (people who carry are FAR LESS FREQUENTLY ARRESTED FOR ANY KINDS OF CRIMES than the general public or even cops) from the "permitless carry" states where anyone can carry without permission or training or anything at all and there have been no "negative consequences"... for "public safety" nor anything else despite the dire "blood in the streets" warnings from the grabbers).
I would like to know the followup and answers to those questions, but I suspect it's not very high on the priority list of Cleveland PD.
-
What is the EXACT criteria used by the Chief Of Police (Oahu)? It can't be random there must be guidelines in writing to foll ow.
Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk
-
What is the EXACT criteria used by the Chief Of Police (Oahu)? It can't be random there must be guidelines in writing to foll ow.
Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk
§134-9 Licenses to carry. (a) In an exceptional case, when an applicant shows reason to fear injury to the applicant's person or property,
the chief of police of the appropriate county may grant a license to an applicant who is a citizen of the United States of the age of
twenty-one years or more or to a duly accredited official representative of a foreign nation of the age of twenty-one years or more
to carry a pistol or revolver and ammunition therefor concealed on the person within the county where the license is granted. Where
the urgency or the need has been sufficiently indicated, the respective chief of police may grant to an applicant of good moral character
who is a citizen of the United States of the age of twenty-one years or more, is engaged in the protection of life and property, and is not
prohibited under section 134-7 from the ownership or possession of a firearm, a license to carry a pistol or revolver and ammunition
therefor unconcealed on the person within the county where the license is granted. The chief of police of the appropriate county, or the
chief's designated representative, shall perform an inquiry on an applicant by using the National Instant Criminal Background Check
System, to include a check of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement databases where the applicant is not a citizen of the United
States, before any determination to grant a license is made. Unless renewed, the license shall expire one year from the date of issue.
(b) The chief of police of each county shall adopt procedures to require that any person granted a license to carry a concealed weapon
on the person shall:
(1) Be qualified to use the firearm in a safe manner;
(2) Appear to be a suitable person to be so licensed;
(3) Not be prohibited under section 134-7 from the ownership or possession of a firearm; and
(4) Not have been adjudged insane or not appear to be mentally deranged.
(c) No person shall carry concealed or unconcealed on the person a pistol or revolver without being licensed to do so under this
section or in compliance with sections 134-5(c) or 134-25.
(d) A fee of $10 shall be charged for each license and shall be deposited in the treasury of the county in which the license is granted.
[L 1988, c 275, pt of §2; am L 1994, c 204, §8; am L 1997, c 254, §§2, 4; am L 2000, c 96, §1; am L 2002, c 79, §1; am L 2006, c 27, §3 and c 66, §3; am L 2007, c 9, §8]
Basic translation: the Chief must agree you represent an exceptional case and are at significant risk of death or serious injury. The standard is arbitrary, ambiguous and 100% subjective.
-
First off thanks.
If a 100% disabled (service connected) vet is unable to adequately defend himself from harm or able to protect someone aiding him BUT is able to handle/use a firearm a candidate for said license? After all isn't it a case of protection not a case of robbing the Quicky Mart?
Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk
-
First off thanks.
If a 100% disabled (service connected) vet is unable to adequately defend himself from harm or able to protect someone adding him BUT is able to handle/use a firearm a candidate for said license? After all isn't it a case of protection not a case of robbing the Quicky Mart?
Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk
Unless there is an actual, verified, and immediate threat to the vet from a specific person or persons, the chief will send a denial letter saying they should take other precautions and call 911 if they feel they have an emergency.
The running joke is from the new chief before he became chief saying people should get a big dog. No word on how many of these big dogs the police have shot because of barking.
-
If we were allowed CCW, I would be okay with the State mandating insurance although I would prefer to have in a holster rather than my pocket. Requiring insurance so I can take my firearms to the range is ridiculous. I would also be okay with a law requiring the carrier to inform a police officer when pulled over in a car like they require in Alaska.
-
If we were allowed CCW, I would be okay with the State mandating insurance although I would prefer to have in a holster rather than my pocket. Requiring insurance so I can take my firearms to the range is ridiculous. I would also be okay with a law requiring the carrier to inform a police officer when pulled over in a car like they require in Alaska.
What kind of insurance are you referring to? There are many kinds. Who is supposed to be protected by this mandatory insurance?
Also, please address how the state will force people with unregistered/illegal guns to carry insurance, since much more risk of property damage and injury/death exists when guns are used in the commission of a crime.
-
Basic translation: the Chief must agree you represent an exceptional case and are at significant risk of death or serious injury. The standard is arbitrary, ambiguous and 100% subjective.
Let me point out a few other ambiguities that are completely arbitrary, capricious and undefined and thus allow for essentially random "discretion" to (clearly unconstitutionally) keep Hawaii citizens from exercising their right to bear arms.
Quote
§134-9 Licenses to carry. (a) In an exceptional case, when an applicant shows reason to fear injury to the applicant's person or property,
[As Flapp pointed out there is no terminology involved that is not totally arbitrary and subjective. That's why I've written several police chiefs and asked them to "Please provide five (5) verbatim statements appearing on applications for CCW licenses that would result in you granting the license to the applicant". Of course what I received in reply was a copy of 134-9, as if I didn't already know what that says. The police chiefs have no interest in the slightest "transparency" nor "accountability" because their true response would be "We do not grant CCW licenses no matter the circumstance". In the two applications that I was finally able to acquire via my Office of Information Practices Act (OIPA) appeals from one police department that granted two (2) (one in 2006, one in 2013) of the four (4) CCW licenses issued in the state of Hawaii in the past 17 years, the statement by the applicants was not included (among other incomplete and incorrectly filled out portions of the forms).
Also note that "when an applicant shows reason to fear injury to the applicant's person or property" is NOT sufficient "cause". The chief could easily state that while a person may have such evidence of a "reasonable" fear, that fear must also be "exceptional". Just as there is no definition of "reason to fear" there is no definition of "exceptional case". Here's one anecdote: Woman who testified against a male convicted of a crime sees the guy in a store a few years later when he gets out of prison. He "gives her a look" that she interpreted as "threatening". NOT an "exceptional case". License application denied. Totally arbitrary.]
the chief of police of the appropriate county may grant a license to an applicant who is a citizen of the United States of the age of
twenty-one years or more or to a duly accredited official representative of a foreign nation of the age of twenty-one years or more
to carry a pistol or revolver and ammunition therefor concealed on the person within the county where the license is granted. Where the urgency or the need has been sufficiently indicated,
[As I've pointed out on this forum previously, what could possibly be the "urgency or need" to be a security guard (the only people considered for "open carry" licenses)? "I'm broke, unemployed, and my unemployment insurance has run out. I'm URGENTLY in NEED of a job!" I've never received an answer to that question either. From anyone, from police chiefs to the Office of Attorney General.]
the respective chief of police may grant to an applicant of good moral character
[Another term for which there is absolutely no definition, thus making it completely arbitrary and capricious at the whim/discretion of the chief. Again, no one will answer my question as to what the legal definition of "good moral character" is.]
who is a citizen of the United States of the age of twenty-one years or more, is engaged in the protection of life and property,
[I might be getting "picky" here, but none of the dictionaries I looked at had any definitions of the word "engaged" that meant, or were synonymous with, "employed".]
and is not prohibited under section 134-7 from the ownership or possession of a firearm, a license to carry a pistol or revolver and ammunition
therefor unconcealed on the person within the county where the license is granted. The chief of police of the appropriate county, or the
chief's designated representative, shall perform an inquiry on an applicant by using the National Instant Criminal Background Check
System, to include a check of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement databases where the applicant is not a citizen of the United
States, before any determination to grant a license is made. Unless renewed, the license shall expire one year from the date of issue.
[For the copies of the two licenses that I was able to acquire via OIPA, NEITHER was granted for the legally mandated one year term. The word used in the law is "shall", not "may" or "whatever". In other words, they didn't follow the law as written, which is clear and simple (as opposed to all the other vague and ambiguous terms). So even where the law states specific concrete unambiguous terms, the police department ignored them and did whatever they wanted, using "discretion" that does not exist. In many follow up letters over many months the department would only say "We follow the law," in blatant contradiction to both statements they made about issuing the licenses for less than one year and the very documents that prove they didn't follow the law.]
(b) The chief of police of each county shall adopt procedures to require that any person granted a license to carry a concealed weapon
on the person shall:
(1) Be qualified to use the firearm in a safe manner;
[There is no definition nor objective criteria as to what constitutes "qualified", nor "safe manner". They won't answer the question. 200 hundred hours of "certified" training? No one knows. It can mean whatever they want it to mean.]
(2) Appear to be a suitable person to be so licensed;
[No definition anywhere of "suitable person", nor of "appear" and who determines "appearance". Nor why it's not based upon BEING a suitable person as opposed to APPEARING as one. They won't answer the question when posed to them. Not one word. Obviously another arbitrary and capricious "out" for denying someone who might actually "qualify" under one or more of the other (undefined) criteria.]
(3) Not be prohibited under section 134-7 from the ownership or possession of a firearm; and
(4) Not have been adjudged insane or not appear to be mentally deranged.
[And yet again no definition and will not respond when asked exactly what that means and who will make the determination that a person APPEARS not to be mentally deranged, nor what qualifications the person making such a determination must have. I doubt any qualified mental health professional would be willing to bet their life that he/she could, with 100% accuracy, tell whether or not a person is "mentally deranged" based upon their "APPEARANCE". But I guess the police chief thinks he has the skills.]
(c) No person shall carry concealed or unconcealed on the person a pistol or revolver without being licensed to do so under this
section or in compliance with sections 134-5(c) or 134-25.
(d) A fee of $10 shall be charged for each license and shall be deposited in the treasury of the county in which the license is granted.
[L 1988, c 275, pt of §2; am L 1994, c 204, §8; am L 1997, c 254, §§2, 4; am L 2000, c 96, §1; am L 2002, c 79, §1; am L 2006, c 27, §3 and c 66, §3; am L 2007, c 9, §8]
[Other than those few minor quibbles, the law is perfectly rational, reasonable, and fully in accord with the U.S. Constitution and the Hawaii State Constitution which BOTH state that the "right to keep AND BEAR arms shall NOT BE INFRINGED". (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/images/smilies/facepalm.gif) (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/images/smilies/facepalm.gif) (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/images/smilies/facepalm.gif) ]
-
If we were allowed CCW, I would be okay with the State mandating insurance although I would prefer to have in a holster rather than my pocket. Requiring insurance so I can take my firearms to the range is ridiculous. I would also be okay with a law requiring the carrier to inform a police officer when pulled over in a car like they require in Alaska.
What would this insurance that you have in mind cover? And why gun owners?
Would you be ok having everyone having to pay liability insurance just in case one commits a crime? Then again, those who commit crimes probably aren't prone to following rules, laws and those pesky things. Again, you are completely missing the point.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Does anyone have any data on what has happened in Guam after they went from "May Issue" to "Shall Issue" on CCW? It's been 3 years since the change and just curious if Guam has turned into the wild wild west and if the streets are running red with the blood of the innocent :crazy: but seriously it would be nice to know if there is any data on the reduction/increase of firearms related crimes before and after the change also if there was an increase on tourist related crimes after the change.
-
Does anyone have any data on what has happened in Guam after they went from "May Issue" to "Shall Issue" on CCW? It's been 3 years since the change and just curious if Guam has turned into the wild wild west and if the streets are running red with the blood of the innocent :crazy: but seriously it would be nice to know if there is any data on the reduction/increase of firearms related crimes before and after the change also if there was an increase on tourist related crimes after the change.
I'll ask my buddy living there, but seems business as usual. Went there 4 or 5 times last year and was same as the 15-20 times I went there since like 2005. One of my buddies that lives there is a fellow gun nut. His collection dwarfs mine and I have a decent amount. I'll have to ask him about that. I recall guns being easier to acquire in certain ways, but something (can remember details now), but it's not like it is in the PI.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
What kind of insurance are you referring to? There are many kinds. Who is supposed to be protected by this mandatory insurance?
Also, please address how the state will force people with unregistered/illegal guns to carry insurance, since much more risk of property damage and injury/death exists when guns are used in the commission of a crime.
I'm referring to the proposed bill that is stapled to the bulletin board next to the RSO station. I can't remember the bill #. In Hawaii, the insurance would be offered by the Dept. of Revenue. As I said, I'm opposed to this for anything other than CCW. There was a recent post that mentioned that the NRA is now offering this insurance.
I do question how HPD will enforce the mandatory insurance. Will we have to obtain "safety stickers" for our rifles? Will the HPD walk over from the qualification range and check to make sure every rifle has a safety sticker on the stock? (I'm being facetious because the insurance would be on the owner, not the firearm.)
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/31075992/proposal-would-require-gun-insurance-firearm-renewals-every-5-years
-
I'm referring to the proposed bill that is stapled to the bulletin board next to the RSO station. I can't remember the bill #. In Hawaii, the insurance would be offered by the Dept. of Revenue. As I said, I'm opposed to this for anything other than CCW. There was a recent post that mentioned that the NRA is now offering this insurance.
I do question how HPD will enforce the mandatory insurance. Will we have to obtain "safety stickers" for our rifles? Will the HPD walk over from the qualification range and check to make sure every rifle has a safety sticker on the stock? (I'm being facetious because the insurance would be on the owner, not the firearm.)
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/31075992/proposal-would-require-gun-insurance-firearm-renewals-every-5-years
I asked those questions (which you unsurprisingly again chose to not answer), because the answers are very important.
You should do some research on the pros, cons and impossibilities related to CCW insurance.
For instance, insurance companies do not cover intentional acts which cause damage or injury/death. Therefore, if you use a gun to defend yourself, insurance will not pay the medical bills of the person you shot, the bystander that was accidentally hit by a shattered window, the hole in the door in the store front behind the person you were shooting at, nor the pain, suffering or loss of income of the family of the person you shot.
Once again, who and what do you think the insurance should cover?
-
I asked those questions (which you unsurprisingly again chose to not answer), because the answers are very important.
You should do some research on the pros, cons and impossibilities related to CCW insurance.
For instance, insurance companies do not cover intentional acts which cause damage or injury/death. Therefore, if you use a gun to defend yourself, insurance will not pay the medical bills of the person you shot, the bystander that was accidentally hit by a shattered window, the hole in the door in the store front behind the person you were shooting at, nor the pain, suffering or loss of income of the family of the person you shot.
Once again, who and what do you think the insurance should cover?
I doubt that I could ever successfully answer your questions so I've stopped bothering. Probably the only way I could possibly satisfy your questions is over a couple beers in a bar somewhere.
As with most insurance, it depends on the coverage and how much you're willing to pay. It's debatable about what the State should require. To repeat myself, I'm not supporting the insurance bill but I would be "okay" with CCW insurance only if that was ever possible in this State.
Per the NRA website:
ALL NRA CARRY GUARD MEMBERS GET THESE GREAT BENEFITS:
- 24/7/365 access to the members-only hotline for incident reporting and emergency assistance.
- Immediate access as needed to supplementary payments for bail, bonds, legal retainer fees, lawful replacement of legally possessed firearm, compensation while in court, psychological support and cleanup costs.
- Full coverage for your spouse inside and outside of the home automatically at no extra charge.
- Civil defense legal fees in addition to the insurance limit for each membership level.
- Access to legal assistance and ability to select your own counsel.
There are three levels of insurance so I imagine the Bronze level would be a good start. This is typical with most insurance. Comprehensive car insurance is required but not collision. The difference can depend on how on an object hits your car. If you're following a Christmas tree truck and one falls off and lands on your car, that's a missile and comprehensive. If the tree lands on the road and you run into it, that's collision. It's all in the fine details. Another example is that hurricane coverage for my property insurance would double the premium and I live 4 miles from the beach so I opted out. I work in the insurance industry but I'm not one of those maximum coverage kinda guys.
-
I doubt that I could ever successfully answer your questions so I've stopped bothering. Probably the only way I could possibly satisfy your questions is over a couple beers in a bar somewhere.
As with most insurance, it depends on the coverage and how much you're willing to pay. It's debatable about what the State should require. To repeat myself, I'm not supporting the insurance bill but I would be "okay" with CCW insurance only if that was ever possible in this State.
Per the NRA website:
ALL NRA CARRY GUARD MEMBERS GET THESE GREAT BENEFITS:
- 24/7/365 access to the members-only hotline for incident reporting and emergency assistance.
- Immediate access as needed to supplementary payments for bail, bonds, legal retainer fees, lawful replacement of legally possessed firearm, compensation while in court, psychological support and cleanup costs.
- Full coverage for your spouse inside and outside of the home automatically at no extra charge.
- Civil defense legal fees in addition to the insurance limit for each membership level.
- Access to legal assistance and ability to select your own counsel.
There are three levels of insurance so I imagine the Bronze level would be a good start. This is typical with most insurance. Comprehensive car insurance is required but not collision. The difference can depend on how on an object hits your car. If you're following a Christmas tree truck and one falls off and lands on your car, that's a missile and comprehensive. If the tree lands on the road and you run into it, that's collision. It's all in the fine details. Another example is that hurricane coverage for my property insurance would double the premium and I live 4 miles from the beach so I opted out. I work in the insurance industry but I'm not one of those maximum coverage kinda guys.
That's a good example of why I wanted you to do some research.
The NRA insurance covers whom? The person you shoot? The innocent bystander you injured? The person who owns the store where you shot out a 40' x 40' window?
No, it covers YOU, the customer. They do have up to $1M in liability insurance, but that only kicks in if you are sued in civil court and lose. In most cases, if your use of that carry weapon was justified, you're not going to be held liable for incidental injuries or damages. The person committing the crime would be liable if anyone.
Mandatory insurance is for the purpose of protecting the policy holder in case of a situation in which you can be held responsible for some action. The state wants to force drivers to be financially capable of taking care of other people's expenses if you cause any damages or injuries. The state does not require that you carry collision or comprehensive coverage to fix your own car if you crash it. BTW, comprehensive coverage is for loss to your car by something other than collision: fire, theft, vandalism, etc. It's not required by the state, but if you have a car loan, the bank 99.9% of the time will require you to have it.
So, the apples to oranges comparison should be clear. Car insurance is required to financially protect OTHER PEOPLE from you driving. CCW insurance, if mandatory, should also be for protecting other people from you having to use your firearm in public. THAT'S BACKWARDS. The only policy you can find for CCW covers YOU, not other people.
The ONLY thing forcing people carrying to have insurance does is create a HUGE, DEEP pocket of money (liability insurance) so lawyers can get rich suing anyone who has to defend themselves. If the insurer decides it's cheaper to settle, that's what they'll do.
Lawmakers helping lawyers make great money off gun owners exercising a right. That's all CCW insurance will be.
That's on the civil side. As for the legal side of discharging a firearm in self defense, the NRA coverage is a good idea. It'll protect the policy holder from the financial burden of defending their justified use of a gun.
To buy insurance should be a personal decision. Forcing someone to buy a policy to protect themselves from the state or to create another pool of cash for frivolous lawsuits is just wrong.
The last item: if you do something illegal with your firearm while legally carrying, like shoot someone over road rage or accidentally shoot another movie goer in a theater while fondling your pistol in the dark, the insurance is 100% useless.
-
Unless there is an actual, verified, and immediate threat to the vet from a specific person or persons, the chief will send a denial letter saying they should take other precautions and call 911 if they feel they have an emergency.
The running joke is from the new chief before he became chief saying people should get a big dog. No word on how many of these big dogs the police have shot because of barking.
Dialing 911 is just alerting the PD to a crime. If at home calling 911 may simply reporting a case of self defense and you needing a cop and meat wagon. If away from the barn ones ability to defend is drastically reduced AND the ability to call 911 for help is as useless as tits on a boar. For an unimpaired adult is one thing but the situation I mentioned above is an issue.
Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk
-
All these things thrown in front of gun owners or potential gun owners are simply speed bumps. Each new one is higher than the last. As they grow higher and higher our lawmakers become giddy thinking they are accomplishing something.
Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk
-
All these things thrown in front of gun owners or potential gun owners are simply speed bumps. Each new one is higher than the last. As they grow higher and higher our lawmakers become giddy thinking they are accomplishing something.
Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk
I've given up trying to find any common sense in the gun laws of this state. There isn't any. The powers that be are on record saying they don't think anyone in Hawaii needs to concealed carry firearms, except for themselves and of course.
This video from 2015 shows a debate between pro-gun and anti-gun representatives. The anti-gunners are Hawaii officials.
Hawaii Gun Control: Too Much Regulation, or Too Little?
http://www.pbs.org/video/2365400618/
-
There is no such thing as ZANADU!!! Not here, California or the other anti 2A state.
Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk
-
That's a good example of why I wanted you to do some research.
The NRA insurance covers whom? The person you shoot? The innocent bystander you injured? The person who owns the store where you shot out a 40' x 40' window?
No, it covers YOU, the customer. They do have up to $1M in liability insurance, but that only kicks in if you are sued in civil court and lose. In most cases, if your use of that carry weapon was justified, you're not going to be held liable for incidental injuries or damages. The person committing the crime would be liable if anyone.
Mandatory insurance is for the purpose of protecting the policy holder in case of a situation in which you can be held responsible for some action. The state wants to force drivers to be financially capable of taking care of other people's expenses if you cause any damages or injuries. The state does not require that you carry collision or comprehensive coverage to fix your own car if you crash it. BTW, comprehensive coverage is for loss to your car by something other than collision: fire, theft, vandalism, etc. It's not required by the state, but if you have a car loan, the bank 99.9% of the time will require you to have it.
So, the apples to oranges comparison should be clear. Car insurance is required to financially protect OTHER PEOPLE from you driving. CCW insurance, if mandatory, should also be for protecting other people from you having to use your firearm in public. THAT'S BACKWARDS. The only policy you can find for CCW covers YOU, not other people.
The ONLY thing forcing people carrying to have insurance does is create a HUGE, DEEP pocket of money (liability insurance) so lawyers can get rich suing anyone who has to defend themselves. If the insurer decides it's cheaper to settle, that's what they'll do.
Lawmakers helping lawyers make great money off gun owners exercising a right. That's all CCW insurance will be.
That's on the civil side. As for the legal side of discharging a firearm in self defense, the NRA coverage is a good idea. It'll protect the policy holder from the financial burden of defending their justified use of a gun.
To buy insurance should be a personal decision. Forcing someone to buy a policy to protect themselves from the state or to create another pool of cash for frivolous lawsuits is just wrong.
The last item: if you do something illegal with your firearm while legally carrying, like shoot someone over road rage or accidentally shoot another movie goer in a theater while fondling your pistol in the dark, the insurance is 100% useless.
I agree.
-
I've given up trying to find any common sense in the gun laws of this state. There isn't any. The powers that be are on record saying they don't think anyone in Hawaii needs to concealed carry firearms, except for themselves and of course.
This video from 2015 shows a debate between pro-gun and anti-gun representatives. The anti-gunners are Hawaii officials.
Hawaii Gun Control: Too Much Regulation, or Too Little?
http://www.pbs.org/video/2365400618/
I watched that hour long video and some of the comments by Peter C and David L are just plain stupid. David said we don't want to see people carrying AK47s on Waikiki Beach or guns stuffed in their swim trunks. Who the hell would pick an AK47 for their CCW? Who would even take a handgun to the beach if they are going into the water? What are they going to do? Get salt water in their gun or leave it on the beach and hope nobody steals it? This is just like pepper spray decades ago. HPD and the politicians banned it in Hawaii because they thought people would use it to commit crimes etc. when they finally legalized it, NOTHING OF THE SORT HAPPENED! It would be the same with passing a right to carry law. NO WILD WEST BLOOD ON THE STREETS will happen because only carefully screened mentally stable people will be allowed to carry.
-
It seems the common thread running through the anti 2A groups are an irrational fear of something they appear to know nothing about or even knowing the folks that are 2A pro.
Criminals don't give a crap about gun laws. Criminals will carry long after the anti gun far left liberals have taken them away from the honest law abiding citizens.
There have been a number of stabbings when can we expect the requirement to serialize and register them. I know that sounds stupid so no need to comment.
IMO the fear and dislike of guns by lawmakers is what drives them to impose their will on everyone.
Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk
-
I watched that hour long video and some of the comments by Peter C and David L are just plain stupid. David said we don't want to see people carrying AK47s on Waikiki Beach or guns stuffed in their swim trunks. Who the hell would pick an AK47 for their CCW? Who would even take a handgun to the beach if they are going into the water? What are they going to do? Get salt water in their gun or leave it on the beach and hope nobody steals it? This is just like pepper spray decades ago. HPD and the politicians banned it in Hawaii because they thought people would use it to commit crimes etc. when they finally legalized it, NOTHING OF THE SORT HAPPENED! It would be the same with passing a right to carry law. NO WILD WEST BLOOD ON THE STREETS will happen because only carefully screened mentally stable people will be allowed to carry.
Anyone who is rational and has the slightest interest in creating evidence-based laws (in addition to actually fulfilling their sworn oath of office to uphold the constitutions) already knows that there are well over 13 million people in the United States who have been licensed to carry (including the 30 years experience of the state with well over 1 million licensees, Florida), and maybe several million more who carry in "permitless" (aka "constitutional carrry") states, and that not only have the problems been infinitesimal with these people, but they are arrested FAR LESS FREQUENTLY THAN COPS for all categories of crime. So there would be a greater "public safety" benefit as a consequence of banning the possession of guns/carrying by off-duty cops than by banning possession/carrying by "ordinary civilians". Where's the call for THAT legislation?
I believe some people who argue against public bearing of arms are simply ignorant. They are sheep who just mimic what they are told without engaging in any real research or critical thinking. However, I believe the people at the top echelons of all the organizations ARE rational, and DESPITE the evidence that they know proves them wrong they deliberately distort the facts, lie by omission, and just plain outright lie. They know exactly what they are doing, and their goal is total civilian disarmament. What they hope and plan for after that...
You be the judge. Here is a quote from Nelson "Pete" Shields, the head/founder of Handgun Control, Inc., which underwent a much more politically-correct name change to "The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence":
“We’re going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily — given the political realities — going to be very modest. . . . [W]e’ll have to start working again to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we’d be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal — total control of handguns in the United States — is going to take time. . . . The first problem is to slow down the number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition-except for the military, police, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors-totally illegal.”