2aHawaii
General Topics => Legal and Activism => Topic started by: 6716J on October 03, 2022, 01:08:53 PM
-
Damn well this could be huge for us!!!!
https://www.staradvertiser.com/2022/10/01/hawaii-news/maui-gun-case-could-set-hawaii-precedent/?HSA=9fb9c1f9ae1cf605756ef34e52f80f7b733f746f&fbclid=IwAR3Oo9eldW_NrpM6JdxEscSe6VxP8TjNm-A5zAnpX0l6Ay2XqXfJyws7FPo
(Copied and pasted article so you don't have to go there)
Maui County prosecutors last week appealed a judge’s dismissal of firearm possession charges against a Maui man — a challenge that potentially could set new precedent for Hawaii’s gun laws.
[Circuit Judge Kirstin Hamman dismissed firearm charges, citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s June ruling on the Second Amendment protecting the right to carry a gun outside of the home and calling into question permitting requirements like those in Hawaii, which are among the strictest in the country.
Maui County prosecutors appealed the dismissal to the Intermediate Court of Appeals, where the fate of how Hawaii’s gun laws are applied could be tested.
The Supreme Court’s ruling in New York State Rifle &Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen found that requiring citizens to have “proper cause” for a license to carry a firearm in public was unconstitutional.
State law prohibits carrying a firearm in public except to transport it to and from places where it can be purchased and used legally, such as to a firing range, from a gun shop to your home, or to the police department for registration. In transit the firearm must be unloaded and in an enclosed container.
County police chiefs in Hawaii have the task of issuing permits to carry handguns in public.
Maui and Hawaii counties became the first two municipalities to revise their permit application form for a license to carry firearms after the ruling. The Honolulu Police Department plans to hold a public hearing Tuesday to discuss its policies for issuing permits.
While New York responded by creating gun-free zones, Hawaii has not issued any new legislation. Honolulu Mayor Rick Blangiardi announced Thursday that he proposed a draft ordinance to the City Council that would ban guns in schools, parks, government buildings, public transportation and voting locations.
In the Maui case appealed to the Intermediate Court of Appeals, police arrested Christopher L. Wilson, who was “hiking and gazing at the moon,” for trespassing on another man’s property near Maalaea in December 2017, court documents show. Wilson told police that he had a loaded .22 pistol in his waistband for self-defense purposes, documents show.
Wilson was charged with a felony for carrying a firearm in an improper place and a misdemeanor for carrying ammunition in an improper place. He was also charged with misdemeanors for criminal trespassing and failing to obtain a firearm permit.
Wilson’s public defender, Ben Lowenthal, cited the Supreme Court’s June decision when he moved in July to dismiss the first two charges.
In court Aug. 17, Hamman said she didn’t see how the two laws Wilson was charged with violating complied with the Bruen ruling, a court transcript shows. She said she would grant Lowenthal’s motion.
On Aug. 30, state Attorney General Holly T. Shikada requested permission to submit an amicus brief in support of the Maui prosecutors, saying Lowenthal’s motion to dismiss the charges “implicates a matter of significant importance to the Attorney General.”
Hamman’s ruling “would undermine state public carry licensing, impede ‘place to keep’ prosecutions across the state, and radically expand the scope of the Second Amendment far beyond anything the Supreme Court outlined in Bruen,” Shikada’s counsel Kalikoonalani D. Fernandes wrote.
Hamman filed an order dismissing the two charges.
Hamman ruled that charging Wilson on the first two counts “infringes on (his) constitutional right to bear and carry a firearm for self-defense purposes,” and added, citing the Supreme Court’s Bruen ruling, that “this right extends outside the home.”
Richard Rost, a deputy prosecuting attorney for Maui County, appealed the dismissal to the Intermediate Court of Appeals on Sept. 22.
“Just because Bruen has redefined what kind of requirements the state can impose on somebody getting a carry permit, that doesn’t mean that Hawaii’s entire carry licensing system is out the window,” Rost told the Honolulu Star-Advertiser.
Wilson lacked a permit, never applied for one, and his firearm was unregistered, Deputy Prosecutor Sally Tobin wrote in a memo opposing the motion to dismiss charges. “As a result of his failure to even apply for a permit, defendant lacks standing to raise the Second Amendment challenge in his motion,” Tobin wrote.
Because of this, Rost said, “This particular case we don’t think Bruen has anything to do with.”
In a court filing, Lowenthal argued that Wilson’s violation of “place-to-keep” laws are separate from his failure to acquire a permit, a charge he did not move to dismiss.
In a statement to the Star-Advertiser, Lowenthal said what the Bruen ruling touches is not yet clear, but the prosecutors’ appeal could have unintended results.
“Lawyers and judges across the country are still grappling with what the Supreme Court did in the Bruen decision. The government’s appeal is forcing us further into uncharted waters,” Lowenthal said.
“Mr. Wilson’s constitutional rights to keep and bear arms for self-defense extend beyond the home. The Maui prosecutors seem to be eager to explore and find out the contours of this right. They risk a flood of constitutional challenges around the state that could take down our gun laws and make us all less safe,” he said.
“An appellate court’s decision could establish precedent. If they come out with an opinion that becomes binding law for all lower courts, that could change the way prosecutions are done, the way gun laws are written,” Lowenthal added.
Neither Lowenthal nor Rost wanted to speculate on what effect the case might have on state law.
Jarrett Keohokalole, a state senator who is vice chair of the Judiciary Committee, said, “If prosecutors think it warrants legislative change, that’s something we may take up next year … but not until then.”
Honolulu Prosecutor Steve Alm said in a statement to the Star-Advertiser, “The Bruen ruling invalidated only one aspect of the public-carry permitting statute — the requirement that an applicant show reason to fear injury to the applicant’s person or property — but left all other permitting requirements in place.
“We have and will continue to charge individuals for unlawful possession of firearms in public if they do not have a valid concealed or open carry permit,” Alm said in the statement.
The Maui Police Department has issued 11 Concealed Carry Weapon licenses to nine people so far this year, according to MPD spokesperson Alana Pico. (Two people received two for separate firearms.) MPD distributed 358 permit applications and is processing 34, Pico wrote in an email.
-
Of course Rost doesn't think Bruen has anything to do with this. Rost is either dumb or purposely lying so others don't try HI's laws. Is HI's places to keep law historiy, tradition, and text.
What they want instead is HIFICO to file a law suit and then HI will drag it out as long as they can (years). Then it goes to the 9th and is found to and from is unconstitutional. Then just before the ruling, HI will change the law and stiff HIFICO's lawyers with the bill (like we saw with Tasers).
Then add in the AG writing to support HI's unconstitutional laws. Of course she thinks they're fine.
Then add in this guy : "Honolulu Prosecutor Steve Alm said in a statement to the Star-Advertiser, “The Bruen ruling invalidated only one aspect of the public-carry permitting statute — the requirement that an applicant show reason to fear injury to the applicant’s person or property — but left all other permitting requirements in place."
So like Rost, Alm is either dumb, or corrupt and trying to put off the inevitable.
-
Of course Rost doesn't think Bruen has anything to do with this. Rost is either dumb or purposely lying so others don't try HI's laws. Is HI's places to keep law historiy, tradition, and text.
What they want instead is HIFICO to file a law suit and then HI will drag it out as long as they can (years). Then it goes to the 9th and is found to and from is unconstitutional. Then just before the ruling, HI will change the law and stiff HIFICO's lawyers with the bill (like we saw with Tasers).
Then add in the AG writing to support HI's unconstitutional laws. Of course she thinks they're fine.
Then add in this guy : "Honolulu Prosecutor Steve Alm said in a statement to the Star-Advertiser, “The Bruen ruling invalidated only one aspect of the public-carry permitting statute — the requirement that an applicant show reason to fear injury to the applicant’s person or property — but left all other permitting requirements in place."
So like Rost, Alm is either dumb, or corrupt and trying to put off the inevitable. YES
-
Follow up to this case, which could also set precedent for Hawaii carry and place to keep laws
It was heard in the Hawaii Supreme Court on July 6th and decision hasn't been released yet.
https://www.courts.state.hi.us/oral-argument-before-the-hawaii-supreme-court-scap-22-0000561
Recording of the hearing: http://oaoa.hawaii.gov/jud/oa/23/SCOA_070623_SCAP-22-0000561.mp3
-
If the Hawaii Supreme Court upholds the conviction, then the next step is SCOTUS. If SCOTUS takes this up and we win, there is the possibility this creates constitutional carry nationwide. Small chance.
Or if Hawaii Supreme Court throws out the conviction, then it could result in eliminating CCW licenses. Or at least reducing CCW requirements or place to keep restrictions.
-
If the Hawaii Supreme Court upholds the conviction, then the next step is SCOTUS. If SCOTUS takes this up and we win, there is the possibility this creates constitutional carry nationwide. Small chance.
Or if Hawaii Supreme Court throws out the conviction, then it could result in eliminating CCW licenses. Or at least reducing CCW requirements or place to keep restrictions.
I see ccw being the same. But places to keep done away with. So now people can grab coffee on the way to the range or grab lunch after.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
For some reason I thought "place to keep" was a misdemeanor.
Does anyone know if the "center console" or "glovebox" meets the conditions of a "container"? That is, if you have the gun unloaded in your glove box and you only leave the house when traveling to one of the approved firearm-travel locations in the statute, it's legal?
-
For some reason I thought "place to keep" was a misdemeanor.
Does anyone know if the "center console" or "glovebox" meets the conditions of a "container"? That is, if you have the gun unloaded in your glove box and you only leave the house when traveling to one of the approved firearm-travel locations in the statute, it's legal?
"Enclosed container" means a rigidly constructed receptacle, or a commercially manufactured gun case, or the equivalent thereof that completely encloses the firearm.
(b) Any person violating this section by carrying or possessing a loaded firearm other than a pistol or revolver shall be guilty of a class B felony.
Seems as if it fits the definition (“…a rigidly constructed receptacle…that completely encloses the firearm.”).
Only way to know for sure is to get rolled up for it and see what a jury says. I’m not willing to risk a felony over it when I could just put the firearm into a gun rug (“commercially manufactured gun case”).
-
Seems as if it fits the definition (“…a rigidly constructed receptacle…that completely encloses the firearm.”).
Only way to know for sure is to get rolled up for it and see what a jury says. I’m not willing to risk a felony over it when I could just put the firearm into a gun rug (“commercially manufactured gun case”).
If with regard to ccw, it specifically states no glove box.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
If with regard to ccw, it specifically states no glove box.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
I believe that’s because you’re presumably leaving it unattended in the vehicle while you visit a “sensitive place.” If you’re just transporting from one legally allowed location to another legally allowed location, you shouldn’t leave it in the vehicle, because you can’t stop anywhere… right?
This looks like an interesting solution for the CCW use case.
https://www.consolevault.com/ (https://www.consolevault.com/)
-
I admit to being confused - does this mean now both CCW and non-CCW can leave firearm locked unattended in car, like stopping at 7-11 on the way home from the range?
-
I admit to being confused - does this mean now both CCW and non-CCW can leave firearm locked unattended in car, like stopping at 7-11 on the way home from the range?
As of now, no. Only CCW can lock a firearm in vehicle unattended; has to be the firearm on your permit.
-
I believe that’s because you’re presumably leaving it unattended in the vehicle while you visit a “sensitive place.” If you’re just transporting from one legally allowed location to another legally allowed location, you shouldn’t leave it in the vehicle, because you can’t stop anywhere… right?
This looks like an interesting solution for the CCW use case.
https://www.consolevault.com/ (https://www.consolevault.com/)
See, I know those "console vault" type things exist, but they're presumably to prevent "theft". Legally, I cannot see any difference between "console vault" and "glovebox" in terms of transporting a firearm unless there is some caselaw or it is specifically excluded by name.
So, if I was driving around the island between destinations on the approved list [e.g. home, work, gunsmith etc.] and my gun is in the glovebox, that probably isn't a crime? It would only be a crime if I 'stopped' somewhere not on the approved firearm-travel list. The state would not be able to prove I wasn't going to or from where I claim, unless of course I was found stopped at a non-approved location.
I'm not suggesting anyone do this, just pointing out how strange the statute is, because it sounds like anyone can legally drive around with an unloaded handgun in their glovebox provided they never willingly stop at a location not approved on the firearm-travel list.
Edit: I just thought of a funny scenario... "Where are you headed to?" - "Home." - "Where are you coming from?" - "Home." ;)
-
See, I know those "console vault" type things exist, but they're presumably to prevent "theft". Legally, I cannot see any difference between "console vault" and "glovebox" in terms of transporting a firearm unless there is some caselaw or it is specifically excluded by name.
So, if I was driving around the island between destinations on the approved list [e.g. home, work, gunsmith etc.] and my gun is in the glovebox, that probably isn't a crime? It would only be a crime if I 'stopped' somewhere not on the approved firearm-travel list. The state would not be able to prove I wasn't going to or from where I claim, unless of course I was found stopped at a non-approved location.
I'm not suggesting anyone do this, just pointing out how strange the statute is, because it sounds like anyone can legally drive around with an unloaded handgun in their glovebox provided they never willingly stop at a location not approved on the firearm-travel list.
Edit: I just thought of a funny scenario... "Where are you headed to?" - "Home." - "Where are you coming from?" - "Home." ;)
You're applying logic when talking gun laws. First mistake ...
Most states specifically specify if you're allowed to transport a firearm loaded and not in a locked container when you don't have a concealed carry license.
For example, NC has open carry without a permit and concealed carry with a permit. If you don't have one, you can still carry a firearm in a vehicle loaded but it can't be concealed -- you'd need a CCW permit for that. The rationale is that you are less of a threat to an officer during a traffic stop if he knows you're armed and can keep an eye on your firearm.
However, in SC, it's illegal to have a firearm in your vehicle in plain sight. I'm not sure what the rationale is for that. If it's in a center console, glove box, concealment holster or other container, as long as it's out of sight, you're good.
When driving between the two states, you have to pay attention where you are and when to hide or display your weapon. :crazy:
The Hawaii statutes are even more screwed up, partly because they never thought they would have to deal with the peasants being issued licenses to carry. instead of taking the time to clarify existing statutes and make them more consistent, they are working overtime to make it even harder to have a firearm outside your home.
Places to keep is in direct violation of the Supreme Court's Bruen decision. If you aren't in a "sensitive place," the state has no authority to stop you from having a properly secured and unloaded firearm with you.
JMHO
-
See, I know those "console vault" type things exist, but they're presumably to prevent "theft". Legally, I cannot see any difference between "console vault" and "glovebox" in terms of transporting a firearm unless there is some caselaw or it is specifically excluded by name.
So, if I was driving around the island between destinations on the approved list [e.g. home, work, gunsmith etc.] and my gun is in the glovebox, that probably isn't a crime? It would only be a crime if I 'stopped' somewhere not on the approved firearm-travel list. The state would not be able to prove I wasn't going to or from where I claim, unless of course I was found stopped at a non-approved location.
I'm not suggesting anyone do this, just pointing out how strange the statute is, because it sounds like anyone can legally drive around with an unloaded handgun in their glovebox provided they never willingly stop at a location not approved on the firearm-travel list.
Edit: I just thought of a funny scenario... "Where are you headed to?" - "Home." - "Where are you coming from?" - "Home." ;)
Dont 4get about federal gun free school zone. Gun must be in a locked container when within 1000ft of a school.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk