2aHawaii
General Topics => Legal and Activism => Topic started by: Funtimes on August 22, 2012, 10:12:24 AM
-
*** VICTORY *** SEE REPLY #52.
Honolulu, Hawaii – Today in the Federal District Court of Hawaii, the Hawaii Defense Foundation has filed a lawsuit for violations of the First Amendment. The Defendants in this case are the City and County of Honolulu and a Honolulu Police Officer, Capt. Andrew Lum.
The complaint filed in the United States District Court by attorneys Richard Holcomb, Alan Beck, and Brian Brazier alleges that the Honolulu Police unlawfully administer their Facebook Fan page in violation of American citizen’s right to free speech. The complaint asserts that the Honolulu police arbitrarily moderate the page by deleting comments and banning users who post or make comments unfavorable to the department. The complaint further asserts that online speech is just as important as a citizen airing their grievance in a public park – just because the speech is virtual, doesn’t mean it is not protected.
“The First Amendment protects the right to free speech. Without question, social media has become a cornerstone for communication in the days of iPads, smart phones, and computers. In fact, online speech, within sites like Facebook, is utilized every day by citizens, businesses, and government agencies to communicate with the public at large.
The online world appears to truly be the go to medium for a citizen to share ideas and voice their opinions on a wide variety of topics. Across the globe, social media has been at the forefront of communication during natural disasters, revolts against tyranny, and civil protest; few methods of speech see more activity than Facebook and Twitter. We have already seen governments infringe online speech. Just look at countries like China or Egypt, who have at times prohibited these sites in order to silence their citizens into submission. Deleting comments and banning people from expressing their opinion is simply an act of oppression. However, we are not China, nor Egypt. American citizens have a voice, and these practices must stop.” says Chris Baker.
Hawaii Defense Foundation (www.TheHDF.org (http://www.TheHDF.org)) is 501.c (3) charity 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.
If you would like to show your support or are looking for additional information please contact the Foundation at (808) 664-1827 or info@TheHDF.org.
Some of the press:
Post by Attorneys or Professors
Attorney Pedram Tabibi: http://libn.com/youngisland/2012/08/31/how-deleting-a-facebook-post-may-violate-free-speech-and-lead-to-a-lawsuit/ (http://libn.com/youngisland/2012/08/31/how-deleting-a-facebook-post-may-violate-free-speech-and-lead-to-a-lawsuit/)
First Amendment Center: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/hawaii-gun-group-sues-police-over-deleted-facebook-posts (http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/hawaii-gun-group-sues-police-over-deleted-facebook-posts)
Local Attorney, Elijah Yip of Cades Shutte: http://www.legaltxts.com/a-matter-of-moderation/ (http://www.legaltxts.com/a-matter-of-moderation/)
Citizens Media Law Project: http://www.citmedialaw.org/blog/2012/how-do-you-say-public-forum-doctrine-hawaiian (http://www.citmedialaw.org/blog/2012/how-do-you-say-public-forum-doctrine-hawaiian)
Ancel Glink, Local Government litigation: http://municipalminute.ancelglink.com/2012/08/lawsuit-claims-city-facebook-page-is.html (http://municipalminute.ancelglink.com/2012/08/lawsuit-claims-city-facebook-page-is.html)
Professor Josh Blackman: http://joshblackman.com/blog/2012/08/22/can-the-government-delete-posts-on-the-basis-of-their-content-from-a-facebook-page-it-established-to-communicate-with-the-public/ (http://joshblackman.com/blog/2012/08/22/can-the-government-delete-posts-on-the-basis-of-their-content-from-a-facebook-page-it-established-to-communicate-with-the-public/)
-
People on facebook are such dumb donkeys. I cant believe some of the replies.
-
I tried backing up the complainants on the HPD facebook page and KHON's facebook post (P.R. Centeno), but I'm getting pretty tired of the "roll over and let the police do what they want" mentality of the local people.. :wacko:
-
:thumbsup:
-
Hnl flyboy, is that you, P.R Centeno? Im Joshua Y.
Were like the most disliked people on there. Hahahhaah. And i think they been removing my comments. I could have swore i had more previous posts but they are not there anymore.
When i saw you post, i was like, finally someone knows whats going on and what they are talking about. I totally agree with what you said. People act like, oh its hpd, just trust them, they know what they are doing.
And yes, its pretty frustrating. Just like pissing in the wind.
-
I was working hard at it too. 8)
-
Meanwhile in Virginia...
http://spreadlibertynews.com/fbi-agents-take-virginia-resident-for-facebook-posts-roommate-sayshe-goes-before-a-judge-at-the-hospital-from-what-we-have-been-told/ (http://spreadlibertynews.com/fbi-agents-take-virginia-resident-for-facebook-posts-roommate-sayshe-goes-before-a-judge-at-the-hospital-from-what-we-have-been-told/)
Careful what you say on the Facebook. It is a tool designed for spying on American citizens after all, and now they are locking people up for 'pre-crime' kinda like the movie Minority Report.
-
So their suing because a moderator for a HPD Facebook page deleated some posts from some citizens???? That's a dumb reason? The suit says that they infringed on their first amendment rights by deleating their posts after it was posted? The way I see it is they were able to exercise their first amendment right without restriction. The post was then purged after it was viewed by numerous people so the original poster was able to express their opinion. What a frivolous law suit and a waste of taxpayer money defending it.
-
So their suing because a moderator for a HPD Facebook page deleated some posts from some citizens???? That's a dumb reason? The suit says that they infringed on their first amendment rights by deleating their posts after it was posted? The way I see it is they were able to exercise their first amendment right without restriction. The post was then purged after it was viewed by numerous people so the original poster was able to express their opinion. What a frivolous law suit and a waste of taxpayer money defending it.
Posts the HPD didn't agree with were deleted, while ones they did agree with remained. Government agencies are not allowed to do that in what is supposed to be an open forum. For those who are upset about the taxpayer dollars wasted, I would suggest channeling your energy into convincing HPD not to waste money in a vain attempt to defend an indefensible position.
-
Funtimes- I support you all the way. Give'em hell.You are soooo right and it is not a wasted lawsuit.
-
You made the news Funtimes. 1st lawsuit of this type in the country!!! :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
-
You made the news Funtimes. 1st lawsuit of this type in the country!!! :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
We got a bunch of press on this one, I was pleased. Associated press also interviewed my Attorney (and got us more press) when they released it to all of their sources.
-
We got a bunch of press on this one, I was pleased. Associated press also interviewed my Attorney (and got us more press) when they released it to all of their sources.
Hope the awareness of this suit brings in more funds.
-
Hnl flyboy, is that you, P.R Centeno? Im Joshua Y.
Were like the most disliked people on there. Hahahhaah. And i think they been removing my comments. I could have swore i had more previous posts but they are not there anymore.
When i saw you post, i was like, finally someone knows whats going on and what they are talking about. I totally agree with what you said. People act like, oh its hpd, just trust them, they know what they are doing.
And yes, its pretty frustrating. Just like pissing in the wind.
Yeah, that was me...I'm just mostly reading now.
-
good job guys. saw this on yahoo the other day when checking my mail. making national headlines!
can anyone summarize the posts that didnt sit well with the HPD?
-
good job guys. saw this on yahoo the other day when checking my mail. making national headlines!
can anyone summarize the posts that didnt sit well with the HPD?
The truth
-
good job guys. saw this on yahoo the other day when checking my mail. making national headlines!
can anyone summarize the posts that didnt sit well with the HPD?
I won't summarize, but if you look above the documents are linked at our press release page.
You are looking for the Exhibits to the complaint.
-
I've updated with some of the press we have received in this case (seen in originating post). Many people have not grasped that there was lots of planning and effort that went into this suit. This case was an issue of first impression across the United States, we are literally breaking new ground in Free Speech. To say that the legal eagles of the 1st Amendment were just interested, would be a total understatement, especially when organizations like ACLU, Electronic Frontier Foundation, First Amendment center and others are weighing in for our issue. Many lawyers and attorneys have weighed in on these issues (and to date, I have not seen one that opined against our position).
We are currently headed to court tomorrow morning on the 5th. We will know more there. At this point, we have essentially won. Our members have been unbanned; other people have been unbanned. HPD is currently not deleting comments or anything similar.
-
Thanks for the update. Keep fighting the good fight!
-
Thanks for the update. Keep fighting the good fight!
:thumbsup: :shaka:
-
I posted this first paragraph in another thread not knowing this thread was here so I am moving it here with additional comments.
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.
As funtimes has noted in the other thread they have sort of made headway in the unbanning of people from the HPD Facebook page.
This is indeed probably the first lawsuit of its kind and it will most likely set a precedence one way or the other. I do not think that they will rule against the HPD though. Yes it is administered by a government worker and represents a government entity but they are only controlling what goes on on their website. The main police station is a government building operated by government personnel, if I were to go and post some political message on one of the pillars of the building and they take it down is this a violation of my free speech? I think most would say no, so why is it a violation of free speech to control what is posted on their own Facebook page?
Ok, lets say that Facebook comments on government Facebook pages are in fact free speech, lets consider the consequences. A ruling that Facebook comments are protected speech would basically open the door to unlimited spamming would it not? I could friend HPD and inundate their Facebook page with random comments effectively rendering the site useless as well as any other government Facebook page.
I think HPD will be the victor in this one.
-
I've updated with some of the press we have received in this case (seen in originating post). Many people have not grasped that there was lots of planning and effort that went into this suit. This case was an issue of first impression across the United States, we are literally breaking new ground in Free Speech. To say that the legal eagles of the 1st Amendment were just interested, would be a total understatement, especially when organizations like ACLU, Electronic Frontier Foundation, First Amendment center and others are weighing in for our issue. Many lawyers and attorneys have weighed in on these issues (and to date, I have not seen one that opined against our position).
We are currently headed to court tomorrow morning on the 5th. We will know more there. At this point, we have essentially won. Our members have been unbanned; other people have been unbanned. HPD is currently not deleting comments or anything similar.
With many frivolous lawsuits out there it was understandable that the typical knee jerk opine would be that here come another. Looking into what is going on before those opinions are formed is many times overlooked in this day and age of everything instant. Hopefully people will come to realize the problem of what was being done here and understand that reasonable free speech in a public setting can never be censored according to popular political sentiment and difference of opinion.
Good luck in court!
-
I posted this first paragraph in another thread not knowing this thread was here so I am moving it here with additional comments.
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.
As funtimes has noted in the other thread they have sort of made headway in the unbanning of people from the HPD Facebook page.
This is indeed probably the first lawsuit of its kind and it will most likely set a precedence one way or the other. I do not think that they will rule against the HPD though. Yes it is administered by a government worker and represents a government entity but they are only controlling what goes on on their website. The main police station is a government building operated by government personnel, if I were to go and post some political message on one of the pillars of the building and they take it down is this a violation of my free speech? I think most would say no, so why is it a violation of free speech to control what is posted on their own Facebook page?
Ok, lets say that Facebook comments on government Facebook pages are in fact free speech, lets consider the consequences. A ruling that Facebook comments are protected speech would basically open the door to unlimited spamming would it not? I could friend HPD and inundate their Facebook page with random comments effectively rendering the site useless as well as any other government Facebook page.
I think HPD will be the victor in this one.
What part of we have essentially already won - did you miss? City and County will be paying a check out for our attorney fees and legal expenses; they will develop a policy to manage their social media, and that policy will be utilized for other agencies in this county (and very likely state); they can no longer ban anyone; they can no longer censor posts unless they are outside of the protections of the 1st amendment. There will be procedures for reviewing posts, removing posts, deleting material, and managing the page. It will no longer be up to one person. They will develop appeals processes if your content was wrongfully removed.
We didn't just win - we stomped their asses in the ground. All that is left is for us to lift our foot and to see how far down they went lol.
-
http://www.kitv.com/news/hawaii/Honolulu-Police-Dept-changes-Facebook-policy/-/8905354/16499980/-/v08daz/-/index.html (http://www.kitv.com/news/hawaii/Honolulu-Police-Dept-changes-Facebook-policy/-/8905354/16499980/-/v08daz/-/index.html)
-
We didn't just win - we stomped their asses in the ground[/b]. All that is left is for us to lift our foot and to see how far down they went lol.
Too many people bend over and take it, thanks for making a stand for what's right.
-
Too many people bend over and take it, thanks for making a stand for what's right.
Ditto on that.
-
+1 on that! :shaka:
-
Woot!! :thumbsup: :geekdanc:
-
Hey FT, are they mad? =Op
-
Hey FT, are they mad? =Op
Dunno man... "its just facebook" I'm just saying! :rofl:
-
What part of we have essentially already won - did you miss? City and County will be paying a check out for our attorney fees and legal expenses; they will develop a policy to manage their social media, and that policy will be utilized for other agencies in this county (and very likely state); they can no longer ban anyone; they can no longer censor posts unless they are outside of the protections of the 1st amendment. There will be procedures for reviewing posts, removing posts, deleting material, and managing the page. It will no longer be up to one person. They will develop appeals processes if your content was wrongfully removed.
We didn't just win - we stomped their asses in the ground. All that is left is for us to lift our foot and to see how far down they went lol.
I don't know if I would call it a win or not. Correct me if I am wrong but it seems to me that HPD just decided to roll over and give in rather than make a stand and take a legal fight. HPD never wants to be the test bed for anything, they want to play it safe and only do things that other departments have already tried. They don't want to fight in court, thats why some people who shouldn't be cops get their jobs back, thats why HPD never gets new technology or techniques until other departments consider it safe first.
You could see this as a victory in that your posts won't get deleted as readily but this is not a legal precedent that posts on a government Facebook website are protected by the 1st amendment. I suppose for your purposes it does not matter since you get to post again but my comments were more aimed at whether the posts were ultimately going to be considered free speech. HPD decided to not fight so the issue is dropped but there is nothing legally that prevents them from turning around and again deleting posts at will since there is no case precedent.
-
I don't know if I would call it a win or not. Correct me if I am wrong but it seems to me that HPD just decided to roll over and give in rather than make a stand and take a legal fight. HPD never wants to be the test bed for anything, they want to play it safe and only do things that other departments have already tried. They don't want to fight in court, thats why some people who shouldn't be cops get their jobs back, thats why HPD never gets new technology or techniques until other departments consider it safe first.
You could see this as a victory in that your posts won't get deleted as readily but this is not a legal precedent that posts on a government Facebook website are protected by the 1st amendment. I suppose for your purposes it does not matter since you get to post again but my comments were more aimed at whether the posts were ultimately going to be considered free speech. HPD decided to not fight so the issue is dropped but there is nothing legally that prevents them from turning around and again deleting posts at will since there is no case precedent.
They are not free to delete anything at this point. It will be precedent enough to fix any government agency in this state. It also will go a long way to show other agencies in other places what is wrong.
You are only seeing a small slice of the pie that gets thrown to the public. I wouldn't say it wasn't a win, if it wasn't a win. There will be some sort of judgement in terms of the settlement - and if they ever do it again with this same judge still in office it would not be pretty!
I can assure you, this is not a "stop or I will say stop again" situation. You also fail to realize that other circuits have said that doing something more than a "like" on facebook is free speech, but the "like" in and of itself is not.
-
I don't know if I would call it a win or not. Correct me if I am wrong but it seems to me that HPD just decided to roll over and give in rather than make a stand and take a legal fight. HPD never wants to be the test bed for anything, they want to play it safe and only do things that other departments have already tried. They don't want to fight in court, thats why some people who shouldn't be cops get their jobs back, thats why HPD never gets new technology or techniques until other departments consider it safe first.
You could see this as a victory in that your posts won't get deleted as readily but this is not a legal precedent that posts on a government Facebook website are protected by the 1st amendment. I suppose for your purposes it does not matter since you get to post again but my comments were more aimed at whether the posts were ultimately going to be considered free speech. HPD decided to not fight so the issue is dropped but there is nothing legally that prevents them from turning around and again deleting posts at will since there is no case precedent.
I hear what you're saying. This is just my opinion, but Idon't think any govt agency will simply roll over and give in if they feel that they are right. Again, IMO they realize that it is unconstitutional for them to delete posts and ban users. I don't know enough about the law to say if this sets a legal precedent, but the fact that they did not want to fight this tells me they want to admit defeat and move on. I'm not a lawyer.
-
I hear what you're saying. This is just my opinion, but Idon't think any govt agency will simply roll over and give in if they feel that they are right. Again, IMO they realize that it is unconstitutional for them to delete posts and ban users. I don't know enough about the law to say if this sets a legal precedent, but the fact that they did not want to fight this tells me they want to admit defeat and move on. I'm not a lawyer.
Before they could say anything on the first day, the judge had already told them that he didn't see any other possibility than ruling in our favor. At that point, he told the city they better settle lol. There are quite a few attorney generals that have already cautioned their states to act in the manner opposite of HPD. Some agencies have feared exactly this incident, and opted out of social media all together. I will just point out that the City trys to fight *everything* that they can. This isn't going to be a cite able opinion, but trust me people are paying attention (other agencies, government entities etc.). The policies that get developed from this will likely make their away across the State.
-
Before they could say anything on the first day, the judge had already told them that he didn't see any other possibility than ruling in our favor. At that point, he told the city they better settle lol. There are quite a few attorney generals that have already cautioned their states to act in the manner opposite of HPD. Some agencies have feared exactly this incident, and opted out of social media all together. I will just point out that the City trys to fight *everything* that they can. This isn't going to be a cite able opinion, but trust me people are paying attention (other agencies, government entities etc.). The policies that get developed from this will likely make their away across the State.
I admit I am not familiar with all the news concerning the ruling. The article I saw made it seem like a voluntary action by the HPD not a court mandated action. I did see a mention that the judge did not make a ruling yet on the matter and that he would review HPDs decision. I will be interested in reading the final court decision either way.
I think that part of the reason they may have decided not to fight it is also the costs involved. It might not seem worth the thousands of dollars needded to fight the matter just to control what people say on their facebook page. If you can pay an officer a year salary or fight to be allowed to block a facebook post which is a better use of departmental funds? I think that HPD would win if it went all the way to the supreme court but I also don't think the fight is worth the costs. Heck HPD could just decide to do away with the page altogether.
I must wonder about a judge saying who would win before hearing the case. I realize the judge may have been trying to be practical but it does not look good for a judge to make a determindation before hearing the case. This of course raises many more questions. Is unfriending someone blocking their speech then? How about not accepting a friend request? (You have to be a friend to post on their website right?)
Funtimes, so if the court would say that it is protected speech then what prevents someone from lets say spamming a governmental Facebook page? I am just wondering the consequences.
-
Funtimes, so if the court would say that it is protected speech then what prevents someone from lets say spamming a governmental Facebook page? I am just wondering the consequences.
The US Constitution? We already have an amendment on SPAM.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAN-SPAM_Act_of_2003 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAN-SPAM_Act_of_2003)
Federal and state courts ruled facebook and social media are covered under CAN SPAM
On March 28, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California held in Facebook, Inc. v. MaxBounty, Inc. that messages sent by Facebook users to their Facebook friends' walls, news feeds, or home pages are "electronic mail messages" under the CAN-SPAM Act.
The court, in denying MaxBounty's motion to dismiss, rejected the argument that CAN-SPAM applies only to traditional e-mail messages.
The ruling is the most expansive judicial interpretation to date of the types of messages falling within the purview of the CAN-SPAM Act.
-
I admit I am not familiar with all the news concerning the ruling. The article I saw made it seem like a voluntary action by the HPD not a court mandated action. I did see a mention that the judge did not make a ruling yet on the matter and that he would review HPDs decision. I will be interested in reading the final court decision either way.
. If you can pay an officer a year salary or fight to be allowed to block a facebook post which is a better use of departmental funds? The City and County would fight tooth and nail if they had a shot (They don't want pay attorney fees and stuff, there are also outside agencies that would likely want them to fight. This is one reason the ACLU was with us in court, to bring their weight to our side of the fight.
I must wonder about a judge saying who would win before hearing the case. I realize the judge may have been trying to be practical but it does not look good for a judge to make a determindation before hearing the case. We went in for a Motion on a Temporary Restraining Order, basically telling the city to immediately stop deleting and unban people. They were able to agree to doing this without the Judge writing an order. "Word" is still pretty powerful, you don't just say you are going to do something and then give the finger to an Article III judge. He pretty much told us that if they didn't unban, to let him know and he would fix it. At that point, we agreed to moot the TRO so long as the city did what they said they would do (I was unbanned that day and so were all the other HDF members). This is really why you don't see any written orders. Also, Judges make decisions all the time. In fact, most of the time, they already have a decision before your oral arguments. The case was 'heard' through written motions.
This of course raises many more questions. Is unfriending someone blocking their speech then? No. You are a private entity, not a government one. How about not accepting a friend request? No. Again, you are not the government. Being an Agent of the Government is the cornerstone of this case. Without that factor, there would never have been a ripe controversy. You are free to delete, post, deny requests, ignore etc. However, the government is not, not unless they treat all people equally. (You have to be a friend to post on their website right?) No. You like their page. It's best analogized as looking through a glass door for a town hall meeting. I can see what is going on inside, I could yell from outside and maybe be heard, but it works best if I open that door to go inside and participate.
Funtimes, so if the court would say that it is protected speech then what prevents someone from lets say spamming a governmental Facebook page? Facebook already protects from 'spam' (meaning lots of messages short period). Users are also empowered to report posts as spam, threats etc. they have been given that power by Facebook. Facebook actually restricts what "Government" pages can do in ways. Facebook doesn't want Govt to silence its people on social media, so it prohibits certain things from going on. Lastly, a user can block another user, so if for some reason a person or persons consistently posted things that were offensive to you - you can block them.
There are ways the government can delete stuff, but it cannot be arbitrary. They also can't claim defamation against a government agency. Defamation requires actual malice; meaning, that they have to be able to prove that I absolutely knew that what I was saying is false. This is very - very - borderline impossible to do. If I were to say HPD is full of a bunch of corrupt blah blah. As long as that belief was sincerely held by me, it cannot be defamation.
Some words and speech that may be offensive, would also be protected - i.e. fuck. Most people are not going to do that anyways, so I don't think we will worry about it. If you look at the posts *we* made, the worst things that were said was 1.) terrorist, and 2.) nazi.
-
I don't know if I would call it a win or not.
From FT's perspective, I would call it a win... but that's just my opinion.
Nice job, Funtimes.
-
This of course raises many more questions. Is unfriending someone blocking their speech then? No. You are a private entity, not a government one. How about not accepting a friend request? No. Again, you are not the government. Being an Agent of the Government is the cornerstone of this case. Without that factor, there would never have been a ripe controversy. You are free to delete, post, deny requests, ignore etc. However, the government is not, not unless they treat all people equally. (You have to be a friend to post on their website right?) No. You like their page. It's best analogized as looking through a glass door for a town hall meeting. I can see what is going on inside, I could yell from outside and maybe be heard, but it works best if I open that door to go inside and participate.
I did not mean can I do it but can a government agency do it when I was asking about abstaining actions such as not accepting a friend request or unfriending someone. I was under the impression that you needed to be a friend of the HPD page to post on their page. Under that premise I was wondering if not accepting a friend request would be considered blocking speech,
Thanks for your explanations on the other parts. I don't necessarily agree with everything but at least I better understand what is going on in the case.
-
I did not mean can I do it but can a government agency do it when I was asking about abstaining actions such as not accepting a friend request or unfriending someone. I was under the impression that you needed to be a friend of the HPD page to post on their page. Under that premise I was wondering if not accepting a friend request would be considered blocking speech,
Thanks for your explanations on the other parts. I don't necessarily agree with everything but at least I better understand what is going on in the case.
You just need to 'like' the page (They have no control over that).
-
Eh...Funtimes.....thats what Im talking about!!!!! Is this prophetic for your lawsuit on CCW?
Pastor Dennis
-
I was hoping that congress would pass the concealed carry permit reciprocity law, then people in Hawaii would have a means to carry until the state legislature somehow found a way to change the concealed carry law.
-
I was hoping that congress would pass the concealed carry permit reciprocity law, then people in Hawaii would have a means to carry until the state legislature somehow found a way to change the concealed carry law.
Would have been nice, but still out of reach for many Hawaiians.
-
Would have been nice, but still out of reach for many Hawaiians.
As I read the law any state with a concealed carry permit system in place would have to honor any other state's concealed carry permit. Hawaii does have a concealed carry permit system in place even if they never issue it to anyone.
-
As I read the law any state with a concealed carry permit system in place would have to honor any other state's concealed carry permit. Hawaii does have a concealed carry permit system in place even if they never issue it to anyone.
Let's keep this thread on track :).
And, to answer the question, it won't help Hawaii. It will only help hawaii when we can make the argument that tourists can carry, but hawaiians can not. In order to carry in your home state, you must have a permit from the home state (to do so otherwise would implicate the 10th amendment). To explain slightly further, I can compel you accept out of state transfers like a driver license, mainly because it's under "interstate commerce," but, I can not tell you how to give your own people a license.
:stopjack:
-
Let's keep this thread on track :).
And, to answer the question, it won't help Hawaii. It will only help hawaii when we can make the argument that tourists can carry, but hawaiians can not. In order to carry in your home state, you must have a permit from the home state (to do so otherwise would implicate the 10th amendment). To explain slightly further, I can compel you accept out of state transfers like a driver license, mainly because it's under "interstate commerce," but, I can not tell you how to give your own people a license.
:stopjack:
Very true so the only way Hawaii residents would be able to do it is travel to a state that issues CCW permits to non residents then come back.
Back to topic.
I am wondering what happens if your lawsuit wins to some extent, what will the state legislature do to try and circumvent the ruling by other means. Correct me if I am wrong but hasn't the SCOTUS already ruled that some amount of gun control is allowed?
-
Very true so the only way Hawaii residents would be able to do it is travel to a state that issues CCW permits to non residents then come back.
That is why I was saying it would be out of reach.
Not everyone can afford to go on a trip to get a CCW permit to be reciprocated. Imagine having to travel to another state, pay air fair and hotel, and take a bunch of special classes to get a permit to exercise your right to free speech or hold a protest? Same same IMO.
-
I'm glad someone like FT will stand up and do what's right. Hawaii people, including myself, are far too used to toeing the line and obeying without question. Hopefully this victory will open the eyes of the general public and cause everyone to realize that just because there's a .gov at the end of their name, it doesn't make them the infallible, omniscient deity we tend to project on them; something we tend to do whether because of social engineering or the weight of cultural shackles.
-
Very true so the only way Hawaii residents would be able to do it is travel to a state that issues CCW permits to non residents then come back.
Actually, in the last iteration of the proposal that I knew about, the reciprocating CCW has to be from the state of your residence. As a Hawaii resident, posession of a Utah Out-Of-State CCWP will not reciprocate as a CCWP back home in Hawaii. A Hawaii resident must present a Hawaii CCWP, in order for the reciprocation conditions to take effect.
This means Hawaii citizens will still be assed out of lawful protection outside of the home: because the past and current HPD Chiefs deliberately block the legal means for us to do so. But tourists who own CCWPs from their own state of residence will be able to CCW here. Thus tourists = citizens, locals = disarmed subjects.
-
That is why I was saying it would be out of reach.
Not everyone can afford to go on a trip to get a CCW permit to be reciprocated. Imagine having to travel to another state, pay air fair and hotel, and take a bunch of special classes to get a permit to exercise your right to free speech or hold a protest? Same same IMO.
You don't have to do all that.
Arizona issues CCW applications to non-residents through the mail.
I agree that we don't need to hijack this thread any more than it has been, so I started a new thread about this topic at: http://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=4288.0 (http://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=4288.0)
Now, as Funtimes says,
:stopjack:
Mahalo!
Terrible_Ted
-
I'm half a year late to the party but CONGRATULATIONS! I am 1000% behind this kind of lawsuit.
Interesting how the First Amendment and Second Amendment can help each other out, eh?
-
I'm half a year late to the party but CONGRATULATIONS! I am 1000% behind this kind of lawsuit.
Interesting how the First Amendment and Second Amendment can help each other out, eh?
They are just continuing to rack up attorney fees at this point. It's ok though - we asked them to settle a lonnnnng time ago, but they didn't want to.
-
City just paid up for costs. About 31k+ dollars in attorney fees is on the way as well.
-
City just paid up for costs. About 31k+ dollars in attorney fees is on the way as well.
Congratulations! Too bad you can't hit them up for a few million for punitive damages! The bureaucrats face no real meaningful consequences for their unconstitutional violations, they just use their deep pockets of taxpayers money to continue to violate our rights.
Any secret news as to when we might hear something about Peruta? :shaka:
-
:thumbsup: :shaka: :thumbsup: :shaka: :thumbsup: :shaka: :thumbsup:
-
Congratulations! Too bad you can't hit them up for a few million for punitive damages! The bureaucrats face no real meaningful consequences for their unconstitutional violations, they just use their deep pockets of taxpayers money to continue to violate our rights.
Any secret news as to when we might hear something about Peruta? :shaka:
So true, no REAL consequence for them. They just shrug and say 'wateva'.. 'i get plenty money'... 'ainokea, I do what I like'...
-
So true, no REAL consequence for them. They just shrug and say 'wateva'.. 'i get plenty money'... 'ainokea, I do what I like'...
I think you left out "fuck you!" which would likely be their first utterance, then followed by just shrug and say 'wateva'.. 'i get plenty money'... 'ainokea, I do what I like'...
Now if they could be held criminally and civilly liable for their government-authority-backed unconstitutional civil rights violations, and end up spending some time in prison and have all income seized beyond poverty-level living for their entire future life... they MIGHT have a different attitude... I emphasize "might", because... "ainokea" runs pretty deep.
-
Hawaii Free Press did a article about it
http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/ID/12959/HPD-Ordered-to-Pay-31K-over-Censored-Facebook-Comments.aspx (http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/ID/12959/HPD-Ordered-to-Pay-31K-over-Censored-Facebook-Comments.aspx)