Post by: changemyoil66 on June 23, 2023, 12:18:01 PM
HIFICO is also a plaintiff on behalf their members and members who hold a CCW.
This isn't challenging the entire SB1230 or all the sensitive places, just the below:
1) Any building or office owned, leased, or used by the state or county and it's parking lots
2) Any restaurant serving alcohol and it's parking lot
3) Any beach, park and it's parking lot
4) Any bank and it's parking lot
5) THE AUTOMATIC BAN ON ALL PRIVATE PROPERTY
I know some may ask why not go for it all. Well it will take much more resources to go for every sensitive place. Another law firm wanted $100K up front just to start a lawsuit. Trust HIFICO and the lawyers who have lead us this far with all their wins. Also there is a possibility that the lawyers will only get paid if the lawsuit is won or settled. See the home sick sailor where the state/county are ordered to pay $130,000. This would mean the lawyers are working for "free" until the payment if the suit is won/settled. And any additional cost like paying experts or researchers, travel expenses, will have to be paid for by the plaintiffs. HIFICO is paying much of this. An example of this is the Abbott vs. Lopez Mag Ban lawsuit, they had to raise funds for their expert historian.
TRO filed. This I'm unclear about, if it's granted, then would it apply to all HIFICO CCW members? Like how the FPC injunction awarded applies to all FPC members for the pistol brace.
Post by: changemyoil66 on June 24, 2023, 07:26:01 AM
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: dafrtknocker on June 24, 2023, 08:09:15 AM
https://hificoshop.com/pages/membership
Post by: bok88 on June 24, 2023, 10:52:49 AM
Post by: Direjackalope on June 24, 2023, 11:08:27 AM
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on June 24, 2023, 11:15:26 AM
Does it matter where I can carry if they still haven’t issued my permit 120 days after I applied?
if the penalty for carrying without a license is the same as having one and carrying in a sensitive place, I'd say you're good.
:geekdanc: :thumbsup: :shaka:
Post by: changemyoil66 on June 24, 2023, 11:59:32 AM
The media left out again "all private property".
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: changemyoil66 on June 24, 2023, 12:01:04 PM
if the penalty for carrying without a license is the same as having one and carrying in a sensitive place, I'd say you're good.He isnt wrong.
:geekdanc::shaka:
Idk penalty for no ccw, but penalty for sensitive place is a miscdemenor and not a felony. But idk if u still lose ur 2a right.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on June 24, 2023, 12:40:26 PM
He isnt wrong.
Idk penalty for no ccw, but penalty for sensitive place is a miscdemenor and not a felony. But idk if u still lose ur 2a right.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Carrying concealed without a license or other lawful exception constitutes a violation of [§134-25] Place to keep pistol or revolver; penalty. and is a class B felony.
https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol03_Ch0121-0200D/HRS0134/HRS_0134-0025.htm
You make your choice and you take your chances.
Post by: zippz on June 24, 2023, 02:07:10 PM
He isnt wrong.
Idk penalty for no ccw, but penalty for sensitive place is a miscdemenor and not a felony. But idk if u still lose ur 2a right.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
As of July 1st, ANY firearm related criminal offense makes you a prohibited person for 20 years.
Post by: Direjackalope on June 24, 2023, 02:58:45 PM
Post by: Direjackalope on June 24, 2023, 02:59:35 PM
Post by: hvybarrels on June 24, 2023, 03:13:52 PM
As of July 1st, ANY firearm related criminal offense makes you a prohibited person for 20 years.
At the rate society is deteriorating I would be surprised if our current configuration of state government lasts another 20 years
Post by: Sodie on June 24, 2023, 04:08:17 PM
My point is it's hard for me to give a shit about what places are prohibited when my application is being denied indefinitely. I applied 2 weeks after Bruen and I'm well aware that I'm getting fucked.
128 days and counting… from my second application, after they added the additional hoops to jump through. I think my first application (shortly after Bruen) ended up in file 13.
Post by: changemyoil66 on June 26, 2023, 09:20:56 AM
My point is it's hard for me to give a shit about what places are prohibited when my application is being denied indefinitely. I applied 2 weeks after Bruen and I'm well aware that I'm getting fucked.
If you applied 2 weeks after Bruen (June/July 22) then your app won't be processed because you didn't complete the additional requirements under the chiefs new rules.
Post by: changemyoil66 on June 26, 2023, 09:25:25 AM
128 days and counting… from my second application, after they added the additional hoops to jump through. I think my first application (shortly after Bruen) ended up in file 13.
Acording to the AG"s report, only 6 apps "processed" in 22. So maybe all the denials or file 13's will be in the 23 AG's report.
Post by: changemyoil66 on June 26, 2023, 09:37:08 AM
As of July 1st, ANY firearm related criminal offense makes you a prohibited person for 20 years.
I wonder who's going to get screwed first. Someone makes an honest mistake and is charged with a misdemeanor. They take a guilty plea deal, "if you plead guilty, no jail time and no fines". Until they go to reclaim their guns and are told the can never get them back or buy any new ones.
Post by: changemyoil66 on June 26, 2023, 10:19:00 AM
But at the same time NJ is anti 2a and their judge granted a partial injunction 2 weeks ago or so. IDK if this judge is honest or not.
Post by: Direjackalope on June 26, 2023, 04:12:51 PM
If you applied 2 weeks after Bruen (June/July 22) then your app won't be processed because you didn't complete the additional requirements under the chiefs new rules.
I applied again in Feb after taking the approved class. I’ve jumped through every hoop.
Post by: RSN172 on June 26, 2023, 06:40:06 PM
I applied again in Feb after taking the approved class. I’ve jumped through every hoop.Did you bring malasadas or coco puffs when submitting your application?
Post by: Direjackalope on June 26, 2023, 06:45:18 PM
Did you bring malasadas or coco puffs when submitting your application?
Blame myself or blame nobody, I guess. The wheels of justice turn slowly and there's always ways I could be more proactive.
Post by: changemyoil66 on June 27, 2023, 08:31:21 AM
Site doesn't work?
I'll have them look into this.
Post by: changemyoil66 on June 28, 2023, 03:15:49 PM
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: changemyoil66 on June 30, 2023, 09:16:45 AM
Post by: changemyoil66 on July 12, 2023, 01:34:28 PM
Post by: changemyoil66 on July 13, 2023, 08:09:07 AM
Why was it delayed?It was moved forward. Previous hearing was 7/31.I was hopeful that the judge would issue a temp injunction
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: zippz on July 13, 2023, 04:40:19 PM
Oops sorry, for some reason I thought it was supposed to be earlier.
It should've been earlier, but the judge said end of July is fine since we could've filed the lawsuit months ago. Which was untrue since the law was signed by the Gov only a three weeks prior.
Post by: changemyoil66 on July 13, 2023, 05:55:59 PM
Submitted their amicus brief.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: changemyoil66 on July 14, 2023, 11:44:34 AM
Instead of them using history and tradition as required by Bruen, they instead are relying that a default ban would cause less confusion to CCW holders so they don't accidentally walk into a prohibited business cause they never saw the "no guns allowed sign". They are also saying that many members part of organizations also want the ban. Like the Hawaii Restaurant Association represents like 2,000 members and the Hawaii Retail Merchants represent 4,000 members. They also used polls done on the Star Advertiser.
Same Corporate Counsel during the C&C Bill 57 hearings when asked by Augie for a list of all the history and tradition of every sensitive place, told Augie "we will discuss in executive session". Then the next hearing came and Augie said that Corporate Counsel never got back to him about it.
So this brief submitted sounds very half assed. Cause #1, they have no historic/traditional standing, and #2 their budget is probably small, so they couldn't spend much time on this. They basically took what was used in the hearings testimonies and put it on paper.
Post by: changemyoil66 on July 14, 2023, 12:45:49 PM
Hawaii Rifle Association
GOA
CA Rifle & Pistol Asso
GOA of CA
Gun Owners Foundation
Unlike the cities piss poor brief, this one has many prior court rulings and documentation being used to support HIFICO's TRO.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on July 14, 2023, 12:47:55 PM
C&C of Honolulu submitted their Amicus brief to the injunction
Instead of them using history and tradition as required by Bruen, they instead are relying that a default ban would cause less confusion to CCW holders so they don't accidentally walk into a prohibited business cause they never saw the "no guns allowed sign". They are also saying that many members part of organizations also want the ban. Like the Hawaii Restaurant Association represents like 2,000 members and the Hawaii Retail Merchants represent 4,000 members. They also used polls done on the Star Advertiser.
Same Corporate Counsel during the C&C Bill 57 hearings when asked by Augie for a list of all the history and tradition of every sensitive place, told Augie "we will discuss in executive session". Then the next hearing came and Augie said that Corporate Counsel never got back to him about it.
So this brief submitted sounds very half assed. Cause #1, they have no historic/traditional standing, and #2 their budget is probably small, so they couldn't spend much time on this. They basically took what was used in the hearings testimonies and put it on paper.
We should make the default speed limit 25 MPH everywhere, so people don't accidentally speed when they didn't see a road sign. Much less confusing that way.
:wacko:
Post by: changemyoil66 on July 14, 2023, 12:53:41 PM
We should make the default speed limit 25 MPH everywhere, so people don't accidentally speed when they didn't see a road sign. Much less confusing that way.
:wacko:
And no need even signs, this will save tax payer money. Problem solved.
The HRA brief also states which was told to the various committee's form others via testimony "apply this automatic default ban to any other right like the 1st amendment and it wont' work".
Post by: Brystont1 on July 14, 2023, 04:19:10 PM
It should've been earlier, but the judge said end of July is fine since we could've filed the lawsuit months ago. Which was untrue since the law was signed by the Gov only a three weeks prior.
Oh wow. Not the judge already forecasting a bullshit ruling.
Post by: Heavies on July 16, 2023, 05:02:31 AM
Oh wow. Not the judge already forecasting a bullshit ruling.
You know they already have their mind made up. There is no consequences for them that ignore the SCOTUS precedent, as seen in the other jurisdictions that have done just that. They know it’ll be decades for it to go back to SCOTUS.
Any other “right” would be taken much more seriously.
Post by: changemyoil66 on July 16, 2023, 09:36:55 AM
Their claim is the PA and MA militia officers were banned from having meetings at bars or near bars. This is with regard to the current ban on places that serve booze.
State still using "public interest" to justify ban on all private property.
Parks ban claim is thousands of summer fun program kids use the parks. This isnt at once though, at best 200 in 1 day and its a special field trip at kapiolani park. Some programs are weekdays on park property though. But what about the remaining 9-10 months?
I cant remember what they said abt banks.
The state has a 5x scotus arguing atty working "pro bono" and has been "deputised" by the AG to work.
Funny zero about HI's kindom laws that was pushed hevily during testimony.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: hvybarrels on July 16, 2023, 12:25:56 PM
I mean it’s great for us but what the heck is going on over at the AG office?
Post by: changemyoil66 on July 16, 2023, 01:41:33 PM
That’s the best they could come up with?This is what happens when the AG lies during testimony. They got nothing...well maybe a corrupt judge.
I mean it’s great for us but what the heck is going on over at the AG office?
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: hvybarrels on July 16, 2023, 02:19:25 PM
Post by: zippz on July 16, 2023, 02:23:05 PM
The judge does not get penalized for it. Neither does the AG, attorneys, Governor, and legislators.
Kobayashi is a new judge to the district court and 2a matters so we don't know what her principles are yet. Delaying the TRO hearing to the end of the month, when it should've been sooner, is a strike against her whether intentional or a mistake.
One advantage for us on the delay is the 9th circuit will release it's decision on teter (knives) and Yukutake (gun registration) anytime now and we are expecting a good ruling for us. If released before the TRO decision, Kobayashi will need to consider that decision in her own decision on the TRO making it much harder to rule against us.
Post by: changemyoil66 on July 17, 2023, 09:05:23 AM
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on July 17, 2023, 09:22:44 AM
Kobayashi stated that the lawsuit should have been filed months ago and not when HIFICO did. The issue with that is the law didn't take effect until 7/1. So I'm not holding my breath with an honest ruling from her.
There was a catch-22 in the elections that kept candidates from filing a complaint against election supervision and practices until after the election. Until the result are known, the plaintiff doesn't have grounds to file.
But, when you wait until the election is over, the court then has a small window of time to grant any sort of meaningful relief. Once the results are certified in a state, the court is reluctant to step in unless there is clear evidence of election tampering.
Can't file before the election, and can't file after -- both with seemingly logical, legal justifications.
Sounds like this is similar. Have to file before the bill is law in order to stop it, and have to wait until it's law to have "standing" and to even have something to complaint about -- as in the bill hasn't been signed and could be vetoed, making any legal action moot.
:wacko:
Post by: hvybarrels on July 17, 2023, 09:33:16 AM
Kobayashi stated that the lawsuit should have been filed months ago and not when HIFICO did. The issue with that is the law didn't take effect until 7/1. So I'm not holding my breath with an honest ruling from her.
So odd. She doesn't seem like the type who wants to rewrite the constitution. Neurological damage from the vax?
Post by: hvybarrels on July 27, 2023, 11:26:36 PM
https://www.kitv.com/news/local/hawaii-doesnt-want-firearms-on-its-beaches-the-states-latest-gun-control-law-goes-before/article_b53bb49e-5cf6-5ed5-8a47-84b8aa519937.html
Post by: zippz on July 27, 2023, 11:43:48 PM
Call in tomorrow if you want to hear it
Friday July 28th 10:30am
Audio call: 1-650-479-3207, Access Code: 1607483022
Post by: SonRunner on July 28, 2023, 09:57:08 PM
https://www.kitv.com/news/guns-on-hawaiis-beaches-federal-judge-hears-motion-for-injunction-friday-morning/article_a9c00e08-2d94-11ee-992a-3b9189bde875.html
Post by: changemyoil66 on July 30, 2023, 09:20:46 AM
State is saying making someone put up a no guns allowed sign is forced speech.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: hvybarrels on July 30, 2023, 10:48:48 AM
1 part
State is saying making someone put up a no guns allowed sign is forced speech.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
(https://i.gifer.com/g0rs.gif)
Post by: changemyoil66 on July 31, 2023, 08:19:37 AM
The state seemed to concead that banning any c&c/state parking lots that are not soley for a c&c/state building should not be part of the parking lot ban. Example: Ala Moana Shopping Center Satellite City Hall shares their parking with the mall and other stores.
Sorry for the delay, been busy with baby.
Post by: changemyoil66 on August 08, 2023, 07:20:03 PM
State law only, this doesnt apply to oahu or big island ordinance.
Law is suspended on the following
Parking lots belonging to city/state if its shared with another entity
Parks, beaches and their parking lot
Private property open to the public
Banks
Restaurants that serve booze
This is huge as its an obama judge who ruled.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: Heavies on August 08, 2023, 09:45:44 PM
TRO issued, but only for the following
State law only, this doesnt apply to oahu or big island ordinance.
Law is suspended on the following
Parking lots belonging to city/state if its shared with another entity
Parks, beaches and their parking lot
Private property open to the public
Banks
Restaurants that serve booze
This is huge as its an obama judge who ruled.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Awesome!
Post by: macsak on August 09, 2023, 08:56:27 AM
Post by: changemyoil66 on August 09, 2023, 01:08:39 PM
https://youtu.be/TfBcpiUm4kQ
This is a must watch vid.
Post by: Rhed on August 09, 2023, 06:27:14 PM
Post by: changemyoil66 on August 15, 2023, 10:13:46 AM
What I'm surprised about is that the judge said something along the lines of "what's the big deal, if its concealed, who's going to know one is carrying". In response to the states "public safety" weak argument.
The state knows if they lose this lawsuit, the remaining places will fall as well. Which is who HIFICO donations are needed. Our historian needs to work more than normal because HI won't give up. And this is what HI wants, is to make it too expensive for anyone to challenge. The future of HI gun laws all begin on this lawsuit.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on August 15, 2023, 10:45:20 AM
So the state is appealing the TRO. Even though they couldn't prove any history and tradition, they said the judge was wrong in her ruling. This appeal is highly unusual.
What I'm surprised about is that the judge said something along the lines of "what's the big deal, if its concealed, who's going to know one is carrying". In response to the states "public safety" weak argument.
The state knows if they lose this lawsuit, the remaining places will fall as well. Which is who HIFICO donations are needed. Our historian needs to work more than normal because HI won't give up. And this is what HI wants, is to make it too expensive for anyone to challenge. The future of HI gun laws all begin on this lawsuit.
SCOTUS wrote in the Bruen decision that the state cannot us a balancing rationale for justifying violation of a right. That balancing specifically included public safety versus an individual right to bear arms.
Yet, the state of Hawaii still thinks they can do so even though it goes against the Supreme Court.
Quote
(1) Since Heller and McDonald, the Courts of Appeals have developed a
“two-step” framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that
combines history with means-end scrutiny. The Court rejects that two-part
approach as having one step too many. Step one isbroadly consistent with
Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment’s text, as
informed by history. But Heller and McDonald do not support a second step
that applies means-end scrutiny inthe Second Amendment context. Heller’s
methodology centered onconstitutional text and history. It did not invoke
any means-end test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny, and it expressly
rejected any interest-balancing inquiry akin to intermediate scrutiny. Pp. 9–15.
interest-balancing and means-end testing encapsulates the state's rationale for placing more importance on public safety in order to violate the right to bear arms. Can't do that anymore. In fact, SCOTUS said that the lower courts need to revisit cases in which they applied this two-part justification and remand the cases back down for corrective action.
Post by: zippz on August 15, 2023, 11:03:04 AM
This was expected. There is a decent chance that the TRO won't be overturned thanks to Trump's 9 Cir judge appointments.
Post by: changemyoil66 on August 15, 2023, 12:32:46 PM
SCOTUS wrote in the Bruen decision that the state cannot us a balancing rationale for justifying violation of a right. That balancing specifically included public safety versus an individual right to bear arms.U know this, many here know this. But the anti 2a's are still using it as justification. And judges even still obey the old style.
Yet, the state of Hawaii still thinks they can do so even though it goes against the Supreme Court.
interest-balancing and means-end testing encapsulates the state's rationale for placing more importance on public safety in order to violate the right to bear arms. Can't do that anymore. In fact, SCOTUS said that the lower courts need to revisit cases in which they applied this two-part justification and remand the cases back down for corrective action.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: hvybarrels on August 15, 2023, 02:38:20 PM
We need nation wide constitutional carry, and handing these commies another defeat by winning this case is an important step in the right direction.
Post by: SonRunner on August 15, 2023, 08:13:14 PM
TRO issued, but only for the following
State law only, this doesnt apply to oahu or big island ordinance.
Law is suspended on the following
Parking lots belonging to city/state if its shared with another entity
Parks, beaches and their parking lot
Private property open to the public
Banks
Restaurants that serve booze
This is huge as its an obama judge who ruled.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
So due to the Honolulu City Ordinance, there is still no CCW in the following?
- Parking lots belonging to city/state if its shared with another entity
- Parks, beaches and their parking lot
- Private property open to the public
- Banks
- Restaurants that serve booze
Post by: changemyoil66 on August 15, 2023, 09:02:49 PM
So due to the Honolulu City Ordinance, there is still no CCW in the following?Yes
Parking lots belonging to city/state if its shared with another entity
Parks, beaches and their parking lot
Private property open to the public
Banks
Restaurants that serve booze
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: SonRunner on August 15, 2023, 09:55:07 PM
Is there a reason that the current HIFICO, Wolford etal vs. Lopez (Hawaii State Sensitive Places Lawsuit) didn't challege the Honolulu City Council bill also, at the same time?
Post by: eyeeatingfish on August 16, 2023, 12:05:23 AM
Post by: changemyoil66 on August 16, 2023, 11:29:28 AM
Is the membership page for HiFiCo down? I clicked on membership to try and renew it but says not found or something like thatTheyre working on it.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: changemyoil66 on August 16, 2023, 11:30:49 AM
So what is the legal strategy in nullifying the Honolulu City Council bill?State is bigger than county. If state law falls, county ordinance is more likely to fall as well. Compared to the other way around.
Is there a reason that the current HIFICO, Wolford etal vs. Lopez (Hawaii State Sensitive Places Lawsuit) didn't challege the Honolulu City Council bill also, at the same time?
I trust Alan Beck and his strategy.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: zippz on August 16, 2023, 11:59:31 AM
65% chance the 9th circuit will stop our TRO/preliminary injunction
2nd circuit Antonyuk v Hochul decision should come out within two months. Might be a middle of the road decision.
50/50% chance SCOTUS grants a preliminary injunction in the Fall, depends how the 2nds decision is written and if it goes en banc.
If SCOTUS grants the injunction, we might be carrying in Honolulu at the end of the year. If not, might be another year or two from now.
Post by: SonRunner on August 16, 2023, 05:09:55 PM
Post by: changemyoil66 on August 17, 2023, 01:05:32 PM
So the state is appealing the TRO. Even though they couldn't prove any history and tradition, they said the judge was wrong in her ruling. This appeal is highly unusual.The 9th denied the states appeal and said its up to Kobayashi. The judge who granted the TRO. She has till 9/1 to make a decision.
What I'm surprised about is that the judge said something along the lines of "what's the big deal, if its concealed, who's going to know one is carrying". In response to the states "public safety" weak argument.
The state knows if they lose this lawsuit, the remaining places will fall as well. Which is who HIFICO donations are needed. Our historian needs to work more than normal because HI won't give up. And this is what HI wants, is to make it too expensive for anyone to challenge. The future of HI gun laws all begin on this lawsuit.
Until then, TRO is in force.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: Jaco808 on August 18, 2023, 09:47:37 AM
The 9th denied the states appeal and said its up to Kobayashi. The judge who granted the TRO. She has till 9/1 to make a decision.
Until then, TRO is in force.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Is it possible to request tro for the city ordinance? It's basically useless still....
Post by: macsak on August 18, 2023, 09:54:05 AM
you file a suit, and the judge issues the order...
Is it possible to request tro for the city ordinance? It's basically useless still....
Post by: zippz on August 18, 2023, 10:06:57 AM
Is it possible to request tro for the city ordinance? It's basically useless still....
possibilities:
New lawsuit filed against the countys
Countys could pass an ordinance to change sensitive places.
Mayor can publicly say sensitive places won't be enforced during the lawsuit.
For all of these, we have to see if the TRO continues or is stopped. It's fate is still pending.
Post by: zippz on August 28, 2023, 08:59:00 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/RfwZIex.jpeg)
Post by: hvybarrels on August 28, 2023, 10:26:14 AM
Post by: SonRunner on August 31, 2023, 10:18:27 AM
The 9th denied the states appeal and said its up to Kobayashi. The judge who granted the TRO. She has till 9/1 to make a decision.
Until then, TRO is in force.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: changemyoil66 on August 31, 2023, 01:43:25 PM
Any updates on Judge Kobayashi's ruling?
As of now, no.
Post by: changemyoil66 on September 01, 2023, 03:12:55 PM
Any updates on Judge Kobayashi's ruling?
The state submitted another brief claiming public safety and public interest.
Post by: zippz on September 01, 2023, 05:32:53 PM
https://drive.google.com/file/d/13Q8yUXFOF1jxP9ojsN7JGT-y481FWERa/view?usp=sharing
Post by: Heavies on September 01, 2023, 05:44:47 PM
Post by: changemyoil66 on September 01, 2023, 05:58:36 PM
The State still continues to use interest balancing as an argument, yet it has been already ruled that arguments cannot be used anymore. Are they dense, stupid, or both?Thats all they got as they have no history and tradition. Even though the AG stated they did. She and her deputy AG should be fired for lying, but they lied to their own kind, so no problem.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: zippz on September 01, 2023, 06:08:10 PM
State knows interest balancing is a losing cause, but just threw it in there anyways. Teter & Yukutake made sure of that.
State likely assumed they would defeat the TRO request because of Hawaii judge. The TRO woke them up and they are going to push harder now.
Post by: hvybarrels on September 01, 2023, 11:56:21 PM
State response
https://drive.google.com/file/d/13Q8yUXFOF1jxP9ojsN7JGT-y481FWERa/view?usp=sharing
These hired gun attorneys have some talent. Soros pulled serious strings on this one.
Post by: changemyoil66 on September 02, 2023, 08:12:10 AM
These hired gun attorneys have some talent. Soros pulled serious strings on this one.Sarcasm? Cause from them using their strategy, theyre tards.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: dafrtknocker on September 06, 2023, 08:05:30 PM
Hawaii Firearms Coalition
Update in our Hawaii sensitive places lawsuit - Wolford v Lopez -
TRO converted to PI, further proceedings in district stayed pending appeal to 9th circuit.
https://www.facebook.com/hificoorg/
Post by: changemyoil66 on September 07, 2023, 12:04:27 PM
Does this mean we can finally carry again?
The only diff between the TRO and PI is that the TRO was for a X amount of time. A PI is valid until the lawsuit is complete. So if you're on Oahu or Big Island, this really doesn't affect you.
Post by: zippz on September 07, 2023, 12:38:50 PM
Post by: Heavies on September 07, 2023, 04:36:41 PM
Is there an ETA for oahu?
They are speaking about the city ordinances for Big Island and Honolulu counties. This case doesn’t affect them, the suit only applies to state law.
There would have to be another challenge to county ordinances.
Post by: zippz on September 07, 2023, 05:31:48 PM
Is there an ETA for oahu?
If the 9th turns down the appeal, then Honolulu & Hawaii County's have a good chance of stopping enforcement of their ordinances or changing their ordinances or else another attorney could jump in and sue them. This could be done within months. There's a 65% chance we will lose the PI.
If the 9th takes the case and puts a hold on the PI, then we will see what SCOTUS does with the 2nd Circuit Court's decision in NY vs GOA/Antonyuk. Best case there could be something at the end of the year, or if everything plays out, it could take one to three years.
Post by: Sodie on September 07, 2023, 06:02:13 PM
It actually makes a big difference in Hawaii county as the PI means you don't need permission or guns allowed signs before entering a private property open to the public.
As I read the oneoahu website, the City and County of Honolulu ordinance does not include private property by default, so does that not mean that the default gun-free zone status for businesses (other than the types specifically listed) is gone for Oahu? Am I missing something?
https://www.oneoahu.org/sensitive-places (https://www.oneoahu.org/sensitive-places)
Post by: zippz on September 07, 2023, 06:09:45 PM
As I read the oneoahu website, the City and County of Honolulu ordinance does not include private property by default, so does that not mean that the default gun-free zone status for businesses (other than the types specifically listed) is gone for Oahu? Am I missing something?
https://www.oneoahu.org/sensitive-places (https://www.oneoahu.org/sensitive-places)
Each county is different, the one I referenced was for Hawaii (Big Island) county, you have to know the details of each county.
Going off Honolulu's ordinance, you still have to follow all of it including:
§ 41-__.4 Prohibition against the public carrying of firearms in a sensitive
location—Prohibition against carrying a firearm on a private business
establishment's or charitable establishment's premises without express consent.
(a) Prohibition. Except as otherwise provided by federal or State law, it is a violation
of this article for any person to intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carry on
their person a firearm, concealed or unconcealed, on the premises of:
(1) Any sensitive place; or
(2) Any business establishment or charitable establishment unless the
business establishment or charitable establishment, or an agent thereof,
has expressly consented thereto. For purposes of this subsection,
signage must be in accordance with the requirements specified in
§ 41-__.5.
For the purposes of this section, "the premises of any business establishment or
charitable establishment" includes all appurtenant grounds and parking lots of the
business establishment or charitable establishment, but does not include
privately owned or maintained streets or sidewalks.
Business Establishment. Includes any of the following establishments
operated by a business:
(1) Any hotel, except individual hotel rooms and when actively traveling
through a hotel to or from an individual hotel room;
(2) Any financial institution;
(3) Any industrial, commercial, or wholesale establishment;
(4) Any utility;
(5) Any retail establishment where goods or services are sold, leased, or
otherwise provided to the public or to another business; and
(6) Any restaurant or bar, as those terms are defined in § 41-14.1.
Post by: Sodie on September 07, 2023, 06:18:18 PM
Each county is different, you have to know the details of each.
Correction, going off Honolulu's ordinance, you still have to follow all of it including:
§ 41-__.4 Prohibition against the public carrying of firearms in a sensitive
location—Prohibition against carrying a firearm on a private business
establishment's or charitable establishment's premises without express consent.
(a) Prohibition. Except as otherwise provided by federal or State law, it is a violation
of this article for any person to intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carry on
their person a firearm, concealed or unconcealed, on the premises of:
(1) Any sensitive place; or
(2) Any business establishment or charitable establishment unless the
business establishment or charitable establishment, or an agent thereof,
has expressly consented thereto. For purposes of this subsection,
signage must be in accordance with the requirements specified in
§ 41-__.5.
For the purposes of this section, "the premises of any business establishment or
charitable establishment" includes all appurtenant grounds and parking lots of the
business establishment or charitable establishment, but does not include
privately owned or maintained streets or sidewalks.
Business Establishment. Includes any of the following establishments
operated by a business:
(1) Any hotel, except individual hotel rooms and when actively traveling
through a hotel to or from an individual hotel room;
(2) Any financial institution;
(3) Any industrial, commercial, or wholesale establishment;
(4) Any utility;
(5) Any retail establishment where goods or services are sold, leased, or
otherwise provided to the public or to another business; and
(6) Any restaurant or bar, as those terms are defined in § 41-14.1.
Thanks. I thought it was too good to be true… :rofl: :(
Post by: changemyoil66 on September 07, 2023, 07:53:18 PM
As I read the oneoahu website, the City and County of Honolulu ordinance does not include private property by default, so does that not mean that the default gun-free zone status for businesses (other than the types specifically listed) is gone for Oahu? Am I missing something?It says commerical property in a diff section. So no effect on oahu.
https://www.oneoahu.org/sensitive-places (https://www.oneoahu.org/sensitive-places)
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: RSN172 on September 07, 2023, 08:25:10 PM
Post by: changemyoil66 on September 08, 2023, 08:29:20 AM
Another thing to keep in mind is that a certain segment of our population is exempt from all these laws. This select group is called na kanaka hana hewa.
They almost weren't exempt in the C&C ordinance, but the counsel members found the error and fixed it.
Post by: changemyoil66 on October 05, 2023, 12:54:01 PM
They sited the hundreds of testimonies from people who dont want guns in public. Too bad we cannot counter argue with hundreds or thousands who do want it since we only got about 140 on average.
They begun using laws in the late 1800's as history.
THey begun using "like laws" for analogies: Restrictions of shooting a gun in public is the same as not being able to carry one and this was a few laws prior to the Constitution even being written (early 1700's).
They begun making up things like a ball is the same as a bar. A fair and market is the same as a bank.
They keep using the words "plantiffs failed to show", where the burden is on the state, not the plantiffs. This is part of a nation wide plan by the anti 2a to take the burden off the state to show history and tradition.
The state has like 10 high profile atty's working on this vs 2 of ours (Alan and Kevin).
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on October 05, 2023, 12:58:18 PM
Post by: changemyoil66 on November 07, 2023, 12:23:58 PM
Post by: hvybarrels on November 07, 2023, 03:26:39 PM
17 states filed an amicus brief ( a report supporting 1 side/party) supporting Wolfard (supporting us). That's awesome.
(https://media1.giphy.com/media/QZzYS9VQJNmXHxPjPB/giphy.gif?cid=ecf05e47k2832zdijnd45nn9e8znl188x9jvcxx4py2wbr2a&ep=v1_gifs_search&rid=giphy.gif&ct=g)
Post by: changemyoil66 on November 08, 2023, 03:51:35 PM
This isn't to hear the case itself as it has yet to be heard in the HI court (lower).
With the way the 9th has been ruling recently, I don't have hope that they will keep the injection active as they are corrupt.
Post by: changemyoil66 on November 21, 2023, 02:06:29 PM
They say that shared parking lots of government buildings aren't part of the law. Guess non shared lots counted.
State is using 1889 as the year for when OK banned guns besides students in school. Kind of far from the history/traditional analague period.
State is saying that its the 3rd parties who are banning guns (private property ban), but left out that it has the weight of the law, so it's the State doing it too. Instead of the person just getting trespassed.
State is also saying that no bank has allowed a CCW holder to come in via permission, so the our lawsuit is wrong. They are pushing the burden back on us instead of the burden being on the state to prove history and tradition.
I'll bet the 9th believes all this BS. This is what the top lawyers came up with and is weak. Apparently ethics class was skipped as they want to take our right away.
Post by: changemyoil66 on November 23, 2023, 07:23:54 AM
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: changemyoil66 on November 23, 2023, 08:11:59 AM
Alan says people need to do their part in the legislature to stop these types of laws. Since it takes years to fight. This is coming from the guy who makes money from these laws.
The host lives in NY and said there are 5 million gun owners. Their commie governor won by 3 million votes. If every gun owner voted, it should have been a landslide.
HI will be the 1st sensitive places that will most likely go to the 9th because HIs law passed before CA's one. CA's one is also under a lawsuit.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: Sodie on November 23, 2023, 08:47:29 AM
Take away from the above
Alan says people need to do their part in the legislature to stop these types of laws. Since it takes years to fight. This is coming from the guy who makes money from these laws.
The host lives in NY and said there are 5 million gun owners. Their commie governor won by 3 million votes. If every gun owner voted, it should have been a landslide.
HI will be the 1st sensitive places that will most likely go to the 9th because HIs law passed before CA's one. CA's one is also under a lawsuit.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
There are 13 million registered voters in New York State, the majority of whom are deep blue liberal. Every single gun owner could vote, and it could still result in a 3 million vote win for Hochul.
EDIT: Hochul won by about 400,000 votes. Yes, gun owners need to vote, but I expect they already turn out in bigger numbers than the average person because they’ve got some skin in the game. It’s a tough problem.
Post by: hvybarrels on November 23, 2023, 12:32:04 PM
There are 13 million registered voters in New York State, the majority of whom are deep blue liberal. Every single gun owner could vote, and it could still result in a 3 million vote win for Hochul.
EDIT: Hochul won by about 400,000 votes. Yes, gun owners need to vote, but I expect they already turn out in bigger numbers than the average person because they’ve got some skin in the game. It’s a tough problem.
There's also the election rigging infrastructure in blue states including ours that has to be contended with. The only sure fire way to overwhelm the system's ability to manufacture fake votes and cancel legitimate ones.
That means we have to get our friends, family, and neighbors to vote as well. They made ballot harvesting legal and use it extensively. We are fools if we don't follow their lead.
Post by: changemyoil66 on November 29, 2023, 08:56:28 AM
Post by: changemyoil66 on December 21, 2023, 10:35:57 AM
The 9th is the most anti 2A circuit. They were on track to do positive stuff, but I guess got scolding's to be corrupt again.
Post by: changemyoil66 on January 28, 2024, 08:05:24 AM
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: Stack_Xchange on January 29, 2024, 03:33:21 AM
I'm going to start calling that the "Public Library Safety Act". When you go to a library, it is assumed you shall not practice your right to free speech by default because you might hurt someone with your volume/words. When it comes to the 2A, not being able to carry anywhere by default is also a "public safety act", so to practice your civil rights you need explicit permission. We should bring the Public Library Safety Act to Congress. Too many people are being hurt by words/volume, so the 1st Amendment should be off by default when in all public or private places, just like in a public library. Businesses need to post signs, no less than 36" from the bottom of the main entrance, in size 128 font or larger, in "red" font as defined by an R value of greater than 125, and G and B values of less than 25 on the RBG color spectrum, in all capital letters, with the text "FREE SPEECH ALLOWED!".
Vote for me. I can do this!
Post by: changemyoil66 on April 01, 2024, 09:38:49 AM
From the hostility we've seen a few weeks ago by another 9th circuit anti 2a panel, don't expect a logical hearing.
Prediction: This panel will remove the current stay on HI's law, which means once again, you can only CCW on the public sidewalk. HIFICO will challenge this to the full judge panel, but until the hearing and ruling takes place, any ruling the 3 judge panel makes will be in force.
Post by: changemyoil66 on April 01, 2024, 10:54:54 AM
Post by: zippz on April 11, 2024, 05:33:23 AM
9th Circuit San Francisco agenda
https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/calendar/monthly_sittings/135108.html
YouTube 9th Circuit Court live.
https://www.youtube.com/live/qYX1KUeE1rk
Our pre court huddle
(https://i.imgur.com/9flYIyB.jpeg)
Bum fight! As soon as I get off the BART rail. Welcome to San Francisco.
(https://i.imgur.com/E3XO6tE.jpeg)
Post by: changemyoil66 on April 11, 2024, 09:03:32 AM
Cliff notes going by memory for those who cannot watch:
1 judge asked why is an automatic ban OK with the 2a, but not OK with the 1a. This is with regard to the auto ban on private property. HI replied that it doesn't apply cause owners can consent.
She also asked why Bruen should be applied differently to various states when it's law of the land. HI is saying HI is diff from NJ and stuff.
The other haole judge stated that isn't historical standard and all 3 judges laughed and the HI lawyer said it is historical.
HI is using the no hunting on my land without permission for the auto ban on private property.
A judge asked a hypothetical: If 1 entire island was a school, then why is CCW ban OK there (gun free school zone federal law) ?. Alan Becks reply was Maui isn't a school or polling place. People live there. This is with regard when the stat of 96.7% of Maui county is banned CCW if this law continues to be enforced. HI states this 96.7% is made up by the plaintiffs. HI says, "It treats all private property as banning firearms as wrong since owners can consent".
HI's rebuttal to Alans opening is "you're wrong and I cannot prove it". He even said that we (Plantiffs) have to prove Bruen applies to us. That's not how it works, the state must prove history and tradition, not us.
Overall, this panel was much less hostile comapred to the CA's AWB panel a month ago.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on April 11, 2024, 09:31:55 AM
Bum Fight
Not much difference.
:geekdanc: :shaka: :rofl:
Post by: zippz on April 11, 2024, 09:53:23 AM
9th Circuit Court
Bum Fight
Not much difference.
:geekdanc: :shaka: :rofl:
And poo
(https://i.imgur.com/sbFUkg2.jpeg)
Post by: zippz on April 13, 2024, 12:21:31 AM
The judges were openly questioning and concerned with having a circuit split with the 2nd Circuit Court (New York). In Antonyuk, the 2nd Cir struck down the preliminary injunction thereby upholding the bans in all sensitive places except for churches and places without a "guns allowed" sign. The liberal 9th 3 judge panel is expected to closely follow the 2nd's ruling. A "Circuit Split" is when the appeals courts have different decisions from each other, one of the conditions for SCOTUS to take up a case as you cannot have the same laws applied differently in the US. However the appeals courts judges are supposed to judge cases on their merits while taking into consideration how other courts handled the appeals. They do not base their decisions on preventing SCOTUS from taking a case and overrule them. That is gaming the system and politics. It's very apparent judges do this, but they don't openly say they're doing it.
The other issue is how many historical analogues are needed to rule a 2a restriction constitutional. The opposing counsel and the judges analysis of Bruen was that only one analogue was needed, not analogues. So if there was one gun restriction in a state, city, or territory out of the original 13 states, that was enough. They pointed to a restriction on firearms carry in NYC in 1763 and 1771 that justified the sensitive places ban. I'm not sure what those restrictions are, I have to look them up.
The word "balancing" was used a lot in the opposition. They are still pushing "Interest Balancing" tests for public safety to justify the carry restrictions. This was prohibited under Heller and Bruen opinion which uses the text, history, and tradition. They also talked as if the SCOTUS Heller/Bruen opinions intended for restrictions like this to be allowed
Neal Katyal, the opposing counsel who served under Obama, was a smooth talker. Little substance, but he had the confidence to make it sound good like a car salesman. The three judges were all democrat appointments. Schroader and Graber are extremely anti 2nd amendment from past cases and were pretty hostile to the 2A in court. Sung never ruled on a 2A case before, and her line of questioning was milder. The likely outcome will be ending the preliminary injunction in Hawaii for everything except for the hold on the private property "guns allowed" sign requirement.
There were a few Moms Demand Action ladies in the court. They had a small rally with the Mayor the prior day.
(https://i.imgur.com/s4Vfh6b.jpg)
Few other pictures
(https://i.imgur.com/fhytH3l.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/BgDt66I.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/xEF3Qyx.jpg)
Post by: changemyoil66 on September 07, 2024, 04:42:51 PM
So as of now, u can carry at a bank.
All other places are banned and u need permission on private property now.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: kopjecat on September 08, 2024, 03:30:06 PM
The corrupt 9th ruled that cancelled the injuction for all except for banks.
So as of now, u can carry at a bank.
All other places are banned and u need permission on private property now.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Infuriating. Is there any recourse or is that the end of the road?
And I wonder what their definition of "beach" is. Is a rocky coastline considered a beach?
Post by: zippz on September 08, 2024, 06:58:05 PM
We may get some minor restrictions lifted in the short term since more of California's restrictions were lifted v Hawaii's. Though that'll probably be later reversed in a en banc court.
It'll most likely need to be decided by SCOTUS on our or other states sensitive places ban in a couple years or more. Or if SCOTUS takes a different case that "clarifies" the history requirement, the district and appeals courts may reconsider and remove some of the restrictions.
Post by: changemyoil66 on September 09, 2024, 11:17:48 AM
Infuriating. Is there any recourse or is that the end of the road?
And I wonder what their definition of "beach" is. Is a rocky coastline considered a beach?
This ruling was with regard to the injunction issued by the Hawaii Judge. It isn't a ruling for the lawsuit itself.
Post by: nalo_b on September 09, 2024, 11:53:26 AM
Post by: changemyoil66 on September 09, 2024, 11:57:27 AM
So for now back to sidewalk carry?
Yup.
Post by: zippz on September 09, 2024, 12:07:31 PM
So for now back to sidewalk carry?
Pretty much.
Although you could carry in banks with consent, realistically no banks will give that consent.
You could walk around in circles of parking lots shared with government offices.
Post by: changemyoil66 on September 09, 2024, 04:18:11 PM
Pretty much.
Although you could carry in banks with consent, realistically no banks will give that consent.
You could walk around in circles of parking lots shared with government offices.
I thought the default ban in banks was stopped with the injuction. So banks would need a no guns approved sign.
Post by: Heavies on September 09, 2024, 04:42:25 PM
This time I hope Trump will surround himself with better advisors. I firmly believe bad advice from the NRA was the probable cause for the bump stock fiasco, which we see now spiraling out of control.
Thankfully the judges that HE appointed is keeping the anti gun bureaucracy under control, for now.
We sure cannot take another 4 to 8 years of left control. Kiss your rights bye bye.
Post by: zippz on September 09, 2024, 04:56:40 PM
I thought the default ban in banks was stopped with the injuction. So banks would need a no guns approved sign.
The absolute ban, even with a guns allowed sign, was stopped in court. Now they are like any other private property open to the public, like a 7-11 or Macy's, that requires a guns allowed sign or other consent.
Post by: changemyoil66 on September 09, 2024, 05:26:16 PM
The absolute ban, even with a guns allowed sign, was stopped in court. Now they are like any other private property open to the public, like a 7-11 or Macy's, that requires a guns allowed sign or other consent.
The injunction stated no "vampire rule" for private property open to the public. So if banks are like any other private property open to the public, then it's an automatic approval to CCW in there. But they can ban them with said sign.
The 9th upheld that banks cannot be sensitive places. So no automatic ban.
Unless I'm wrong.
Post by: zippz on September 09, 2024, 06:51:32 PM
The injunction stated no "vampire rule" for private property open to the public. So if banks are like any other private property open to the public, then it's an automatic approval to CCW in there. But they can ban them with said sign.
The 9th upheld that banks cannot be sensitive places. So no automatic ban.
Unless I'm wrong.
Consent on private property open to the public is not needed in California. Consent is still required in Hawaii
Post by: kopjecat on September 14, 2024, 03:10:01 PM
Post by: changemyoil66 on September 18, 2024, 08:36:16 AM
If you can donate or again because this is costing more money.
https://www.givesendgo.com/GAXTH?utm_source=sharelink&utm_medium=copy_link&utm_campaign=GAXTH&fbclid=IwY2xjawFX_NhleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHQcANWmbQGIQqPMqs3vwr4EucKPCfAeRK0tU2WPSlnSeeYmw1_rpkRJSFg_aem_K1qYhg97CJZxcqZFUvMWGg
Post by: changemyoil66 on October 10, 2024, 11:35:49 AM
Post by: changemyoil66 on October 29, 2024, 12:13:07 PM
To sum it up, until a decision to be heard en banc (full 9th judge panel), the current 9th (3 judge panel) ruling isn't in effect yet.
Which means the automatic ban on private property open to the public is still not enforceable by the law. So u can carry without having to ask permission. The 9th's 3 judge panel ruled that you cannot, but haven't signed the order yet due to the above.
Some people already knew this, but the AG"s office refused to confirm it. Had the 9th's ruling been in effect, I'm sure the AG's office would have stated so, but instead stated something like "we cannot confirm anything".
To sum it up again, it's a procedural matter right now why you can still carry on private property open to the public without needing permission.
Post by: kopjecat on November 17, 2024, 12:22:22 PM
Hawaii responded to the petition.
To sum it up, until a decision to be heard en banc (full 9th judge panel), the current 9th (3 judge panel) ruling isn't in effect yet.
Which means the automatic ban on private property open to the public is still not enforceable by the law. So u can carry without having to ask permission. The 9th's 3 judge panel ruled that you cannot, but haven't signed the order yet due to the above.
Some people already knew this, but the AG"s office refused to confirm it. Had the 9th's ruling been in effect, I'm sure the AG's office would have stated so, but instead stated something like "we cannot confirm anything".
To sum it up again, it's a procedural matter right now why you can still carry on private property open to the public without needing permission.
Post by: changemyoil66 on December 18, 2024, 09:03:14 AM
Its been about two months since we filed the request to have our challenge to Hawaii's sensitive places law heard by the en banc court. That is the lawsuit challenging Hawaii's prohibitions on where you can carry a handgun. So far we have heard nothing from the court. Due to the amount of time that has passed, I suspect that this means the en banc petition will be denied but a sizable number of the Ninth Circuit judges are unhappy with that decision and are writing a dissent to voice their disagreement. Dissents like these serve as a message to the Supreme Court that it should take a case. If I am right the next step is to petition the Supreme Court for review. Petitions cost a sizable amount of money because of the specialized printing and formatting costs which need to be outsourced to a special printing company. We are getting close to raising the money we need to file the petition due to the generous donations of Hawaiian gun owners. I am hoping one more push during the holiday season will take us over the top. This fundraiser is the only mechanism we have to raise money for this lawsuit. If you are passionate about the Second Amendment in Hawaii, I am hopeful you will consider making a donation to this lawsuit. Please note, I am not using any of this money to pay myself. All of this money goes to the actual costs of this litigation.
https://www.givesendgo.com/GAXTH?utm_source=sharelink&utm_medium=copy_link&utm_campaign=GAXTH&fbclid=IwY2xjawHP0T9leHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHV6RyYfqgFPflQbhZpeOQ0JHPG4I6NjNn4ymsUbVj9X04Vn4OtyOBAvE3g_aem_U5goiUrpEiSDJEJnPQEa1g
Post by: changemyoil66 on January 15, 2025, 12:12:13 PM
This means the only place you can carry besides the sidewalk is in a bank. The default ban on private property open to the public is in effect, so is the ban in restaurants that serve booze, parks and beaches.
Alan and Kevin filed a motion to dispute the above, but it's a long shot. Next is to see if SCOTUS will take the case due to this going against what another circuit ruled. This will cause additional cost to file to SCOTUS.
Donate what ever you can spare in the link below:
https://www.givesendgo.com/GAXTH?utm_source=sharelink&utm_medium=copy_link&utm_campaign=GAXTH&fbclid=IwY2xjawH1EVhleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHWtUXhLSxS8XcYaQIMhngSydi9NZVsAsRob3AOMJ8BiiBZV_3TOEMBbhVw_aem_IH6GVyDhoWhgqB3aTTeXsQ
Post by: shenlin9 on January 15, 2025, 07:02:21 PM
Post by: zippz on January 15, 2025, 07:55:18 PM
How about restaurants not serving alcohol and parking lots of public/private buildings?
Restaurants would need a "guns allowed" sign, which most will not post.
Cannot carry in parking lots of banned places or places where you don't get authorization.
Post by: changemyoil66 on January 16, 2025, 08:24:01 AM
Restaurants would need a "guns allowed" sign, which most will not post.
Cannot carry in parking lots of banned places or places where you don't get authorization.
You can also get a verbal or email from them as well.
Post by: changemyoil66 on January 16, 2025, 05:02:52 PM
This is HUGE!!!!!!!!!!
Donate in the Give Send Go if you can and tell friends to do the same. Just to give an idea of cost, the paperwork needs to be printed on a special kind of paper when sending to SCOTUS. This cost alone is about $8,000. Then it has to be proof read and this can cost between $1500-$3,000. This doesn't even include any attorney fees involved or other expenses.
This can affect HI for life, so give now or don't grumble later.
Post by: pacwire on January 17, 2025, 03:28:54 PM
Have a Great Weekend all!
:shaka:
Post by: shenlin9 on January 17, 2025, 04:20:38 PM
Post by: changemyoil66 on January 18, 2025, 04:08:34 PM
The court gave 90 days for the stay and in that time, Alan and Kevin have to submit their petition to SCOTUS or the 9ths ruling takes effect.
So they gotta print all their paper before 90 days.
So those waiting to donate later, do it sooner if u can.
Also, if i already donated and can afford more, please do. Ive donated about 3 times or so for this lawsuit.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: changemyoil66 on April 01, 2025, 09:27:02 AM
Post by: changemyoil66 on April 03, 2025, 09:24:32 AM
Post by: changemyoil66 on May 01, 2025, 09:28:36 AM
TRUMPS DOJ submitted a petition for this to be heard by SCOTUS.
Hope this gives SCOTUS the nudge to accept.
Post by: macsak on May 01, 2025, 01:17:05 PM
Post by: macsak on May 01, 2025, 01:20:43 PM
Post by: hvybarrels on May 01, 2025, 01:31:32 PM
Post by: changemyoil66 on May 01, 2025, 01:33:17 PM
Post by: macsak on May 01, 2025, 01:34:54 PM
Post by: changemyoil66 on May 02, 2025, 08:36:51 AM
I think this is the 1st time a POTUS admin wrote a brief for SCOTUS to take a case. And of all the cases, they chose one of ours. That shows the strength of it and the power of the lawyers Alan Beck and Kevin O'Grady.
Confirmed, this is the first time any POTUS has submitted a brief (support) for the SCOTUS to take a case and they're on the side of the plantiff (the people). This in itself is HUGE.
Post by: changemyoil66 on May 02, 2025, 08:52:56 AM
They also submitted a brief for the above and donated money toward the lawsuit.
Post by: Rhed on May 02, 2025, 09:24:27 PM
Post by: kekoa on May 04, 2025, 12:08:17 PM
A petition was filed to stay the 9ths ruling until SCOTUS decides if they want to hear the case or not. The petition was granted. So you can CCW again.
This is HUGE!!!!!!!!!!
Donate in the Give Send Go if you can and tell friends to do the same. Just to give an idea of cost, the paperwork needs to be printed on a special kind of paper when sending to SCOTUS. This cost alone is about $8,000. Then it has to be proof read and this can cost between $1500-$3,000. This doesn't even include any attorney fees involved or other expenses.
This can affect HI for life, so give now or don't grumble later.
So as of todays date we can CCW so long as we have a CPL? Like with all the favorable caveats that apply in our favor?
Post by: changemyoil66 on May 04, 2025, 03:15:20 PM
So as of todays date we can CCW so long as we have a CPL? Like with all the favorable caveats that apply in our favor?Read my above post abt the 9ths ruling on hold.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: kekoa on May 04, 2025, 06:15:19 PM
Read my above post abt the 9ths ruling on hold.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
My apologies. I did read that but I am not. very legal jargon savvy. Does "on hold" mean no can do or we can until SCOTUS or other determinations?
Post by: kopjecat on May 04, 2025, 11:02:11 PM
My apologies. I did read that but I am not. very legal jargon savvy. Does "on hold" mean no can do or we can until SCOTUS or other determinations?
The guys here are very knowledgeable about the legal process and the steps being taken to protect our rights, but I also keep an eye on the city & county web page about firearms and sensitive places. https://www.oneoahu.org/sensitive-places
Post by: changemyoil66 on May 05, 2025, 09:02:40 AM
Post by: changemyoil66 on May 05, 2025, 11:42:02 AM
My apologies. I did read that but I am not. very legal jargon savvy. Does "on hold" mean no can do or we can until SCOTUS or other determinations?
The law preventing you from carrying in the following places is not active. Private property open to the public, restaurants that serve booze, parks, and banks.
Post by: Jaco808 on May 05, 2025, 01:41:27 PM
Post by: zippz on May 05, 2025, 01:59:06 PM
When will we find out if they take the case?
Most likely July or after the recess in October. Or it could be longer like the Snope v Brown (AWB) which SCOTUS keeps delaying.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on May 05, 2025, 02:02:47 PM
When will we find out if they take the case?https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/ordersofthecourt
Regularly scheduled lists of orders are issued on each Monday that the Court sits,
but "miscellaneous" orders may be issued in individual cases at any time.
Not a SME, but it looks like they can accept a case, deny hearing it, or leave it pending -- pending can mean the case has already been sent back to a lower court for review/action after SCOTUS found they may have erred in their procedures or application of the law.
Until you see an order saying this case was denied, it's still in the queue.
Post by: Wchiro on May 18, 2025, 02:54:52 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdJQW5nLEss
Post by: hvybarrels on May 18, 2025, 07:31:49 PM
Supreme Court Emergency Decision To End All Firearm Permits Nationwide Gets DOJ & 25 State Support?
(https://media1.tenor.com/m/ZMCUc7LIV3QAAAAd/mr-bean-bean.gif)
Post by: changemyoil66 on June 13, 2025, 08:51:23 AM
Per Atty Alan Beck
"Dear Readers. The Wolford litigation which is our challenge to Hawaii's sensitive places law continues at the Supreme Court. The next thing we need to do is to file a reply brief to the State's opposition to our writ of certiorari. This will require that we hire a printing company to prepare the brief and ship it to the Supreme Court. This is a fairly expensive endeavor. That is why I am posting our fundraiser once again and request your continued support. "
https://www.givesendgo.com/GAXTH?utm_source=sharelink&utm_medium=copy_link&utm_campaign=GAXTH&fbclid=IwY2xjawK5UmtleHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETF0U3p5Yk1ZY05kSWhCaXN5AR5Y-Cqffw9WdRmRr0UypnR1eyUNT6BOwDPag_9kB9NXg2nR1vdXnypr5_nGjw_aem_zUK0UyzNEBQfid0Qps96QQ
Post by: changemyoil66 on June 16, 2025, 09:31:01 AM
"I just sent the reply brief in Wolford for the Supreme Court peition to the printing company. I’d like to thank the Hawaii Rifle Association for paying for printing and shipping the brief. Here is a link to the Supreme Court docket. It takes awhile for the Court to upload briefs so if you want to read our reply please check tonight. "
Post by: changemyoil66 on July 01, 2025, 02:09:21 PM
This has to be printed on a certain type of paper and font. There is like only 1 company who does this. Then they need 9 copies as each judge gets one. PDF's are also sent over, but tradition is why paper is still sued. This part seems outdated to me and is just an additional cost IMO.
Post by: Lihikai on July 01, 2025, 02:59:45 PM
Post by: changemyoil66 on September 10, 2025, 08:57:43 AM
Post by: Jaco808 on September 10, 2025, 11:39:33 AM
Post by: changemyoil66 on September 16, 2025, 09:45:11 AM
Cash donations possible at a future event?
No as future events are unknown.
Post by: changemyoil66 on September 16, 2025, 09:45:25 AM
"At the end of this month, the Supreme Court comes back from its summer recess. When it gets back it will decide the outcome of my current petition for review. Today, I filed a supplemental brief to tell the Court about all the cases that got decided over the summer. One of the cases, Koons v Platkin, deepened a disagreement between the appeals courts on the issue I'm requesting the Supreme Court to grant review on. Basically Hawaii along with 4 other states put in laws which require private businesses to put up a sign saying gun allowed in order for a concealed carry permit holder to be allowed to carry. As a practical matter, even businesses that would like you to carry won't put up such a sign due to how divisive this issue is in the country and potential loss of business as a result of the sign. Both the Second Circuit which govern New York and now the Third Circuit in Koons which governs New Jersey have found these laws to be unconstitutional. The Ninth Circuit stands alone in upholding a signage requirement. That has created a conflict among the circuit courts on what the law is. A circuit conflict is the number one reason the Supreme Court will review a case. Between that and a brief filed by the Federal government which supports my petition I am hopeful that the Court will grant review. I should find out sometime next month so wish me luck friends. Below is a link to the brief if you want to read it. "
Post by: changemyoil66 on September 30, 2025, 08:22:45 AM
Post by: changemyoil66 on October 03, 2025, 08:30:26 AM
Donate more if you can.
Send link to friends to donate.
https://www.givesendgo.com/GAXTH?utm_source=sharelink&utm_medium=copy_link&utm_campaign=GAXTH&fbclid=IwY2xjawNM9YZleHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETF1b1lqRkdJYkNDS3RxWGdEAR51bUGMW5BMCoNQ0aD5nfFSm4FPyLMZrULI_AGziOkJaeNDeZfhqRyoYDNSSQ_aem_LXZm45e0u99sjpraXyJDgQ
Post by: macsak on October 03, 2025, 09:15:59 AM
This is going to SCOTUS!!!
Donate more if you can.
Send link to friends to donate.
https://www.givesendgo.com/GAXTH?utm_source=sharelink&utm_medium=copy_link&utm_campaign=GAXTH&fbclid=IwY2xjawNM9YZleHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETF1b1lqRkdJYkNDS3RxWGdEAR51bUGMW5BMCoNQ0aD5nfFSm4FPyLMZrULI_AGziOkJaeNDeZfhqRyoYDNSSQ_aem_LXZm45e0u99sjpraXyJDgQ
Post by: Lihikai on October 03, 2025, 11:17:34 AM
Post by: changemyoil66 on October 03, 2025, 11:25:57 AM
Maybe Hawaii will pull out the 'Aloha Spirit' trumps the Constitution argument ...
Their $3400/hr lawyer wouldn't be dumb enough to use that. But I get that you're using sarcasm.
Post by: zippz on October 03, 2025, 01:01:43 PM
Anyone want to come with me to support Alan?
Post by: Kalihi Uka on October 03, 2025, 02:04:36 PM
This is going to SCOTUS!!!Thanks so much for the update Mr. Oil Change!
Donate more if you can.
Send link to friends to donate.
https://www.givesendgo.com/GAXTH?utm_source=sharelink&utm_medium=copy_link&utm_campaign=GAXTH&fbclid=IwY2xjawNM9YZleHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETF1b1lqRkdJYkNDS3RxWGdEAR51bUGMW5BMCoNQ0aD5nfFSm4FPyLMZrULI_AGziOkJaeNDeZfhqRyoYDNSSQ_aem_LXZm45e0u99sjpraXyJDgQ
Will donate!
Post by: Kalihi Uka on October 03, 2025, 03:47:14 PM
Mosey on over and express your views. The meat puppets will be all a stir and projecting dismay.
First the Communist Flying Butt-Monkeys of Fafa get designated as the terrorists they are, and now Hawaii is going to take it in the face for seeking to void the 2A (while spitting in the Supreme Court’s face - thanks Pennywise Eddins!) yet again.
Bad days indeed for the indecent & unclean!
https://www.civilbeat.org/2025/10/supreme-court-will-consider-overturning-hawaii-gun-law/
Post by: zippz on October 04, 2025, 11:24:03 AM
I plan on going to DC to support the attorneys. Anyone coming to join in for that and a short tour of DC for a few days? It'll likely be in December.
Post by: Kalihi Uka on October 04, 2025, 12:47:48 PM
The current preliminary injunction will hold until SCOTUS issues their opinion next spring. So can still carry at private property open to the public without the guns allowed sign, parks, beaches, and shared parking lots, and other places on the injunction until then.Thank you for reminding everyone of the preliminary injunction!
I plan on going to DC to support the attorneys. Anyone coming to join in for that and a short tour of DC for a few days? It'll likely be in December.
It’s an attractive offer to see this in person - may work out for me, depending on the boss’s (wifey) plans at that time ….
Post by: hvybarrels on October 04, 2025, 01:36:52 PM
https://www.civilbeat.org/2025/10/supreme-court-will-consider-overturning-hawaii-gun-law
Post by: Kalihi Uka on October 04, 2025, 02:06:24 PM
Everytown is spamming the Civil Beat commentsYeah Fred_Garvin & ddperry, the Ben & Jerry of moron Marxist propaganda.
https://www.civilbeat.org/2025/10/supreme-court-will-consider-overturning-hawaii-gun-law
“It’s Pat - Time for Androgyny” - is what comes to mind when it comes to them …
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Falchetron.com%2Fcdn%2Fpat-saturday-night-live-415f2856-a3e0-4024-85c4-69081873bb4-resize-750.jpeg&f=1&ipt=0cea1d48c8a242adcfa41126ed3aba0ad43ed9f96c99ecf76e049a7d9460bf9e)
Post by: macsak on October 06, 2025, 07:48:00 AM
Post by: changemyoil66 on October 06, 2025, 09:17:52 AM
HRA at the gun show was able to raise another $1,000 for the lawsuit.
Post by: zippz on October 06, 2025, 10:34:20 AM
(https://i.postimg.cc/1t4HHRSj/IMG-20251006-103006.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/dVpt141T/IMG20251005164319.jpg)
Post by: Jwall_e808 on October 06, 2025, 10:55:28 AM
Thanks to all who are donating and donating again.
HRA at the gun show was able to raise another $1,000 for the lawsuit.
Where can we donate more?
Post by: Heavies on October 06, 2025, 10:58:46 AM
Post by: macsak on October 06, 2025, 11:18:07 AM
they don't want to take the loss at the supreme court because that would set precedent across the country
and they know it screws the lawyers out of compensation...
Odds the legislature modifies the law and moots the case? What strategy if they do this?
Post by: changemyoil66 on October 06, 2025, 12:06:51 PM
Where can we donate more?
https://www.givesendgo.com/GAXTH?utm_source=sharelink&utm_medium=copy_link&utm_campaign=GAXTH&fbclid=IwdGRjcANM46NjbGNrAfURWGV4dG4DYWVtAjEwAAEda1ReEtLFLxdxhpAgyGeBLJ2L01lWwCxGhvcA4wnwGKIFlX_dM4QwFuFX_aem_IH6GVyDhoWhgqB3aTTeXsQ
Post by: changemyoil66 on October 06, 2025, 12:07:45 PM
Odds the legislature modifies the law and moots the case? What strategy if they do this?
If they moot this, there is no other strategy. But they would also have to moot this at the county of Honolulu level too.
Post by: hvybarrels on October 06, 2025, 09:08:53 PM
Post by: macsak on October 07, 2025, 07:33:05 AM
Post by: zippz on October 07, 2025, 08:29:29 AM
If they moot this, there is no other strategy. But they would also have to moot this at the county of Honolulu level too.
A prior SCOTUS 2A appeal versus New York was ruled moot, but the timeline was much longer. SCOTUS granted cert in January 2019. Law was changed May 2019. And SCOTUS opinion was issued April 2020. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_State_Rifle_%26_Pistol_Ass%27n_v._City_of_New_York
For Wolford, SCOTUS granted cert Oct 2025 and the opinion is expected in April-June 2026. The Hawaii legislature starts in the middle of January and normally could get a law enacted as soon as May. If they really rush it, it could be out late March.
The other difference is New York's law was old while Hawaii's law was just changed two years ago by the same legislature and Governor. They'd have to admit they were wrong in passing it back in 2023 and that they're gaming the system.
Post by: Kalihi Uka on October 07, 2025, 09:57:39 AM
A prior SCOTUS 2A appeal versus New York was ruled moot, but the timeline was much longer. SCOTUS granted cert in January 2019. Law was changed May 2019. And SCOTUS opinion was issued April 2020. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_State_Rifle_%26_Pistol_Ass%27n_v._City_of_New_YorkThanks for greater context here! - they'd have to introduce the bill to repeal relatively soon, so it doesn't seem we have long to wait to see what they plan on doing, either way.
For Wolford, SCOTUS granted cert Oct 2025 and the opinion is expected in April-June 2026. The Hawaii legislature starts in the middle of January and normally could get a law enacted as soon as May. If they really rush it, it could be out late March.
The other difference is New York's law was old while Hawaii's law was just changed two years ago by the same legislature and Governor. They'd have to admit they were wrong in passing it back in 2023 and that they're gaming the system.
One can never count out their arrogance and hatred of the Constitution though: They believe Hawaii is THEIR sovereign third-world country, which just so happens to be entitled to suck huge economic benefits from the United States - like a state of the Union - but is not at all bound to honor their citizen's rights as Americans.
Being forced to backtrack from this sickness and corruption goes against every fibre of their twisted beings - even more so given that Trump & Bondi put some "english" on the pitch.
If there are any doubts about this - just reread Eddins 10th grade paper on the "Aloha Spirit."
As a result - I agree - preemptive repeal is likely not something they'd just automatically and pragmatically hop right on.
It'd burn them like Holy Water.
Post by: changemyoil66 on October 07, 2025, 10:18:08 AM
Post by: Kalihi Uka on October 07, 2025, 10:49:23 AM
I would love to see comrade Karl support the new bill repealing this and the look on the vets and all the anti 2a peoples faces.Yeah!
Can you Imagine the hang-dog look on the faces of the Mom's Demand Action dogs?
I still can't forget that St. Bernard in a red shirt they had tied up there on the 2rd floor all session last year - damn that was a sour-looking dog.
(https://cdn.pixabay.com/photo/2022/01/22/23/11/dog-6959393_1280.jpg)
Post by: changemyoil66 on October 22, 2025, 11:20:06 AM
Post by: changemyoil66 on November 06, 2025, 05:18:49 PM
THe amount of papers that the State has that needs to be printed increases the total from $11,000 to $18,000.
Post by: changemyoil66 on November 12, 2025, 01:33:50 PM
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=%2Fdocket%2Fdocketfiles%2Fhtml%2Fpublic%2F24-1046.html&fbclid=IwY2xjawOB9GlleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBicmlkETF1djNYNzRhbG05UWxzTFR2c3J0YwZhcHBfaWQQMjIyMDM5MTc4ODIwMDg5MgABHsfKzLAGC0LP5DL2sRcdti8BYSR7VCiI3AGYmfoV__gEjXXylKE4RNkB0_kW_aem__8VTk66lT5k6sj3vTE2GCQ&brid=s3hw6jlveM78QZCJvUCuSw
Post by: zippz on November 13, 2025, 11:25:50 PM
https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/16y0k0j/visiting_the_scotus_for_an_oral_argument_a_guide/
Post by: macsak on November 25, 2025, 11:59:16 AM
Post by: hvybarrels on November 25, 2025, 04:34:50 PM
(https://cdn.pixabay.com/photo/2022/01/22/23/11/dog-6959393_1280.jpg)
His name is Amicus. He is a friend of the court.
Post by: hvybarrels on November 25, 2025, 04:46:36 PM
Post by: changemyoil66 on November 25, 2025, 09:47:00 PM
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on November 25, 2025, 10:10:34 PM
Trump is sending their top attorney to speak for 10 mins in support of us.
I wish Mazie was the lead attorney arguing for the state's position.
:geekdanc:
Post by: rpoL98 on December 21, 2025, 10:06:49 AM
Quote
The Dumbest Supreme Court Brief You Will Ever Read
Yes, this is truly the dumbest Supreme Court memorandum we have ever read. It also may be one of the most evil Washington Gun Law President, William Kirk, discusses the response brief in Wolford v. Lopez, a matter set before the Supreme Court on January 20th. This memorandum, supporting Hawaii's horrible Vampire Law, literally states that since Hawaii has never honored the Second Amendment, and always disarmed it citizens, they should be allowed to continue with that tradition.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A86IvqwM4gc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A86IvqwM4gc)
Post by: changemyoil66 on December 21, 2025, 11:54:11 AM
I wish Mazie was the lead attorney arguing for the state's position.The states $3400/hr lawyer is using kingdom of hawaii "law". And slaves being unable to have guns.
:geekdanc:
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: Kalihi Uka on December 21, 2025, 03:39:10 PM
The states $3400/hr lawyer is using kingdom of hawaii "law". And slaves being unable to have guns.If so, that is awesome news for us!
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
It seems that they’ve tapped Mazie for their legal strategy.
Post by: hvybarrels on December 21, 2025, 03:44:01 PM
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on January 01, 2026, 07:57:25 PM
The other parts are based on "black code" laws that were designed to disarm Blacks prior to the Civil War and during the post-war reconstruction era. They argue that, just because a law is racist doesn't make it unconstitutional.
There's more. Watch the video below ...
(https://i.imgur.com/1UDXDMY.png)
https://youtu.be/TJbXPdWtSgE
Post by: changemyoil66 on January 14, 2026, 11:24:20 AM
Post by: zippz on January 19, 2026, 02:57:35 PM
Hearing is tomorrow 10am DC time.
(https://i.postimg.cc/j5GM3D8m/FB-IMG-1768870241868.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/50ZsKXPh/Messenger-creation-DA1D4958-19C8-4E94-B484-403C0EE9224F.jpg)
Post by: zippz on January 19, 2026, 03:10:40 PM
Caught the subway, not bad during the daytime but it's a night and day difference compared to Japan.
(https://i.postimg.cc/FR2TCYW5/IMG20260119194457.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/Wb7Qz7Yn/IMG20260119144034.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/RZV2Hn2L/IMG20260119112747.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/fTv6yvq8/IMG20260119113123.jpg)
Staying at the Pendry hotel. Very nice hotel but I can't enjoy it being on the sidewalk in 16 degrees.
(https://i.postimg.cc/rF9vs9ZG/IMG20260119120735.jpg)
Staying near the Navy Yard. Nice place with a boardwalk and plenty good restaurants
(https://i.postimg.cc/xTPW8PpP/IMG20260119132024.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/sDJtxJHh/IMG20260119132048.jpg)
National guard patrols going around
(https://i.postimg.cc/d097Sp5Q/IMG20260119120156.jpg)
Post by: Kalihi Uka on January 19, 2026, 03:12:10 PM
Team Hawaii is in DC for the Wolford Scotus hearing. There's been a lot of prep work and all of the donations are appreciated in making this happen.God bless you all - may liberty ring loudly when you speak!
Hearing is tomorrow 10am DC time.
(https://i.postimg.cc/j5GM3D8m/FB-IMG-1768870241868.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/50ZsKXPh/Messenger-creation-DA1D4958-19C8-4E94-B484-403C0EE9224F.jpg)
Post by: Kalihi Uka on January 19, 2026, 03:15:46 PM
As for me, flew in today for my 24 hr stay. Right now I'm homeless, waiting in line for 15 hours on the sidewalk. It's going to go down to 16 degrees tonight. Got my layers, hot hands, sleeping bag, and sleeping mat. Going to be a long night.Hey Mr. Zippz! - all the best for an awesome experience and safe return home!
Caught the subway, not bad during the daytime but it's a night and day difference compared to Japan.
(https://i.postimg.cc/FR2TCYW5/IMG20260119194457.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/Wb7Qz7Yn/IMG20260119144034.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/RZV2Hn2L/IMG20260119112747.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/fTv6yvq8/IMG20260119113123.jpg)
Staying at the Pendry hotel. Very nice hotel but I can't enjoy it being on the sidewalk in 16 degrees.
(https://i.postimg.cc/rF9vs9ZG/IMG20260119120735.jpg)
Staying near the Navy Yard. Nice place with a boardwalk and plenty good restaurants
(https://i.postimg.cc/xTPW8PpP/IMG20260119132024.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/sDJtxJHh/IMG20260119132048.jpg)
National guard patrols going around
(https://i.postimg.cc/d097Sp5Q/IMG20260119120156.jpg)
You make us proud!
Post by: macsak on January 19, 2026, 03:28:07 PM
Post by: hvybarrels on January 19, 2026, 05:29:51 PM
https://www.civilbeat.org/2026/01/hawaii-ag-to-supreme-court-gun-control-is-hawaiian-tradition/
Post by: Kalihi Uka on January 19, 2026, 07:01:30 PM
Anne Lopez cheering squad is all in on CBAll the different versions of THIS thing are whining
https://www.civilbeat.org/2026/01/hawaii-ag-to-supreme-court-gun-control-is-hawaiian-tradition/
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F_ECP8UxuFCRE%2FS60QVIfr8PI%2FAAAAAAAAALE%2Fcre37cQf0pU%2Fs1600%2FPat.jpg&f=1&ipt=84f11c1ffbcf79d52d0e557fd854f1ddf07b185537137879b6e92f0252c60b9f)
Looking forward to hearing them shriek down the road
Post by: rpoL98 on January 19, 2026, 07:02:07 PM
Anne Lopez cheering squad is all in on CBso, only The King's Men are allowed to have guns? This was also an American colonial tradition under King George III, you could say. Another lovely British tradition, privilege reserved for royalty. Tea, anyone?
https://www.civilbeat.org/2026/01/hawaii-ag-to-supreme-court-gun-control-is-hawaiian-tradition/
(https://i.imgur.com/WpWyjoB.jpg)
Post by: Kalihi Uka on January 19, 2026, 08:17:37 PM
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fstatic0.srcdn.com%2Fwordpress%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2019%2F09%2FBill-Skarsgard-as-Pennywise-in-IT-Chapter-2.jpg&f=1&ipt=582f7def92636b2c84530ae8736c45ae27317ebedb839b44175c7a8229afb4f0)
Good job dickhead.
Proving yet again that natural selection takes care of Marxists, 100% of the time, in one way or another.
Bye bye, Lemmiwinks
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse2.explicit.bing.net%2Fth%2Fid%2FOIP.6QQizGwzHAyQ3GvLIWTebwHaEK%3Fpid%3DApi&f=1&ipt=753a23aa4c1e44678c31bde90262d95e27d82ac99bc8ffb10a7c129d5ee75f3b&ipo=images)
Post by: Kalihi Uka on January 19, 2026, 08:30:57 PM
They are the gift that keeps on giving, if there ever was one.
Post by: changemyoil66 on January 20, 2026, 09:15:31 AM
1:51 hours.
Now we wait.
Post by: oldfart on January 20, 2026, 09:49:46 AM
Post by: QUIETShooter on January 20, 2026, 10:59:49 AM
I got something for their sensitive place. :rofl:
I'd go one further and tell them where to shove their sensitive place.
Post by: changemyoil66 on January 20, 2026, 01:02:41 PM
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2025/24-1046_7l48.pdf?fbclid=IwY2xjawPc6LdleHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETFiRDRvTWhCR0w4enNzNVkxc3J0YwZhcHBfaWQQMjIyMDM5MTc4ODIwMDg5MgABHuyllUIyOuDG_s9b5lS9-7bcbHJ-3FsXEvw8zLFlpLC2-nWsmq0xryyS6C-M_aem_G8adC9IPs8Nb_zC5Yr1ENw
Post by: changemyoil66 on January 20, 2026, 02:55:24 PM
Post by: Kalihi Uka on January 20, 2026, 03:22:58 PM
Putting aside the brilliant “Hey we’re really a Kingdom, and once we were the KKK you know, I think that’s about it, right?
Painful to listen to.
Post by: Begle1 on January 20, 2026, 03:56:09 PM
If you don't have time, here's the transcript
This case is interesting to me because a lot is at odds with the way I intuitively see things.
First of all, the way Bruen compels both sides to argue historical narratives is damn silly. Sure, as a libertarian, it's certainly nice that lawmakers are forced to find historical analogs before they can restrict firearms, but there is a lot unanswered about just how that should work. Questions like "are anti-poaching laws adequately analogous to anti-carry laws?", and "if colonial-era laws and traditions are relevant, why aren't pre-statehood laws and traditions relevant?", and "just because we all find the black codes distasteful or even unconstitutional today, does that make them any less applicable historically?" need to be answered... And hopefully this case clears some of that up at least.
Getting into the case itself, it does seem as much about property rights as firearm or self-defense rights. My personal philosophy is that public-facing businesses are largely required to do business with the public... This is an issue that comes up whenever there is a discrimination case, and it came up big during the COVID plague as well. In my view, if your business model is open to the public, if there is an "OPEN" sign on your unlocked door and you want people to walk into your business, then you are licensed, permitted and obligated to serve whoever is in your community, at least until they begin to take action within that you find detrimental. Legally speaking this is where "protected classes" come in, which is another legal concept I find silly... In my view, if you have a public-facing business, your default obligation is to serve anyone, regardless of any class they may belong to.
But now the question is, are there any rules you can put on who you serve? Can you require people wear a mask to enter, or not wear a mask, or not have a backpack, or pull down their pants, or get a vaccine, or a hair cut, or speak English, or say a pledge of allegiance, or not smell like curry (whether or not you are deathly allergic to curry) to do business with them? On one hand, private property and the right to personally associate is absolute, sure... Until you are operating as licensed public-facing business, at which point I believe you yield a lot of your right to control who you associate with. For people also have a right to engage in commerce, and that right is often at odds with a business owners' right to freely associate. If somebody has a weird hairstyle, or a swastika tattoo, or is unvaccinated, or smells bad and looks dirty, and so every store in town decides they aren't going to do business with that person, then is that person now pariahed from society and destined to die because they can't engage in life-sustaining commerce?
I believe that everybody in a community has a right to engage in commerce with the public-facing businesses in that community. At least until they're disruptive in some way or adjudicated against.
But some things are disruptive by their very presence. What if they have a dog, can you tell them no dogs? What if they're naked, can you require they wear clothes? What if they're covered in vomit, can you tell them to come back after a shower? What if they are carrying a rifle, can you tell them no rifles? What if they are wearing an explosive suicide vest, can you tell them no explosive suicide vests? What if they have a MAGA hat?
My first personal conclusion is, I'm fine with a business saying "no guns allowed", but it can only go so far as openly-visible guns. A public-facing business doesn't have a right to pat you down or search you upon entering. "Concealed means concealed"; a business can't bar somebody from commerce due to any reason that isn't immediately visible or obvious.
I also don't philosophically believe businesses can use your entrance, presence or even transaction as as any sort of binding agreement; like it wouldn't be legally binding if McDonald's posted a sign that said "if you come through this door you agree to give us $1,000 and to name your first-born child Big Mac". It should be no more legally perilous if you had a concealed gun and carried it into a business despite the business having a sign that said "No Guns Allowed". Okay, I didn't do what the sign said; so what? What is legally binding about a sign on a door? If I do anything illegal or that you find offensive, that can be dealt with, but the sign shouldn't have bearing in that. "I didn't see that sign."
But that still doesn't entirely answer this case... This case is largely about the state compelling public-facing businesses to take a default position on enacting rules for their customers. In what other ways does government do that? They require sanitary requirements: "service animals only" and "no shoes, no shirt, no service" are Department of Health requirements, correct? I don't believe that is unconstitutional. But those requirements also apply to all applicable businesses; a business owner can't opt out of them, right? During COVID the state or county mandated we present vaccine cards for service; I'm pretty sure that was an unconstitutional requirement, for the government and the business, although I don't believe it was every adequately litigated. But again, for at least most of that period, it was a blanket requirement for all applicable businesses. Where else can a business rightfully make a decision on whether to allow something or not, but then the state decrees a default answer for all businesses? They don't do that for smoking; businesses can't opt-in to smoking. Where else is our government issuing a decree on behalf of all businesses but then giving them the opportunity to opt out of?
So I've reasoned this case out and have decided how it should work:
1) A business (or owner of any other open-to-the-public private property) can bar people from carrying visible guns, or most anything else, if they deem it disruptive.
2) Open-to-the-public private entities don't have means to know who is carrying concealed guns, and so can't bar concealed guns... And any attempt to bar them should be frivolous in the event a concealed gun becomes an unconcealed gun.
3) If there is customer requirement that a business does have control over, the state can't mandate a default stance one way or the other... What is actually up to property owners to decide, should be left to property owners to decide.
4) It would sure be nice to have a more explicit affirmation of gun rights than Bruen, which is still a pile of unanswered questions at this point.
5) One more thing, if a private entity does bar open carry on their property, that rule assuredly should apply to everybody, regardless of where they are getting paychecks from.
Post by: changemyoil66 on January 21, 2026, 01:38:05 PM
This case is interesting to me because a lot is at odds with the way I intuitively see things.
First of all, the way Bruen compels both sides to argue historical narratives is damn silly. Sure, as a libertarian, it's certainly nice that lawmakers are forced to find historical analogs before they can restrict firearms, but there is a lot unanswered about just how that should work. Questions like "are anti-poaching laws adequately analogous to anti-carry laws?", and "if colonial-era laws and traditions are relevant, why aren't pre-statehood laws and traditions relevant?", and "just because we all find the black codes distasteful or even unconstitutional today, does that make them any less applicable historically?" need to be answered... And hopefully this case clears some of that up at least.
Getting into the case itself, it does seem as much about property rights as firearm or self-defense rights. My personal philosophy is that public-facing businesses are largely required to do business with the public... This is an issue that comes up whenever there is a discrimination case, and it came up big during the COVID plague as well. In my view, if your business model is open to the public, if there is an "OPEN" sign on your unlocked door and you want people to walk into your business, then you are licensed, permitted and obligated to serve whoever is in your community, at least until they begin to take action within that you find detrimental. Legally speaking this is where "protected classes" come in, which is another legal concept I find silly... In my view, if you have a public-facing business, your default obligation is to serve anyone, regardless of any class they may belong to.
But now the question is, are there any rules you can put on who you serve? Can you require people wear a mask to enter, or not wear a mask, or not have a backpack, or pull down their pants, or get a vaccine, or a hair cut, or speak English, or say a pledge of allegiance, or not smell like curry (whether or not you are deathly allergic to curry) to do business with them? On one hand, private property and the right to personally associate is absolute, sure... Until you are operating as licensed public-facing business, at which point I believe you yield a lot of your right to control who you associate with. For people also have a right to engage in commerce, and that right is often at odds with a business owners' right to freely associate. If somebody has a weird hairstyle, or a swastika tattoo, or is unvaccinated, or smells bad and looks dirty, and so every store in town decides they aren't going to do business with that person, then is that person now pariahed from society and destined to die because they can't engage in life-sustaining commerce?
I believe that everybody in a community has a right to engage in commerce with the public-facing businesses in that community. At least until they're disruptive in some way or adjudicated against.
But some things are disruptive by their very presence. What if they have a dog, can you tell them no dogs? What if they're naked, can you require they wear clothes? What if they're covered in vomit, can you tell them to come back after a shower? What if they are carrying a rifle, can you tell them no rifles? What if they are wearing an explosive suicide vest, can you tell them no explosive suicide vests? What if they have a MAGA hat?
My first personal conclusion is, I'm fine with a business saying "no guns allowed", but it can only go so far as openly-visible guns. A public-facing business doesn't have a right to pat you down or search you upon entering. "Concealed means concealed"; a business can't bar somebody from commerce due to any reason that isn't immediately visible or obvious.
I also don't philosophically believe businesses can use your entrance, presence or even transaction as as any sort of binding agreement; like it wouldn't be legally binding if McDonald's posted a sign that said "if you come through this door you agree to give us $1,000 and to name your first-born child Big Mac". It should be no more legally perilous if you had a concealed gun and carried it into a business despite the business having a sign that said "No Guns Allowed". Okay, I didn't do what the sign said; so what? What is legally binding about a sign on a door? If I do anything illegal or that you find offensive, that can be dealt with, but the sign shouldn't have bearing in that. "I didn't see that sign."
But that still doesn't entirely answer this case... This case is largely about the state compelling public-facing businesses to take a default position on enacting rules for their customers. In what other ways does government do that? They require sanitary requirements: "service animals only" and "no shoes, no shirt, no service" are Department of Health requirements, correct? I don't believe that is unconstitutional. But those requirements also apply to all applicable businesses; a business owner can't opt out of them, right? During COVID the state or county mandated we present vaccine cards for service; I'm pretty sure that was an unconstitutional requirement, for the government and the business, although I don't believe it was every adequately litigated. But again, for at least most of that period, it was a blanket requirement for all applicable businesses. Where else can a business rightfully make a decision on whether to allow something or not, but then the state decrees a default answer for all businesses? They don't do that for smoking; businesses can't opt-in to smoking. Where else is our government issuing a decree on behalf of all businesses but then giving them the opportunity to opt out of?
So I've reasoned this case out and have decided how it should work:
1) A business (or owner of any other open-to-the-public private property) can bar people from carrying visible guns, or most anything else, if they deem it disruptive.
2) Open-to-the-public private entities don't have means to know who is carrying concealed guns, and so can't bar concealed guns... And any attempt to bar them should be frivolous in the event a concealed gun becomes an unconcealed gun.
3) If there is customer requirement that a business does have control over, the state can't mandate a default stance one way or the other... What is actually up to property owners to decide, should be left to property owners to decide.
4) It would sure be nice to have a more explicit affirmation of gun rights than Bruen, which is still a pile of unanswered questions at this point.
5) One more thing, if a private entity does bar open carry on their property, that rule assuredly should apply to everybody, regardless of where they are getting paychecks from.
Bruen isn't supposed to have both sides show text, history, and tradition. Only the state needs to as if the plantif were to do so, then Bruen would be asking them to prove something that doesn't exist.
Property owners can almost choose who enters. There are some protected classes for medical, race, etc...reasons. The issue with the law is it's adding the weight of the law to somone CCWing when the property owner doesn't want them to. This means the government is restrictng a right. A property owner is free to ask someone to leave and then tresspass them if they refuse. But at no point should a firearm charge be implemented.
There's a reason why the state never specifically banned CCWing in churches (falls under 1st amendment too).
Post by: rpoL98 on January 21, 2026, 03:09:13 PM
Quote
Breitbart News pointed out that Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson contended that “Black Codes” offer precedent needed to justify Hawaiian gun controls, although she subsequently admitted said codes were “unconstitutional.”
Quote
Roll Call explained:
Justices Neil M. Gorsuch and Samel A. Alito Jr. objected to Hawaii relying on the 1865 law, part of the “Black Codes” meant to disenfranchise newly freed former slaves. Alito called it the “height of irony” to cite a law meant to disarm freed slaves and make them vulnerable to the Ku Klux Klan in support of the modern Hawaii law.
https://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amendment/2026/01/20/justice-alito-hawaiis-gun-control-relegates-2a-to-second-class-status/ (https://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amendment/2026/01/20/justice-alito-hawaiis-gun-control-relegates-2a-to-second-class-status/)
separately, some chick YouTube blogger Stones2ndSense posts: "WILD! KBJ Tried To Use WHAT To Defend 2A Infringement"
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/AHSWb66EGnk (https://www.youtube.com/shorts/AHSWb66EGnk)
Biden's DEI hire ... :wacko:
Post by: Westside_Redneck on January 21, 2026, 04:00:31 PM
So everythings done now. HI CCW holders have some freedom due to the injuction until SCOTUS rules in June or so. If SCOTUS sides with HI, then bye bye CCW as it's now useless.
With that said, what does the injunction mean for us Hawaii CCW holders as of right now?
Can we CC into private businesses now regardless of the signage in the windows, knowing that there's a federal level injunction until June 2026 on the matter?
I believe Hawaii CCW holders have the right to know what we can and cannot do as of right now.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on January 21, 2026, 04:17:25 PM
https://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amendment/2026/01/20/justice-alito-hawaiis-gun-control-relegates-2a-to-second-class-status/ (https://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amendment/2026/01/20/justice-alito-hawaiis-gun-control-relegates-2a-to-second-class-status/)Jackson is the moron that said in her confirmation hearing that the can't define what a woman is, because she's not a biologist!
separately, some chick YouTube blogger Stones2ndSense posts: "WILD! KBJ Tried To Use WHAT To Defend 2A Infringement"
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/AHSWb66EGnk (https://www.youtube.com/shorts/AHSWb66EGnk)
Biden's DEI hire ... :wacko:
The fact that this type of analog is considered by any justice to be valid shows how polarized the court has become. TDS lives in the SCOTUS, and there's not much we can do but keep a person like Trump in the White House so the next SCOTUS appointees are less radical.
Post by: hvybarrels on January 21, 2026, 04:48:46 PM
separately, some chick YouTube blogger Stones2ndSense posts: "WILD! KBJ Tried To Use WHAT To Defend 2A Infringement"
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/AHSWb66EGnk (https://www.youtube.com/shorts/AHSWb66EGnk)
Biden's DEI hire ... :wacko:
KBJ trying to make an asinine argument, and then Sarah Harris steps in
(https://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/shaq.gif)
Post by: Photobaby808 on January 21, 2026, 04:58:26 PM
With that said, what does the injunction mean for us Hawaii CCW holders as of right now?
Can we CC into private businesses now regardless of the signage in the windows, knowing that there's a federal level injunction until June 2026 on the matter?
I believe Hawaii CCW holders have the right to know what we can and cannot do as of right now.
Could be totally wrong, but even currently, if a business has a sign, you are not allowed to carry. Would be the same if SCOTUS ruled in our favor. The only business that I have come across is Whole Foods.
But like I said, I could be wrong.
Post by: hvybarrels on January 21, 2026, 05:09:50 PM
Could be totally wrong, but even currently, if a business has a sign, you are not allowed to carry. Would be the same if SCOTUS ruled in our favor. The only business that I have come across is Whole Foods.
But like I said, I could be wrong.
It’s not economically viable for most businesses to offend half of their customers
Ask Hollywood how that’s going
Post by: zippz on January 21, 2026, 06:32:28 PM
With that said, what does the injunction mean for us Hawaii CCW holders as of right now?
Can we CC into private businesses now regardless of the signage in the windows, knowing that there's a federal level injunction until June 2026 on the matter?
I believe Hawaii CCW holders have the right to know what we can and cannot do as of right now.
The injunction still holds. Can carry in places without a guns allowed sign, places that serve alcohol, parks/beaches, banks, shared parking lots between government buildings and other uses. However you cannot carry if those places have a no guns sign.
Should respect a buisness choice if they have a guns not allowed sign. Just shop someplace else that wants your business.
Post by: changemyoil66 on January 21, 2026, 07:46:25 PM
With that said, what does the injunction mean for us Hawaii CCW holders as of right now?If theres a city issued signage, u cannot enter.
Can we CC into private businesses now regardless of the signage in the windows, knowing that there's a federal level injunction until June 2026 on the matter?
I believe Hawaii CCW holders have the right to know what we can and cannot do as of right now.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: aletheuo137 on January 30, 2026, 06:55:40 AM
If theres a city issued signage, u cannot enter.At Waikiki Shell, so far...
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-A156U1 using Tapatalk
Post by: changemyoil66 on January 30, 2026, 07:27:51 AM
At Waikiki Shell, so far...
Sent from my SM-A156U1 using Tapatalk
If the city owns it, like how they own Blaisdell, then it's a government owned building, thus banned anyways.
Post by: changemyoil66 on January 30, 2026, 07:28:56 AM
Glad to see the NRA finally do more.
Post by: rpoL98 on January 30, 2026, 12:17:27 PM
The injunction still holds. Can carry in places without a guns allowed sign, places that serve alcohol, parks/beaches, banks, shared parking lots between government buildings and other uses. However you cannot carry if those places have a no guns sign.Kapolei Cheesecake Factory doesn't want 2A business, No Guns signage on the front door, but that doesn't seem to be hurting their business model any. Olive Garden on the other side of the parking lot doesn't have No Guns signage, so that's the 2A alternative.
Should respect a buisness choice if they have a guns not allowed sign. Just shop someplace else that wants your business.
(https://i.imgur.com/lUhwK9N.jpg)
Post by: zippz on January 30, 2026, 05:02:49 PM
Kapolei Cheesecake Factory doesn't want 2A business, No Guns signage on the front door, but that doesn't seem to be hurting their business model any. Olive Garden on the other side of the parking lot doesn't have No Guns signage, so that's the 2A alternative.
Requires an organized boycott, publicity, and sign waivers outside. Would be difficult as cheesecake factory is always busy and filled with a lot of tourists that don't care.
Post by: hvybarrels on January 30, 2026, 05:15:37 PM
Post by: changemyoil66 on March 19, 2026, 11:18:39 AM
Hawaiʻi Firearms Coalition recently obtained a series of documents from the Attorney General’s office through a UIPA request.
These records provide insight into how the State of Hawaiʻi defended its firearm laws in federal court — including litigation that reached the United States Supreme Court.
Over the next several days, we will be releasing all 14 documents in this set. Our goal is to provide transparency and help the public better understand how outside counsel was selected, how agreements were structured, and how these cases were handled behind the scenes.
This is not about speculation — it is about sharing the actual records and allowing the public to see the process for themselves.
📄 Document 1: Executed Georgetown ICAP Proposal (June 23, 2023)
The first document is an agreement between the State of Hawaiʻi and the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection (ICAP) at Georgetown Law.
In this agreement:
• ICAP agrees to represent the State as co-counsel in Wolford v. Lopez, a federal case challenging Hawaiʻi’s firearm laws
• The representation is provided at no cost to the State for attorney fees
• The agreement allows ICAP to assist with litigation, including appeals
• Law students may also support the case under attorney supervision
• The scope of work is limited specifically to this case
This document shows the State beginning to assemble a team of outside legal counsel — including nationally recognized constitutional litigators — to defend its laws.
We will continue releasing additional documents in the coming days, including materials related to the selection of outside counsel, contract approvals, and associated expenses.
💬 We want to hear from you:
As we release each document, take a look and let us know what stands out to you. What do you think are the most important details or takeaways?
Follow along as we review each document and explain what it means.
Post by: changemyoil66 on March 19, 2026, 11:24:56 AM
Hawaii: We're going to protect your 2a right by making more laws for you.
ICAP: Sounds like youre protecting the people's right.
Post by: zippz on March 19, 2026, 12:10:41 PM
Interesting name "Institute for Constitutonal Advocacy and Protection". Nothing they're doing is advocacy or protection of the 2A with regard to this lawsuit.
Hawaii: We're going to protect your 2a right by making more laws for you.
ICAP: Sounds like youre protecting the people's right.
(https://i.imgflip.com/5vaqzs.jpg)
Post by: hvybarrels on March 19, 2026, 01:24:50 PM
"Proceed"
"Thank you your honor, as you can see we've been very busy lately..."
Post by: Wchiro on March 23, 2026, 05:46:52 PM
Kapolei Cheesecake Factory doesn't want 2A business, No Guns signage on the front door, but that doesn't seem to be hurting their business model any. Olive Garden on the other side of the parking lot doesn't have No Guns signage, so that's the 2A alternative.
(https://i.imgur.com/lUhwK9N.jpg)
If you are in their establishment unable to CCW and something happens (robbery, active shooting...) while you are there remember to keep your receipt (proof you were there at the time) and sue them because they denied you your rights. Make it costly to them for denying your rights and the rights of others to CCW on their premises. They put you in danger especially if they don't have armed security. JMO ;)
Post by: kopjecat on March 24, 2026, 09:36:30 PM
If you are in their establishment unable to CCW and something happens (robbery, active shooting...) while you are there remember to keep your receipt (proof you were there at the time) and sue them because they denied you your rights. Make it costly to them for denying your rights and the rights of others to CCW on their premises. They put you in danger especially if they don't have armed security. JMO ;)
The Chessecake Factory sign doesn't meet the requirements posted on the https://www.oneoahu.org/sensitive-places page. According to that C&C page, the sign must be 8.5 x 11", and placed not less than 40" and not more than 60" from the bottom of the door. That could be helpful if someone had to defend themselves in court for carrying in that location.
Post by: zippz on March 24, 2026, 09:53:29 PM
The Chessecake Factory sign doesn't meet the requirements posted on the https://www.oneoahu.org/sensitive-places page. According to that C&C page, the sign must be 8.5 x 11", and placed not less than 40" and not more than 60" from the bottom of the door. That could be helpful if someone had to defend themselves in court for carrying in that location.
State law, which has no defined signage requirement, overrides the county requirements. So any sign that clearly says no guns allowed is all they need. It should be reasonably legible and visible to people entering the establishment.
A person should respect the establishments property rights and not carry there. Best to leave a bad review and take your money where it's appreciated.
Post by: kopjecat on May 08, 2026, 05:00:55 PM
State law, which has no defined signage requirement, overrides the county requirements. So any sign that clearly says no guns allowed is all they need. It should be reasonably legible and visible to people entering the establishment.
A person should respect the establishments property rights and not carry there. Best to leave a bad review and take your money where it's appreciated.
I notice that the sensitive places page (https://www.oneoahu.org/sensitive-places) is now gone. When I applied for my CCW a couple of years ago, that's where HPD advised me to go to keep up with current laws. In fact I carry a print out of that page in my vehicle. Now I'm not aware of any "official" site that shows that the city can't enforce some parts of the law, including the default rule. I know we're still waiting on the U.S. Supreme Court decision, but that site always gave me at least a little comfort to know I had something to show an officer if I was challenged.
Post by: akupalu on May 13, 2026, 09:52:51 AM
I notice that the sensitive places page (https://www.oneoahu.org/sensitive-places) is now gone. When I applied for my CCW a couple of years ago, that's where HPD advised me to go to keep up with current laws. In fact I carry a print out of that page in my vehicle. Now I'm not aware of any "official" site that shows that the city can't enforce some parts of the law, including the default rule. I know we're still waiting on the U.S. Supreme Court decision, but that site always gave me at least a little comfort to know I had something to show an officer if I was challenged.
I kept a link to this page on my phone for the same purpose. I wonder why they took it down? Is there any other official site that states what the city can and cannot enforce while we wait for a supreme court decision?
Post by: Ashiya on May 14, 2026, 12:13:04 PM
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-hid-1_23-cv-00265/pdf/USCOURTS-hid-1_23-cv-00265-0.pdf
It was found on this page:
https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-hid-1_23-cv-00265/USCOURTS-hid-1_23-cv-00265-0/context
Post by: kopjecat on May 15, 2026, 11:30:51 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this to be the document granting the injunction:
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-hid-1_23-cv-00265/pdf/USCOURTS-hid-1_23-cv-00265-0.pdf
It was found on this page:
https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-hid-1_23-cv-00265/USCOURTS-hid-1_23-cv-00265-0/context
Thank you for the links. I guess it boils down to whether or not that TRO & preliminary injunction are still in place. My understanding is that the Supreme Court case only involves the "default rule" for private businesses, and doesn't involve the other portions of the TRO like beaches, parks, etc. I think most TROs have a time limit, but I don't see that in the 91 page document. Though I might have missed it. Others here have far more understanding of these matters than I do. It's just strange that they removed the page completely, when it was about the only official source to communicate the law to the public. Maybe I need to print out that 91 page court order to carry in my vehicle. ???
Post by: zippz on May 17, 2026, 09:45:53 PM
Thank you for the links. I guess it boils down to whether or not that TRO & preliminary injunction are still in place. My understanding is that the Supreme Court case only involves the "default rule" for private businesses, and doesn't involve the other portions of the TRO like beaches, parks, etc. I think most TROs have a time limit, but I don't see that in the 91 page document. Though I might have missed it. Others here have far more understanding of these matters than I do. It's just strange that they removed the page completely, when it was about the only official source to communicate the law to the public. Maybe I need to print out that 91 page court order to carry in my vehicle. ???
Preliminary injunction is still in place for the bans requiring express permission, parks/beaches, places serving alcohol, banks, shared parking lots. The 9th circuit en banc opinion/order removing the preliminary injunction never took effect due to SCOTUS stepping in. The bans may comeback partially, depends what SCOTUS does next month.
Post by: kopjecat on May 20, 2026, 05:35:59 PM
Preliminary injunction is still in place for the bans requiring express permission, parks/beaches, places serving alcohol, banks, shared parking lots. The 9th circuit en banc opinion/order removing the preliminary injunction never took effect due to SCOTUS stepping in. The bans may comeback partially, depends what SCOTUS does next month.
Thank you zippz, much appreciated. :shaka:
Post by: changemyoil66 on June 08, 2026, 07:22:53 AM
Post by: SonRunner on June 25, 2026, 10:18:57 AM
with today's Supreme Court's Ruling, where do we now stand in Hawaii?
(1) Do we still need a permit to carry concealed handgun? I presume, yes?
(2) Can we now carry concealed handgun on private property that is open to the public (e.g., shopping malls, grocery stores, etc.) without the owner's permission?
(2a) Can we now carry concealed handgun in banks and hospitals without the owner's permission
(2b) Can we now carry concealed handgun in private property that is open to the public (e.g., shopping malls, grocery stores, etc.) that have the "No Guns" signage (like the Cheesecake Factory shown above?
(3) Can we now carry concealed handgun on public property like parks and beaches?
Post by: changemyoil66 on June 25, 2026, 11:16:45 AM
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-second-amendment-win-concealed-carry-blue-state-gun-hawaii
with today's Supreme Court's Ruling, where do we now stand in Hawaii?
(1) Do we still need a permit to carry concealed handgun? I presume, yes? Yes, you still need a CCW permit.
(2) Can we now carry concealed handgun on private property that is open to the public (e.g., shopping malls, grocery stores, etc.) without the owner's permission? Yes
(2a) Can we now carry concealed handgun in banks and hospitals without the owner's permission. No, only banks since that was what the 9th circuit ruled. There was no lawsuit about hospitals.
(2b) Can we now carry concealed handgun in private property that is open to the public (e.g., shopping malls, grocery stores, etc.) that have the "No Guns" signage (like the Cheesecake Factory shown above?. I'm clarifying this, but it sounds like since there is no state law about no guns allowed signage, Oahu (ROH) has a county law that has no guns allowed signagre requirements. Other county's would vary too.
(3) Can we now carry concealed handgun on public property like parks and beaches? No
Post by: Kalihi Uka on June 25, 2026, 12:15:57 PM
That one was for you, Todd W. Eddins, Hawaii Supreme Court Clown:
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fcdn.wallpapersafari.com%2F89%2F89%2FZ23u0L.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=9c4f4ca21f01e7be47ce06835303da611dc8c1fff39e4ac0c9c0cfd46b013c0b)
Post by: Kalihi Uka on June 25, 2026, 12:26:40 PM
... for doing God's work in shoving tyranny back - hard.
All the best to you and yours!
Signed,
A Grateful Country
Post by: kopjecat on June 25, 2026, 09:50:03 PM
Post by: ren on June 26, 2026, 01:51:08 PM
U.S. Senator Mazie K. Hirono:
“Hawaii has the lowest rate of gun deaths in the country, largely because of our historically strong gun safety laws. Once again, this out-of-control Supreme Court majority is placing political ideology about protecting lives, making our state and our country less safe by expanding the presence of firearms. As this Court exacerbates our nation's gun violence crisis, I remain committed to working towards the common-sense gun safety policies our country desperately needs.”
U.S. Rep. Jill N. Tokuda:
“Today’s Supreme Court decision is wrong for Hawaii, wrong for public safety, and the wrong precedent for states and communities working to keep people safe.
Hawaii’s law did not take away anyone’s right to own or carry a firearm. It simply said that before bringing a gun onto someone else’s private property, you should get permission first.
That should not be controversial. It is a matter of basic respect.
Businesses and property owners set basic rules every day about what is allowed on their property and what is not. No shirt, no shoes, no service. But when Hawaii set a commonsense safety standard for firearms, this Court decided that even asking permission went too far.
This ruling puts guns ahead of Hawaii’s ability to determine what safety looks like in our own communities and businesses. It shifts the burden onto property owners, workers, and families who deserve to feel safe in the places where they live, work, shop, and gather. I will keep fighting for commonsense gun safety laws that protect our people, respect everyone’s rights, and prioritizes our communities’ ability to determine what safety looks like for ourselves.”
Post by: rpoL98 on June 26, 2026, 01:57:59 PM
https://www.kitv.com/news/local/hawaii-legislators-react-to-supreme-court-gun-ruling/article_6c662189-3943-4df8-b324-e47d848993a8.htmli don't recollect that "shirt and shoes" was in the Bill of Rights. Seriously, the Constitution is lost on these people. Yet they take the oath ...
U.S. Senator Mazie K. Hirono:
“Hawaii has the lowest rate of gun deaths in the country, largely because of our historically strong gun safety laws. Once again, this out-of-control Supreme Court majority is placing political ideology about protecting lives, making our state and our country less safe by expanding the presence of firearms. As this Court exacerbates our nation's gun violence crisis, I remain committed to working towards the common-sense gun safety policies our country desperately needs.”
U.S. Rep. Jill N. Tokuda:
“Today’s Supreme Court decision is wrong for Hawaii, wrong for public safety, and the wrong precedent for states and communities working to keep people safe.
Hawaii’s law did not take away anyone’s right to own or carry a firearm. It simply said that before bringing a gun onto someone else’s private property, you should get permission first.
That should not be controversial. It is a matter of basic respect.
Businesses and property owners set basic rules every day about what is allowed on their property and what is not. No shirt, no shoes, no service. But when Hawaii set a commonsense safety standard for firearms, this Court decided that even asking permission went too far.
This ruling puts guns ahead of Hawaii’s ability to determine what safety looks like in our own communities and businesses. It shifts the burden onto property owners, workers, and families who deserve to feel safe in the places where they live, work, shop, and gather. I will keep fighting for commonsense gun safety laws that protect our people, respect everyone’s rights, and prioritizes our communities’ ability to determine what safety looks like for ourselves.”
Post by: Kalihi Uka on June 26, 2026, 02:42:33 PM
i don't recollect that "shirt and shoes" was in the Bill of Rights. Seriously, the Constitution is lost on these people. Yet they take the oath ...Exactly.
Chief among the causes of prudent men and women arming themselves (beyond just the local authorities "catch & release" policy with respect to violent criminals), is that, apparently, it is not an actionable offense to pursue the destruction of our civil society and overthrow of our country and its institutions - starting right at the top with naked aggression against the Constitution of the United States of America - on the part of "political parties," who, by some defect in human cognition, are allowed to operate openly as if such treason were "legitimate."
Hence we have "hey you anti-communist assholes, check out this openly unconstitutional law we just passed in your state voiding your protections under the Bill of Rights - see you in court!"
... over and over again, without end.
What is a citizen left with, in such a situation as we have in this county now?
Tyranny and freedom cannot coexist.
It is war.
Post by: zippz on June 26, 2026, 03:29:33 PM
It's possible they may change their mind and keep the PI in place since they have to consider the SCOTUS opinion in their decision. The SCOTUS decision was much broader and clarified a lot of things, like narrowing down the scope for historical analogies. The SCOTUS decision was at the high end of our expectations.
Post by: zippz on June 26, 2026, 04:29:38 PM
Clarifications to the owners permission. Permission for CCW is implied unless otherwise indicated.
For parks & beaches, the district court preliminary injunction is still in place as the en banc court never ordered implementation of their decision striking it down due to the SCOTUS appeal. However the PI could possibly be overturned as the appeals court receives the SCOTUS opinion and has to decide on what to do next. The Senator Keohokalole mentioned beaches and parks currently banned in a news article, but that was wrong.
Post by: Kalihi Uka on June 26, 2026, 05:51:25 PM
As far as the parks, beaches, places that serve alcohol, banks, shared parking lots, etc on the preliminary injunction (without a "no guns" sign on private property), you can still carry there for now however that may change suddenly in the near future. Depends what the 9th appeals court decides to do, keep the PI in place or remove it.Many Thanks Zippz for sharing this authoritative take on the aftermath of the SCOTUS decision here - it is greatly appreciated!
It's possible they may change their mind and keep the PI in place since they have to consider the SCOTUS opinion in their decision. The SCOTUS decision was much broader and clarified a lot of things, like narrowing down the scope for historical analogies. The SCOTUS decision was at the high end of our expectations.
Post by: Rocky on June 28, 2026, 07:02:52 AM
i don't recollect that "shirt and shoes" was in the Bill of Rights. Seriously, the Constitution is lost on these people. Yet they take the oath ..."Businesses and property owners set basic rules every day about what is allowed on their property and what is not. No shirt, no shoes, no service." WITH A SIGN
Post by: zippz on June 30, 2026, 07:46:06 AM
"Remember early this year when there was a bill in the Hawaii legislature to make every business put up a sign that said one way or another whether guns were allowed. I really thought that bill was an outlier bill written by a Hawaii legislator. Now that same proposal is being pushed nationally by Ian Ayres and Fredrick Vars who are law professors at Yale University and University of Alabama and the original authors of the Vampire Rule which was struck down in Wolford. I expect that all five states that had Vampire Rules will propose this law in their coming legislative sessions." Alan Beck
Gun-Free Stores Still on States’ Menu After Supreme Court Ruling
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/legal-exchange-insights-and-commentary/gun-free-stores-still-on-states-menu-after-supreme-court-ruling
But states don’t need to stop there. They can adopt a better solution: an affirmative-choice law. Under such a law, stores open to the public would be required, as a condition of doing business with the public, to disclose whether concealed firearms are allowed.
The 2026 Hawaii Bill SB3041 https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=3041
(https://i.postimg.cc/MK7G8xg9/Untitled.jpg)
Post by: Kalihi Uka on June 30, 2026, 10:03:34 AM
What's next after Wolford? Gun grabbers will still be at it...Yes they always intended to coerce the local community into reflexively banning law-abiding citizens from having the means, under the 2nd Amendment, to defend themselves or other innocents from the violent criminals that they continually release into the community.
"Remember early this year when there was a bill in the Hawaii legislature to make every business put up a sign that said one way or another whether guns were allowed. I really thought that bill was an outlier bill written by a Hawaii legislator. Now that same proposal is being pushed nationally by Ian Ayres and Fredrick Vars who are law professors at Yale University and University of Alabama and the original authors of the Vampire Rule which was struck down in Wolford. I expect that all five states that had Vampire Rules will propose this law in their coming legislative sessions." Alan Beck
Gun-Free Stores Still on States’ Menu After Supreme Court Ruling
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/legal-exchange-insights-and-commentary/gun-free-stores-still-on-states-menu-after-supreme-court-ruling
But states don’t need to stop there. They can adopt a better solution: an affirmative-choice law. Under such a law, stores open to the public would be required, as a condition of doing business with the public, to disclose whether concealed firearms are allowed.
The 2026 Hawaii Bill SB3041 https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=3041
(https://i.postimg.cc/MK7G8xg9/Untitled.jpg)
They know the job is easy here - heck, their minions already associate civilian concealed carry permit holders - arguably the most vetted anti-criminals in our society, as the danger - not the ACTUAL violent criminals who already prey on them.
No signs here ever saying violent criminals are not welcome …. this is so mental it’s nauseating.
The Vampire rule was the front door. Now it’s closed they’ll go around back.
We (gun owners) are a very large community here - on all Islands. Looks like the fight is going right down to your local store.
These business owners need to feel the reality that they are idiotically going to war with a huge part of Hawaii - THE LAW-ABIDING PART.
Thanks for posting this zippz - the cartoon says it all.
Post by: Kalihi Uka on June 30, 2026, 02:04:32 PM
Probably zero.
It is a well-established legal principle that liability for deprivation of civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is generally reserved for public entities acting under color of state law, however it can in some circumstances apply to private entities.
What does "color of state law" mean? It seems there are three tests, from the internets: https://www.maddinhauser.com/civil-rights-exposure-of-private-entities-under-section-1983-avoiding-the-fray/
"The Sixth Circuit recognizes three tests for determining whether a private entity is subject to Sec. 1983 exposure due to its association with a public body. See Memphis, TN Area Local American Postal Workers Union v. Memphis, 361 F.3d 898 (6th Cir. 2004).
The first is the public function test. This requires the private entity to exercise powers that are traditionally reserved to the state. For example, a contract that expressly delegates the functions of a state actor to a private entity, with that entity actually performing those functions, would likely create exposure.
The second is the state compulsion test. This requires a plaintiff to establish that the state actor encouraged or even coerced a private party to undertake a particular activity. If the private entity undertakes that activity, even if it is pressured to do so, it will likely be considered to have performed a governmental function under the color of state law.
The third is the nexus test. This requires a relationship between the state actor and private entity that is sufficiently close enough to attribute the private entity’s actions to the state. This test could be satisfied not only by the language of the contract between the parties, but the conduct of the private entity’s employees in performing that contract."
So there is no confusion about the strategy I'm floating here:
1. It's based on the reality that it's easy to sue private entities - our legal system is nefarious that way.
2. The totalitarians have defaulted to a strategy of outsourcing their evil to private businesses - but private businesses are extremely vulnerable to litigation, therefore their weapon is extremely fragile.
3. There's nothing to stop any lawful concealed carry permit holder from suing a private entity who forces them to disarm on their premises - as the State does on its premises - for deprivation of civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 - acting under color of state law, here in Hawaii. You in fact have a very long, visible train of evidence of State action to bring about this very end.
4. The objective is NOT the expectation of winning necessarily, but rather the horror and massive expense the business will experience for being a willing co-conspirator in the violation of the Bill of Rights. Ask any personal injury lawyer - business will just settle to get rid of the huge cost and distraction from business - it won't go to trial.
The totalitarians have already taxed and regulated local businesses to the point of extinction already - before they started leaning on them to violate the constitution for them - if businesses had any information to suggest they would be exposed to liability - all except for a tiny raving few would listen to the pitch, nod their heads, and then walk away having nothing to do with it.
I'm just putting this out there to stimulate some discussion, somewhere, among those who are properly knowledgable, to evaluate and capitalize on the weaknesses of the totalitarian's chosen strategy here.
It seems highly likely now that this is how it's going to go, so we need to think about effective responses to undermine them.
Post by: Rocky on July 01, 2026, 09:39:44 AM
What's next after Wolford? Gun grabbers will still be at it...
"Remember early this year when there was a bill in the Hawaii legislature to make every business put up a sign that said one way or another whether guns were allowed. I really thought that bill was an outlier bill written by a Hawaii legislator. Now that same proposal is being pushed nationally by Ian Ayres and Fredrick Vars who are law professors at Yale University and University of Alabama and the original authors of the Vampire Rule which was struck down in Wolford. I expect that all five states that had Vampire Rules will propose this law in their coming legislative sessions." Alan Beck
Gun-Free Stores Still on States’ Menu After Supreme Court Ruling
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/legal-exchange-insights-and-commentary/gun-free-stores-still-on-states-menu-after-supreme-court-ruling
But states don’t need to stop there. They can adopt a better solution: an affirmative-choice law. Under such a law, stores open to the public would be required, as a condition of doing business with the public, to disclose whether concealed firearms are allowed.
The 2026 Hawaii Bill SB3041 https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=3041
(https://i.postimg.cc/MK7G8xg9/Untitled.jpg)
I can see having a choice of putting up a sign to not allow firearms on your property/business but having it mandatory to proclaim you are allowed seems like forced speech, on an amendment no less. :wacko:
Post by: illmatic37 on July 10, 2026, 03:24:57 PM
Post by: changemyoil66 on July 10, 2026, 04:34:56 PM
Apologies if this has been addressed, but regarding the no guns signage that businesses are posting, do these signs carry the weight of law? I've tried to find the answer but haven't been able to find anything definitive. There has been a lot of media coverage about the signs but none have addressed this aspect. I know that if i go to a casino in Las Vegas, they all have no firearms allowed signage but those signs do not carry the weight of law. My understanding is that if someone is "caught" carrying they are asked to leave the premises or risk getting trespassed. Is this the same case for Hawaii or if someone is caught carrying at a business with a no gun sign can they be criminally charged with something?
IMO, they don't carry the weight of the law (Oahu) becuase the ROH states the default status, which is the automatic ban. Since the default is now void, that would make the no guns allowed signs put up have no weight of the law.
For Vegas, most casinos will tell u to check ur gun 1st.
Post by: macsak on July 10, 2026, 04:46:05 PM
IMO, they don't carry the weight of the law (Oahu) becuase the ROH states the default status, which is the automatic ban. Since the default is now void, that would make the no guns allowed signs put up have no weight of the law.
For Vegas, most casinos will tell u to check ur gun 1st.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on July 10, 2026, 08:06:11 PM
IMO, they don't carry the weight of the law (Oahu) because the ROH states the default status, which is the automatic ban. Since the default is now void, that would make the no guns allowed signs put up have no weight of the law.You can't negate a business' right to ban carry on their property just because the default ban is no longer valid/enforced.
For Vegas, most casinos will tell u to check ur gun 1st.
A sign has the same weight of law regardless of what the default stance is under the statute.
Most laws have a caveat saying that if one provision is found to be legally unenforceable, that doesn't mean the entire law is unenforceable -- just that one provision is. So, if the default ban provision is placed on hold, it doesn't mean the penalties for ignoring a business' signs are no longer valid.
Post by: ren on July 16, 2026, 06:31:54 PM
Local gun advocacy groups have said legal gun users could decide not to support those businesses, and may not be around if something bad were to happen.
“The people who often intervene and often stop these things in action, don’t have a gun,” said Mark Davis, attorney. “And the fact of the matter is, if there aren’t guns, people don’t get shot.”
“People may actually frequent shops that put these signs there, because they want to be safe,” said Debroah Nehmad, Brady United Against Gun Violence, Hawaii Chapter Chair.
“And more people want to be safe in this state, than want to support somebody’s second amendment rights to wherever they wanna go with a firearm.”
Post by: rpoL98 on July 16, 2026, 07:18:38 PM
https://www.khon2.com/local-news/hawaii-business-gun-signs/
“The people who often intervene and often stop these things in action, don’t have a gun,” said Mark Davis, attorney. “And the fact of the matter is, if there aren’t guns, people don’t get shot.”
“People may actually frequent shops that put these signs there, because they want to be safe,” said Debroah Nehmad, Brady United Against Gun Violence, Hawaii Chapter Chair.
“And more people want to be safe in this state, than want to support somebody’s second amendment rights to wherever they wanna go with a firearm.”
(https://i.imgur.com/tmTNBFV.jpg)
Post by: ren on July 16, 2026, 09:11:29 PM
Post by: hvybarrels on July 16, 2026, 09:24:22 PM
Post by: Rocky on July 17, 2026, 07:34:32 AM
"A local law firm, in partnership with a national gun safety group, is giving out “no guns allowed” signs for free to any business that wants them."
"Businesses that want free “no guns allowed” signs can email gunsafety@davislevin.com or go to this address.
Davis Levin Livingston
425 Fort Street Mall
Suite 1550, Topa Tower
10 a.m. – 4 p.m."
How many thousands can we get for free that the anti's pay for ? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
https://www.khon2.com/local-news/hawaii-business-gun-signs/
Local gun advocacy groups have said legal gun users could decide not to support those businesses, and may not be around if something bad were to happen.
“The people who often intervene and often stop these things in action, don’t have a gun,” said Mark Davis, attorney. “And the fact of the matter is, if there aren’t guns, people don’t get shot.”
“People may actually frequent shops that put these signs there, because they want to be safe,” said Debroah Nehmad, Brady United Against Gun Violence, Hawaii Chapter Chair.
“And more people want to be safe in this state, than want to support somebody’s second amendment rights to wherever they wanna go with a firearm.”
Post by: changemyoil66 on July 17, 2026, 07:54:34 AM
Post by: macsak on July 17, 2026, 10:37:15 AM
You forgot
"A local law firm, in partnership with a national gun safety group, is giving out “no guns allowed” signs for free to any business that wants them."
"Businesses that want free “no guns allowed” signs can email gunsafety@davislevin.com or go to this address.
Davis Levin Livingston
425 Fort Street Mall
Suite 1550, Topa Tower
10 a.m. – 4 p.m."
How many thousands can we get for free that the anti's pay for ? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Post by: Kalihi Uka on July 17, 2026, 11:06:30 AM
First hundreds, now thousands of us.
Has never been a problem, until now.
Must be that old communist coconut wireless stirrin up all the Karen covens out there.
Good thing they can't concealed carry here - we certainly don't want the mentally disturbed on 7 different antidepressants walking around with guns, now do we.....
(https://npr.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/default/67695ca/2147483647/strip/true/crop/6000x4000+0+0/resize/1760x1174!/format/webp/quality/90/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fnpr-brightspot.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fac%2F5e%2Febe31fe940fcac2fbccd686b2e50%2Fimg-6103.JPG)
Post by: Westside_Redneck on July 17, 2026, 01:38:16 PM
(https://npr.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/default/67695ca/2147483647/strip/true/crop/6000x4000+0+0/resize/1760x1174!/format/webp/quality/90/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fnpr-brightspot.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fac%2F5e%2Febe31fe940fcac2fbccd686b2e50%2Fimg-6103.JPG)
Looking at these @$$h0l3$ my gut reaction is to hook up a firehose to the nearest hydrant (or water tanker) and give them a bath because their opinions and their attitude f@#%!ng stink!
Recognize patterns.
Post by: zippz on July 17, 2026, 10:12:38 PM
I wondered why a lawfirm would partner with Brady org. 1 of the partners (Mark Davis) daughter works with Brady org.
They have their own 501c3 non-profit for social justice. https://www.davislevin.com/our-firm/charitable-foundation/#~20d339e2-42b1-4669-a0d2-fd8e2a3ef0db
Post by: Rocky on July 18, 2026, 07:31:37 AM
Never mind. :wacko:
We've been wandering all over Oahu, buying groceries, eating out, going to the mall to hang with our girlfriends, watching movies, etc., with concealed guns, since 2023.
First hundreds, now thousands of us.
Has never been a problem, until now.
Must be that old communist coconut wireless stirrin up all the Karen covens out there.
Good thing they can't concealed carry here - we certainly don't want the mentally disturbed on 7 different antidepressants walking around with guns, now do we.....
(https://npr.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/default/67695ca/2147483647/strip/true/crop/6000x4000+0+0/resize/1760x1174!/format/webp/quality/90/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fnpr-brightspot.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fac%2F5e%2Febe31fe940fcac2fbccd686b2e50%2Fimg-6103.JPG)
Post by: Kalihi Uka on July 18, 2026, 08:42:47 AM
Wow, that's a lot of local peop . . .Exactly brother!
Never mind. :wacko:
Alien invasive species (tends to be of a certain type...)
Post by: rpoL98 on July 18, 2026, 09:22:49 AM
Post by: ren on July 18, 2026, 09:50:29 AM
https://www.deborahnehmad.com/about
Post by: hvybarrels on July 18, 2026, 09:56:20 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/EHOERHd.jpg)
Uh oh. Trump said something spicy.
Looks like it’s time to empty out the nursing homes and mental hospitals again
Post by: zippz on July 18, 2026, 11:18:55 AM
here is the background on the attorney / painter behind the Brady campaigns here
https://www.deborahnehmad.com/about
Ah she's a Georgetown graduate, that explains a lot. Their "Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection" is the schools civil rights organization. It's also the same org that defends Hawaii's gun bans from our lawsuits. https://www.law.georgetown.edu/icap/. Something about guns prevent people from exercising their civil rights is how they justify it.
Post by: Mdotweber on July 18, 2026, 11:58:29 AM
https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/
X thread with the excerpts
https://x.com/i/status/2078116808637476903
Post by: hvybarrels on July 18, 2026, 12:13:12 PM
Looks like the HI supreme court used the last several pages of their post opinion in Granillo v Hi to bitch about the recent USSC decisions including the Wolford case.
https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/
X thread with the excerpts
https://x.com/i/status/2078116808637476903
(https://media1.tenor.com/m/KBCX5BsM05YAAAAd/tantrum-kid.gif)
Post by: Kalihi Uka on July 18, 2026, 12:16:20 PM
Looks like the HI supreme court used the last several pages of their post opinion in Granillo v Hi to bitch about the recent USSC decisions including the Wolford case.Thanks for posting this!
https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/
X thread with the excerpts
https://x.com/i/status/2078116808637476903
Also, National Review had an article about Judge Arianna J. Freeman, appointed by Joe Biden in 2022, who authored the majority opinion striking down NJ's modern firearm ban (AKA "Assault Weapon" ban).
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/36/Arianna_Freeman.jpg)
From the article:
"As a young (47 or 48 years old) African American appellate judge with a Yale law school pedigree, Freeman has been touted as a strong candidate for a Supreme Court nomination by the next Democrat president. As Freeman surely knew, her ruling has destroyed her chances of ever being nominated to the Court. The Left is livid over the ruling, and its anger is intensified by Freeman’s lead role in it."
I love true Americans, like this one. Proud to share a country with her.
God save our country.
https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/biden-appointees-impressive-en-banc-ruling-on-second-amendment-and-assault-firearms/