2aHawaii
General Topics => Legal and Activism => Topic started by: groveler on February 19, 2023, 08:03:35 AM
-
Check this out
https://www.hawaiitribune-herald.com/2023/02/19/hawaii-news/big-island-gun-case-tests-high-court-ruling/
Local PTB are pissed.
-
AINOKEA TO DA PEOPO!
Surprised as hell about the judge’s ruling but very pleased with the outcome.
Thinking about this, the prosecutor MUST appeal and WIN. What I would like to see is the prosecutor appeals the judge’s decision and LOSES. That will effectively turn Hawaii County into a constitutional carry county. This could spread to the other counties turning Hawaii into another CC state.
-
This sets interesting precedent when they pass sensitive places state wide. BI already has them (county wise).
This may be the straw for ainokea.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
I didn't read the whole article, so I'm missing some details.
I assume the case started just before or after the Bruen decision and the "crimes" occurred before there was any chance of getting a legal license for concealed carry.
if that's the case, anyone doing the same now would be less likely to prevail using the same defense.
You can't claim your 2A rights were violated if there is a legal process for legally carrying. As the Justices said, the states have the right to regulate concealed carry, but they don't have the right to deny it automatically nor use arbitrary and subjective conditions that places the exercise of that right up to the decision of a government official.
That's just my opinion, but laws are changing. What counted as a Constitutional violation before might now shift to an individual and his responsibility to follow a prescribed process to obtain a license.
i.e. You can't say you were deprived of your right to vote if you don't register.
-
I didn't read the whole article, so I'm missing some details.
I assume the case started just before or after the Bruen decision and the "crimes" occurred before there was any chance of getting a legal license for concealed carry.
if that's the case, anyone doing the same now would be less likely to prevail using the same defense.
You can't claim your 2A rights were violated if there is a legal process for legally carrying. As the Justices said, the states have the right to regulate concealed carry, but they don't have the right to deny it automatically nor use arbitrary and subjective conditions that places the exercise of that right up to the decision of a government official.
That's just my opinion, but laws are changing. What counted as a Constitutional violation before might now shift to an individual and his responsibility to follow a prescribed process to obtain a license.
i.e. You can't say you were deprived of your right to vote if you don't register.
Go read the article. You can do it for free by registering. He was arrested Sep 17, AFTER the Bruen decision and the judge dismissed the case WITH prejudice.
-
Basically this guy got into something with his girlfriend and police were called, arrested him for terroristic threatening saying he'll kill her dogs and resisting arrest for stumbling and kneeing a cop. Both were not charged. He was charged for having a revolver and ammo in his backpack. Judge found him not guilty due to Bruen, no opinion posted yet. Guy has no criminal history.
-
Go read the article. You can do it for free by registering. He was arrested Sep 17, AFTER the Bruen decision and the judge dismissed the case WITH prejudice.
Did it say he'd applied in the past and was denied a license? If so, that would be a good argument against the state's unconstitutional policies.
-
I didn't read the whole article, so I'm missing some details.
I assume the case started just before or after the Bruen decision and the "crimes" occurred before there was any chance of getting a legal license for concealed carry.
if that's the case, anyone doing the same now would be less likely to prevail using the same defense.
You can't claim your 2A rights were violated if there is a legal process for legally carrying. As the Justices said, the states have the right to regulate concealed carry, but they don't have the right to deny it automatically nor use arbitrary and subjective conditions that places the exercise of that right up to the decision of a government official.
That's just my opinion, but laws are changing. What counted as a Constitutional violation before might now shift to an individual and his responsibility to follow a prescribed process to obtain a license.
i.e. You can't say you were deprived of your right to vote if you don't register.
I fail to understand why some people think you need a license, to exercise a right.
:wtf:
-
Basically this guy got into something with his girlfriend and police were called, arrested him for terroristic threatening saying he'll kill her dogs and resisting arrest for stumbling and kneeing a cop. Both were not charged. He was charged for having a revolver and ammo in his backpack. Judge found him not guilty due to Bruen, no opinion posted yet. Guy has no criminal history.
If found guilty of terroristic threatening, he could lose all firearms.
Terroristic threatening in the first degree is a class C felony.
-
If found guilty of terroristic threatening, he could lose all firearms.
Terroristic threatening in the first degree is a class C felony.
Kind of hard to be found guilty if he wasnt charged with it...
-
I fail to understand why some people think you need a license, to exercise a right.
:wtf:
Maybe because IT'S THE LAW? Insulting people who don't choose to break the law is not cool. You should be attacking the law and the people who supported and passed it, not the ones who reluctantly obey it. You're targeting the wrong people.
Most of us follow the law, even those parts we don't agree with. If you want to be the rebel and violate laws, that's your decision. The rest of us are allowed to choose for ourselves -- just like you.
Reality is a harsh concept. Yes, you can exercise your rights, but the states have the authority to put restrictions on those rights, like requiring a permit for a protest demonstration or a license to make sure you're minimally trained & proficient and not a violent felon or drug addict before carrying a firearm.
Four more states have drafted legislation to become Constitutional Carry states -- no permits needed IF you are legally allowed to own a pistol. See? Even states that did away with permits still enforce the "prohibited person" laws, so not everyone gets to carry.
That number would make 29 Constitutional/permit-less carry states, leaving only 21 requiring a permit -- an undeniable majority. I'm hoping one day national reciprocity is passed. Then we can get a license from any state that allows Constitutional Carry, and HI will have to honor it.
In case it needs explaining, Constitutional Carry states still offer permits for use in other states that require permits under reciprocity agreements.
-
Maybe because IT'S THE LAW? Insulting people who don't choose to break the law is not cool. You should be attacking the law and the people who supported and passed it, not the ones who reluctantly obey it. You're targeting the wrong people.
Most of us follow the law, even those parts we don't agree with. If you want to be the rebel and violate laws, that's your decision. The rest of us are allowed to choose for ourselves -- just like you.
Reality is a harsh concept. Yes, you can exercise your rights, but the states have the authority to put restrictions on those right, like requiring a permit for a protest demonstration or a license to make sure you're minimally trained & proficient and not a violent felon or drug addict before carrying a firearm.
Four more states have drafted legislation to become Constitutional Carry states -- no permits needed IF you are legally allowed to own a pistol. See? Even states that did away with permits still enforce the "prohibited person" laws, so not everyone gets to carry.
That number would make 29 Constitutional/permit-less carry states, leaving only 21 requiring a permit -- an undeniable majority. I'm hoping one day national reciprocity is passed. Then we can get a license from any state that allows Constitutional Carry, and HI will have to honor it.
In case it needs explaining, Constitutional Carry states still offer permits for use in other states that require permits under reciprocity agreements.
I don't mean to be contrary.
"Maybe because IT'S THE LAW? "
Was the excuse Nazi germany used to violate the rights of and kill millions of people.
It was the LAW.
Men of good conscience and moral character know what is right and wrong,
and man's laws aren't always right.
Your rights given to you at birth aren't subject to the whims of some other man.
Granted the state is pretty powerful and can cause you much grief, but that is because
other men choose badly.
I have no respect for those men other than as a danger to the rest of us, to be dealt with as
necessary and possible..
I follow what is right, moral and Constitutional law.
I have no respect for arbitrary laws and rules made by tyrants.
such as the police and Democrats that rule over us.
I consider most Hawaii laws to be arbitrary and made by tyrants
who enjoy no opposition when making those rules and regulations.
That being said, i fit in. But I only obey when necessary.
It isn't a crime till you get caught.
:shaka:
-
But I only obey when necessary.
It isn't a crime till you get caught.
:shaka:
And even if you get caught, they probably let you go after the minor inconvenience of going to the station to get booked. That's why career criminals don't give a shit. Little or no consequences for their actions.
-
Yeah. That's the frustrating part. Obeying the law even though it is full of shiite.
Made by people who are full of shiite.
Elected by people who are full of......never mind. :rofl:
-
The article:
A Hilo judge on Monday dismissed three firearms-related charges against a 27-year-old Kurtistown man on the grounds that they violated his right to carry a firearm for self-defense under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
In what is believed to be a precedent in East Hawaii courts, Hilo Circuit Judge Peter Kubota dismissed charges of carrying a revolver, carrying a loaded firearm on a public roadway, and illegally carrying ammunition against Dallys Mello.
The revolver and loaded firearm charges are Class B felonies carrying a potential of 10 years imprisonment. The ammunition charge is a misdemeanor.
“He was in fear of his life. That’s the reason he had the firearm,” Mello’s attorney, Deputy Public Defender Keith Shigetomi, said Thursday. “He didn’t use it in any illegal or improper manner. It was in his backpack. And the Supreme Court said he had the right to possess a firearm for self-defense purposes outside the home. And therefore, the case had to be dismissed.”
Shigetomi added that the prosecution “couldn’t show that the statutes didn’t violate the Second Amendment.”
Kubota dismissed the charges with prejudice, which means the state can’t refile them, although it can choose to appeal the ruling.
Mello, who has no prior criminal record, still faces a misdemeanor charge of second-degree assault on a law enforcement officer stemming from the same incident in September that resulted in the dismissed firearms charges.
According to court documents filed by police, Mello was arrested on Sept. 17 at Pikake and Orchid streets in Fern Acres subdivision on suspicion of second-degree terroristic threatening.
Mello’s girlfriend allegedly reported to police that he had sent her a text message threatening to kill her dogs and her parent’s dogs. The 24-year-old woman told police she believed Mello to be in possession of her Smith and Wesson .22 magnum revolver.
The woman reportedly told police she had given Mello permission in the past to carry the handgun, and that he usually had it in his backpack while riding his motorcycle.
Police accused Mello of resisting arrest. According to documents, during a struggle, Mello and two Puna patrol officers, Spencer Thomas and Cody Correia, stumbled to the pavement. Police allege that while they were down, Mello kneed Correia to the head, resulting in the assault charge.
Officers obtained a search warrant and found a loaded .22 caliber Ruger revolver and two boxes of ammunition in his backpack.
Prosecutors didn’t file a terroristic threatening charge.
In his motion to dismiss the firearms charges, Shigetomi cited the 2022 U.S. Supreme Court decision in the case of New York State Rifle Association v. Bruen.
Shigetomi wrote in his motion seeking dismissal of the charges “the Supreme Court clarified that the right to ‘bear’ and ‘carry’ a handgun for self-defense purposes extends beyond the home.”
“The Supreme Court further held ‘nothing in the Second Amendment text draws a home/public distinction with the respect to the right to keep and bear arms,’” Shigetomi wrote.
Deputy Prosecutor Kimberly Angay argued in her opposing motion that Mello “did not acquire a license to carry a concealed or unconcealed firearm.”
She noted that after the Supreme Court decision, the Hawaii County Police Department — which had granted only six carry permits in the previous 21 years — “changed its permitting process to comply (with Bruen) and requires that applicants complete the application (and) pass and submit a firearms proficiency test,” among other requirements.
Angay argued that without the carry permit, Mello was subject to state laws that “require unloaded firearms and ammunition to be carried in an enclosed container” of rigid construction, such as a commercially manufactured gun case — and only in transit between certain defined, limited locations.
County Prosecutor Kelden Waltjen on Thursday said he “takes firearms cases seriously.”
“Unlicensed and unregulated persons in possession of firearms presents a public safety concern, especially when it involves an alleged threat of violence,” Waltjen said.
-
This is amazing. The judge completely ignored the permit requirement and just outright dismissed it.
-
Hey Waverider. You might get scolding from one of the mods for posting a copyrighted article like I did in the past.
-
Hey Waverider. You might get scolding from one of the mods for posting a copyrighted article like I did in the past.
Anyone can access that site for free for 7 days. I just saved everyone the profess of entering their email. I doubt i’ll even visit that newsite ever again, unless this happens again.
This didn’t even make the news in the more mainstream venues.
Tell you what: you keep your trap shut. Don’t moderate for the moderators. Capishe?
-
I apologize for offending you. That was not my intent.