2aHawaii
General Topics => Legal and Activism => Topic started by: Dregs on April 04, 2012, 02:54:04 PM
-
Eh?
-
I mean of course you got your permit and all legal rights to be there in a tent.
-
Nope.
-
Nope. Take your gun to a campsite and it will be a failure to keep charge plus a reckless endangering. Maybe a couple more.
-
Nice try tho
I haven't been camping for a while but I would want to have my handgun with me. Too bad.
-
^^^Didn't this issue come up with Yellowstone?
-
Yeah. It's a national park and there was something about firearms in national parks. Hey. Isn't Kapiolani park a national park?
-
Yeah. It's a national park and there was something about firearms in national parks. Hey. Isn't Kapiolani park a national park?
According to this it is: http://au.totaltravel.yahoo.com/directory/travel-guides/united-states/hawaii/oahu/?filter=gardens (http://au.totaltravel.yahoo.com/directory/travel-guides/united-states/hawaii/oahu/?filter=gardens)
-
Nope.
I don't see why it wouldn't be. Unlike a car, there is no ordinance about not being able to sleep in a tent! I would be pretty certain that, at a minimum, you could have it in an enclosed container there. The Federal judge here said that confine = carry.
-
Who would you call or email for a definitive answer?
-
According to their official website, firearms are prohibited at Haleakala National Park (http://www.haleakala.national-park.com/camping.htm).
And, according to a link in the Hawaii State Parks (http://www.hawaiistateparks.org/search.cfm?cx=011177152128528429489%3Aafzdmaadywu&cof=FORID%3A11&ie=UTF-8&q=firearms&siteurl=www.hawaiistateparks.org%2Fparkrules%2F&ref=www.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Dhawaii%2520laws%2520state%2520campgrounds%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D1%26ved%3D0CDgQFjAA%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.hawaiistateparks.org%252Fparkrules%252F%26ei%3DOe99T7L6AqjmiALR-YXmDQ%26usg%3DAFQjCNGtaKbJEr0H-90L3uE2EqlGl4GCHg%26cad%3Drja) website, firearms are only allowed in state parks for the purpose of hunting.
HRA has a synopsis of Hawaii gun laws which states that campgrounds do not qualify as places of sojourn. I'll try to run down that reference.
-
btw I'm not going camping. Wife is going so that got me thinking.
Thanks Tom for any update on the synopsis.
-
Well, the document I was thinking of didn't say what i remembered it saying. In retrospect, I think I was remembering discussion about that document in various classes, not the content itself.
So, I picked up the phone and called HPD. They punted, saying that DLNR would be the proper place to ask that question. However, the lady I spoke to (Susy) did opine that a tent would not qualify as a place of sojourn.
I've got a call pending to the DLNR's public information office.
-
Called the DLNR division of Forestry and Wildlife, and asked the same question. They said "no." They tell campers that firearms are not allowed in state campsites. When I asked for a reference, the lady I spoke with couldn't provide much of one. What she could find was a reference in Chapter 13-123 of the Hawaii Administrative Rules referring to Safety Zones.
"Safety zone" means an area within or adjacent to a public hunting area, where possession of a loaded weapon or the discharge of firearms or other weapons is prohibited to prevent a hazard to people or property.
You can find the document here (http://www.state.hi.us/dlnr/dofaw/rulesindex.html). Just download "The Entire Document" of Chapter 123. Safety Zones appears on page 4.
Page 22 talks about not having a firearm in a hunting area outside of hunting season.
So, although DLNR asserts that you can't do it, their assertion does not seem to be based on law. At least, not that my phone skills and Google-fu can uncover.
Sounds like one of you needs to get arrested for packing while camping. Then you can get HFD to help you sue the state, and get some progress made!
-
................Sounds like one of you needs to get arrested for packing while camping. Then you can get HFD to help you sue the state, and get some progress made!
Man............can you imagine if it was funtimes?
The Ranger would call to him to produce ID.
.............the zipper on the tent opens 4", a library card comes out.
Ranger is PO'd and yells at funtimes about giving him a drivers license.
Funtimes responds that he is not currently driving his tent and that his library card is sufficient identification while pointing out a drivers license is not an ID.............GoPro cameras are already mounted surrounding the campsite and there is a hardwired into a CCTV system inside of his tent................ :geekdanc:
-
Man............can you imagine if it was funtimes?
The Ranger would call to him to produce ID.
.............the zipper on the tent opens 4", a library card comes out.
Ranger is PO'd and yells at funtimes about giving him a drivers license.
Funtimes responds that he is not currently driving his tent and that his library card is sufficient identification while pointing out a drivers license is not an ID.............GoPro cameras are already mounted surrounding the campsite and there is a hardwired into a CCTV system inside of his tent................ :geekdanc:
Hummm... Let's see how this would turn out. Ranger asks for an ID and he gives him a library card. Ranger gets Pissed and asks for a govt issued ID like a drivers license. He refuses. Ranger now has probable cause to detain based on failure to produce a valid ID. Now a warrant check is called in and camping permit is revoked because of failure to confirm person on permit. If you finally do present a good ID ranger will still be pissed for u wasting his time and likely cite you for anything he can find which will still result in u being told to leave. That's a lot of trouble to go through for being a dumb ass.
-
I don't see why it wouldn't be. Unlike a car, there is no ordinance about not being able to sleep in a tent!
I agree. :thumbsup:
Definition of sojourn is a temporary stay. A tent would be a temporary stay.
So, according to HRS 134-23 & 134-25, you are allowed to keep a loaded firearm in your tent, a place of sojourn.
-
I agree. :thumbsup:
Definition of sojourn is a temporary stay. A tent would be a temporary stay.
So, according to HRS 134-23 & 134-25, you are allowed to keep a loaded firearm in your tent, a place of sojourn.
Did you miss the part where HPD said "ask DLNR" and DLNR said "no?"
-
I would not test it. Maybe you would win in court but I think HPD would still arrest. Technically a sojourn I suppose but park rules may trump that. I think that if you are hiking in remote woods where there are bound to be pigs then the law would look at it differently than if you were to take it to a crowded camping park.
It also runs mentioning that as long as you do not use the firearm I don't think anyone would ever know and police would have no reason to search.
-
I really don't see how it cannot be. I reviewed those sections of the HAR, and they really don't say anything of value that would preclude. Re: national parks -- there was a bill to cover this that went into effect with a Credit Card bill a while back. You would need to look it up I don't have time.
The question would be, what if I was on a multiple day hike / hunting trip? How could a tent, a place where you can legally sleep for an extended period of time, not be your sojurn. If you go back to the jury instructions on whatever case it was we pulled up, the reason the guy convicted is because its not legal to sleep overnight in a vehicle.
O13-146-19 Firearms and other weapons. (a) No person shall use or possess bow and arrows, crossbows, firearms, pellet or BB guns, paintball guns, slingshots, or other implements designed to discharge missiles except as provided herein.(b) Firearms and other weapons may be used or
possessed if in accordance with section 13-146-41.
O13-146-41 Wildlife. No person shall molest, disturb, injure, trap, take, catch, possess, poison, introduce, or kill any wild bird or mammal, or disturb their habitat except when authorized by federal, state, and county laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations.
Of course, 13-146-41 provide nothing relating to firearms.... So as long as you were not violating 146-41, you would have to be "in accordance with" 146-41. This stuff is a bit off my radar. We are still having problems with them just giving people the concealed carry applications -- again.
-
Wow thanks you guys. Very awesome stuff!
-
Did you miss the part where HPD said "ask DLNR" and DLNR said "no?"
Nope - saw it.
I have learned (in contracting) that if it not documented (and approved) by the authority having jurisdiction then you are standing on shifting sands. Defintely appreciate your efforts in contacting them to get clarifications.
Although I do not plan on testing this line of reasoning and waste my time (and significant monies) pursuing it, discussion makes for good mental masturbation. Just as funtimes states - one step at a time.
Above said with all due respect. :shaka:
-
remember, just to posess a firearm in the woods you must have a valid hunting permit, and the hunting area you are in must allow for firearms. There are also safety zones within the hunting areas that require you to unload your weapon while in that area. If you are caught with a loaded weapon in these safety areas DLNR has the authority to confiscate your weapon. Not all hunting areas allow firearms. Hawaii does not have predators. You cannot say that pigs are a threat. If you have hunted before you know that a pig will only attack if forced to. the HRS is 134-5
-
134-5 is in reference to open carrying a firearm in sanctioned hunting areas.
I mean more or less keeping your SD firearm in your tent; not open-carrying around the campgrounds with it.
-
Safety zones are not hunting areas, so driving thru a safety zone following rules (cased/unloaded) is not hunting. Roads and campsites are in safety zones. Then your campsite becomes you place of sojourn.
-
Hummm... Let's see how this would turn out. Ranger asks for an ID and he gives him a library card. Ranger gets Pissed and asks for a govt issued ID like a drivers license. He refuses. Ranger now has probable cause to detain based on failure to produce a valid ID. Now a warrant check is called in and camping permit is revoked because of failure to confirm person on permit. If you finally do present a good ID ranger will still be pissed for u wasting his time and likely cite you for anything he can find which will still result in u being told to leave. That's a lot of trouble to go through for being a dumb ass.
Step 1. "Can I see I.D.?"
Step 2. -- This is not a stop and ID state, thanks k bye!.
-
Step 1. "Can I see I.D.?"
Step 2. -- This is not a stop and ID state, thanks k bye!.
If they are varifying camping permits they are going to ask for an ID. If you want to continue camping in that spot u might want to show an ID. Failure to produce an ID equals reasonable suspicion.
I hope that you clearly understand HRS 703-304. There are some requirements in there that need to be met in order to claim self defense in a deadly force scenario. That would suck if you thought you were in the right when actually you were wrong and now you're going to prison for murder.
-
If they are varifying camping permits they are going to ask for an ID. If you want to continue camping in that spot u might want to show an ID. Failure to produce an ID equals reasonable suspicion.
I hope that you clearly understand HRS 703-304. There are some requirements in there that need to be met in order to claim self defense in a deadly force scenario. That would suck if you thought you were in the right when actually you were wrong and now you're going to prison for murder.
Show me a law that says I need id. You can hand your permit to some one without it. There is no suspicion of anything. Not sure who the self defense comment it's direcred at, but i'm write aware of the requirements for self defense.
Just because people ask, didn't make it legal.
-
Show me a law that says I need id. You can hand your permit to some one without it. There is no suspicion of anything. Not sure who the self defense comment it's direcred at, but i'm write aware of the requirements for self defense.
Just because people ask, didn't make it legal.
show me a law that says you dont need to show an ID. The HRS 703-304 comment was directed to everyone. Everyone is so dedicated to having a firearm close just incase they need to defend themselves, yet I wonder how many of them actually know what they can and cant to to justify a self-defense killing. Its not as "cut and dry" as it may seem.
-
show me a law that says you dont need to show an ID. The HRS 703-304 comment was directed to everyone. Everyone is so dedicated to having a firearm close just incase they need to defend themselves, yet I wonder how many of them actually know what they can and cant to to justify a self-defense killing. Its not as "cut and dry" as it may seem.
This isn't Nazi Germany where we have to show papers. The only time you are required to identify yourself is if there is reasonable articulable suspicion that you have committed a crime, or when a condition of a license (i.e. driving).
-
How would a homeless person store their handgun? They have a right to have one, but can't loan it out to anyone else to store. Not that I would trust a homeless person with one, but in theory.
-
This isn't Nazi Germany where we have to show papers. The only time you are required to identify yourself is if there is reasonable articulable suspicion that you have committed a crime, or when a condition of a license (i.e. driving).
Exactly.... Condition of a license. You also need a License to hunt, camp, fish. So, if asked at a camp ground for a ID you have to supply an adequate govt issued ID. Hummm.... I guess the library card wouldn't work.
Btw, the requirement for reasonable suspicion is when a reasonable officer is lead to the belief that criminal activity is afoot. Terry vs Ohio. Criminal activity is the keyword. A crime does not have to be committed, yet.
If an officer has the belief that a crime has been committed its probable cause. HRS 803-5 (b)
-
Exactly.... Condition of a license. You also need a License to hunt, camp, fish. So, if asked at a camp ground for a ID you have to supply an adequate govt issued ID. Hummm.... I guess the library card wouldn't work.
Btw, the requirement for reasonable suspicion is when a reasonable officer is lead to the belief that criminal activity is afoot. Terry vs Ohio. Criminal activity is the keyword. A crime does not have to be committed, yet.
If an officer has the belief that a crime has been committed its probable cause. HRS 803-5 (b)
/facepalm... a PERMIT is not a license. You need a permit to be at kokohead, you may need a permit for certain demonstrations -- none of which require an I.D. card, nor would I produce one. Seriously, you should learn what Terry v. Ohio means. An officer needs to be able to articulate what they believe is the criminal activity that is currently taking place, and the probable cause for that. It must be reasonable. Honestly, your argument is quite akin to a cop just walking up to you at your car, asking for your license or identification, and when you don't show it you agreeing that he can take you to jail (which cannot happen). It's not like I do this stuff for a living or anything right now. In regards to your fishing and hunting, sure you could be asked for your license if you have a fishing pole in your hands or are patrolling a hunting ground with a gun. But, if you are standing there, doing absolutely nothing, you are not required to produce anything in a form of identification. What crime could one reasonably be suspected of committing if you show the guy a license or a permit? You really think "oh, he had a permit, but didn't have an I.D. so I arrested him" is going to stand up in court lol?
You are also trying to mix things into the argument (i.e. hunting) that are well beyond the scope of a camping permit and the production of identification. Each issue has different elements that are present, and different facts that play out much different when each scenario is ran through.
-
How would a homeless person store their handgun? They have a right to have one, but can't loan it out to anyone else to store. Not that I would trust a homeless person with one, but in theory.
most of them are committing crimes. Personal property can't be stored overnight in public spaces. Theoretically, they should be able to bear arms upon their person 24/7 and they wouldn't have to worry about it. In reality, they don't have a physical structure to call 'home' where personal property can be stored, so leaving it overnight is a crime. Unfortunately, there isn't much to do about this. What would be interesting is to see a guy get a permit without have an address or physical location.
-
Case: State of Hawaii v. Raymond Heapy, 151 P.3d 764 (2007)
Procedural Facts: On August 4th, 2004 Defendant Heapy was charged with a violation of Haw. Rev. Stat. § 291E-61. Defendant went to trial, and soon after on August 11th, 2004, filed a Motion to Suppress Evidence; during February 2005, the Court denied the motion to suppress. Following the hearing on June 7th, 2005, the court came forth with its written Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and written order denying the motion. Heapy then filed a Notice of Appeal.
Facts: On June 16th, 2004 Maui Police Department was operating an intoxication check point on a state owned road. Officer Correa was assigned as a “chase car.” Officer Correa on at least 40 separate occasions stopped persons for ‘evading’ a checkpoint. Numerous of these individuals were found not to be intoxicated, but were delinquent on insurance, registration, or safety inspections. Heapy was operating a motor vehicle heading towards an intoxication checkpoint, where Correa was assigned. Heapy turned onto a road prior to the beginning of the checkpoint. Correa began to follow and pursue Heapy on a dead end road. After Heapy passed the only structure on the road, Correa initiated a traffic stop. No infractions were noted. Heapy was not driving erratic or reckless.
Issue: Was the district court wrong in denying Heapy’s Motion to Suppress Evidence to suppress all evidence obtained during the traffic stop?
Holding: Justices voted four to one in favor of Heapy ruling that the District Court erred in denying Heapy’s motion to suppress “all evidence and statements obtained as a result of the police stop,” because the stop was in violation of the Hawai‘i constitution, Article I, Section 7.
Majority Reasoning: Officer Correa lacked the “specific and articulable facts,” to justify the stop. See generally Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21, 88 S.Ct. 1968. Furthermore, outside of Mr. Heady “avoiding the checkpoint,” which was not an offense to begin with, Correa had no belief or reason to believe that Heapy was engaged in, or about to be engaged in, some form of criminal activity. See United States v. Cortez et. al., 449 U.S. at 417. And, because the traffic stop lacks the above facts, the stop was unlawful and the evidence must be suppressed.
A. Rule: Stopping authority must have “articulable” suspicion that a “crime has been committed or is about to be committed” for the stop to be lawful.
B. Application: Officer Correa’s stop of Mr. Heady was unlawful and in violation of Heapy’s civil rights; the stop was unlawful and the evidence must be suppressed.
Concurring Opinion(s) Reasoning:
Dissenting Opinion(s) Reasoning: Justice Moon believes the majority was wrong incorrect in dismissing an officers experience in determining whether a stop should happen or not; that a person intentionally turning away from a checkpoint is “reasonable” suspicion of committing the crime of “turning away a from a intoxication checkpoint” regardless of the circumstances; and, that allowing people to turn around would prevent the checkpoints from furthering the States interest in reducing drunk driving.
Implications on Investigations:
Heapy ensures and will require officers to properly annotate and articulate the probable cause for a stop. It prevents officers from pulling someone over just because they “turned away” from an intoxication checkpoint or other road block. This will require officers to patrol and utilize greater observational skills and abilities to identify potential intoxicated drivers. Heapy also revoked the officer’s ability to utilize hunches (also known as “experience”) for the purpose of a stop.
-
A license is a form of document or ID that shows you are permitted by the issueing authority to do something. It can be revoked. A permit is also a form of document or ID that also permits you to do something. It also can be revoked. 99.9% of the time you have to show a form of ID to obtain a permit or license. So therefor by default if an officer has reasonable suspicion that you may be abusing the permit, not the permit holder, or doing something outside of the scope of your permit, he can ask you for your ID to varify that you are the person identified on the permit.
I never said anything about getting arrested. Reasonable suspicion is exactly what it is. Reasonable in the eyes of the OFFICER, not yours. I was simply pointing out that there is a difference between the 2. After all we were talking about a camping permit and storing a firearm in your tent.
-
:popcorn:
-
I never said anything about getting arrested. Reasonable suspicion is exactly what it is. Reasonable in the eyes of the OFFICER, not yours. I was simply pointing out that there is a difference between the 2. After all we were talking about a camping permit and storing a firearm in your tent.
No. The reasonable standard is based on the average person - not the officer (i.e. Would a reasonable man, of average intelligence, have come to the same conclusion under the circumstances). You keep changing the facts as you go; exceeding what a permit allows would put you in violation of some statute, which could amount to probable cause. I really don't get what part of you never have to have an I.D. in the first place you are not getting.
-
Hummm... Let's see how this would turn out. Ranger asks for an ID and he gives him a library card. Ranger gets Pissed and asks for a govt issued ID like a drivers license. He refuses. Ranger now has probable cause to detain based on failure to produce a valid ID. Now a warrant check is called in and camping permit is revoked because of failure to confirm person on permit. If you finally do present a good ID ranger will still be pissed for u wasting his time and likely cite you for anything he can find which will still result in u being told to leave. That's a lot of trouble to go through for being a dumb ass.
If the library issues an ID be it C&C or the State, then it is a government issued ID.
A drivers license is a drivers license, it is not an ID.
Exactly.... Condition of a license. You also need a License to hunt, camp, fish. So, if asked at a camp ground for a ID you have to supply an adequate govt issued ID. Hummm.... I guess the library card wouldn't work.
Btw, the requirement for reasonable suspicion is when a reasonable officer is lead to the belief that criminal activity is afoot. Terry vs Ohio. Criminal activity is the keyword. A crime does not have to be committed, yet.
If an officer has the belief that a crime has been committed its probable cause. HRS 803-5 (b)
I forget what the deal was with the lottery for Nuuanu/other reservoirs & what you need for those locations, however in the State of Hawaii you do not (necessarily) need a fishing license/permit as in other states/countries.
Camping.............I haven't personally gone camping in locations where permit(s) were required for years.........private land for fishing on the outer islands are the last times that I've gone camping.
-
A license is a form of document or ID that shows you are permitted by the issueing authority to do something. It can be revoked. A permit is also a form of document or ID that also permits you to do something. It also can be revoked. 99.9% of the time you have to show a form of ID to obtain a permit or license. So therefor by default if an officer has reasonable suspicion that you may be abusing the permit, not the permit holder, or doing something outside of the scope of your permit, he can ask you for your ID to varify that you are the person identified on the permit.
I never said anything about getting arrested. Reasonable suspicion is exactly what it is. Reasonable in the eyes of the OFFICER, not yours. I was simply pointing out that there is a difference between the 2. After all we were talking about a camping permit and storing a firearm in your tent.
RAS is in the eyes of an average person, not the officer.
No ID required for camping permit.
-
point of order: Terry v. Ohio is about unreasonable searches and is not predicated on "probable cause." Terry v.Ohio established that an officer could, absent the higher bar of "probable cause" search an individual if he could articulate specific facts that lead to a reasonable suspicion that said person has, is, or is about to commit a crime AND the officer has a reasonable belief that said actor is armed or dangersous.
Unfortunately, it seems LE is constantly pushing the limits of this and basically frisk anyone they stop. More people need to be aware of their rights and demand government agents adhere to the protections afforded citizens.
Carry on...... :stopjack:
-
I could see an ID requirement for picking up a camping permit, however as long as the person who is camping has no violations I do not think they have to provide ID for the officer. Now if they committed some sort of infraction there may be a regulation that says that an ID must be presented but I am unaware of any. It is somewhat similar to a driver's license. You have to have it while you are driving, however, you do not have to present it unless you are stopped by a law enforcement officer for a violation.
I think that most people would provide an ID to an officer if they said they were walking around and checking camping permits but it would not be required.
Keep in mind the officer wont always be happy if you say you don't want to provide an ID if there was no reason for a stop. They either might get mad that people don't listen to them or they might start to think that you are hiding your ID so as to conceal something, you have a warrant for your arrest for example.