2aHawaii
General Topics => Legal and Activism => Topic started by: changemyoil66 on December 06, 2023, 08:09:35 PM
-
Write up from HIFICO social media
"A new lawsuit was filed today against the County of Hawaii. Mr Day reached out to HIFICO a couple of weeks ago after being arbitrarily denied a license to carry firearms. We put him in contact with attorneys Alan Beck and Rick Holcombe, who filed today's lawsuit on his behalf.
Here are the details of the lawsuit;
The plaintiff, Mr. Day, works as an independent contractor for a company that provides property preservation services for real estate obtained through foreclosure proceedings. In January 2023, Mr. Day received a work order to clean and secure a property in Volcano, HI. Believing the property had been foreclosed upon, Mr. Day entered the property to perform the required work.
However, the owner of the property, who had previously vacated the property, became aware of Mr. Day's presence through a doorbell camera. This led to a confrontation between the owner and Mr. Day, during which Mr. Day used a chemical irritant device in self-defense. Despite the confrontation, the two parties de-escalated before the police arrived, and neither party was arrested.
The lawsuit focuses on the denial of Mr. Day's application for a concealed carry permit by the Hawaii Police Department (HPD). The denial cited Mr. Day's involvement in "recent violent conduct" based on the aforementioned confrontation.
The lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of Hawaii's firearm permitting scheme, arguing that it grants law enforcement officials too much discretion in determining an applicant's suitability, violating Second Amendment rights. The complaint also points to recent legal developments, such as the Supreme Court's decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. Bruen, to support the claim that the permitting scheme is unconstitutional.
Mr. Day seeks relief from the court, asserting that the denial of his concealed carry permit based on discretionary factors violates his Second Amendment rights and challenging the constitutionality of Hawaii's firearm permitting laws."
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
I wonder if the police report claims something significantly different than what Mr. Day is saying. It could be possible that something else in the report would justify this denial but if it is simply an admittance that he used pepper spray during an altercation once to defend himself that is pretty darn weak. If what he says is true I hope he wins.
-
I wonder if the police report claims something significantly different than what Mr. Day is saying. It could be possible that something else in the report would justify this denial but if it is simply an admittance that he used pepper spray during an altercation once to defend himself that is pretty darn weak. If what he says is true I hope he wins.
Nope.
Unless Day was arrested for domestic abuse or convicted of a violent crime, he's able to get his license.
The state can't exercise a subjective and arbitrary scheme of deciding who gets a license based on criteria like moral character and so forth. See Bruen for that explanation. It's the whole reason HI had to start ussuing licenses and stop requiring an "extreme need" to qualify.
A police report for responding to an altercation that was resolved and involved no arrests is not grounds for denial.
The state will lose this one.
-
I wonder if the police report claims something significantly different than what Mr. Day is saying. It could be possible that something else in the report would justify this denial but if it is simply an admittance that he used pepper spray during an altercation once to defend himself that is pretty darn weak. If what he says is true I hope he wins.
Does it matter? Day was never charged with anything or arrested. Thanks for playing and wasting time. BTW, Alan Beck has yet to lose a lawsuit.
-
Does it matter? Day was never charged with anything or arrested. Thanks for playing and wasting time. BTW, Alan Beck has yet to lose a lawsuit.
This one likes (loves?) to toss out hypotheticals and 'facts' not mentioned in any reports to present opposing sides' possible arguments -- without any idea if what he's saying is true or not.
I think he's just here to argue, whether he has anything to support his imagined 'facts' or not.
-
This one likes (loves?) to toss out hypotheticals and 'facts' ....
It is called being objective. I know this is a foreign concept for you, but there is no downside to considering all possibilities.
A lawsuit isn't a comprehensive view of the case. If you read only the lawsuit and think you understand everything then you aren't being objective.
-
Does it matter? Day was never charged with anything or arrested. Thanks for playing and wasting time. BTW, Alan Beck has yet to lose a lawsuit.
Trying to look at all sides of an issue is never wasting time.
Good for Alan Beck. As I said, if everything this guy says is true, I hope he wins his case.
-
It is called being objective. I know this is a foreign concept for you, but there is no downside to considering all possibilities.
A lawsuit isn't a comprehensive view of the case. If you read only the lawsuit and think you understand everything then you aren't being objective.
No. It's called being a narcissist, as if your imagination somehow constitutes a rational thought.
Reminds me of teenagers having lunch and just tossing out random thoughts that have nothing to do with reality -- just to hear themselves talk and pretend others are interested.
-
It is called being objective. I know this is a foreign concept for you, but there is no downside to considering all possibilities.
A lawsuit isn't a comprehensive view of the case. If you read only the lawsuit and think you understand everything then you aren't being objective.
Here's another thread that will go on for pages because someone refuses to accept they asked an irrelevant question and then refuse to admit they asked an irrelevant question.
-
No. It's called being a narcissist, as if your imagination somehow constitutes a rational thought.
Reminds me of teenagers having lunch and just tossing out random thoughts that have nothing to do with reality -- just to hear themselves talk and pretend others are interested.
Let's keep his train of thought going. Maybe Day was a convicted felon, I mean, it's only 1 side of the lawsuit that says he isn't one right?
-
Let's keep his train of thought going. Maybe Day was a convicted felon, I mean, it's only 1 side of the lawsuit that says he isn't one right?
Maybe he voted for Trump, and that makes him a suspect in the Jan 6 assault on democracy? There are people still being incarcerated without having the benefit of a trial, with more still being arrested for just being there.
Don't know if he even voted in 2016 and 2020, but I'm being objective here.
-
you really think a lawyer would take this case if the police report said something different?
i guess it's possible that someone "objective" would say it's possible...
I wonder if the police report claims something significantly different than what Mr. Day is saying. It could be possible that something else in the report would justify this denial but if it is simply an admittance that he used pepper spray during an altercation once to defend himself that is pretty darn weak. If what he says is true I hope he wins.
-
you really think a lawyer would take this case if the police report said something different?
i guess it's possible that someone "objective" would say it's possible...
"What-if" means never needing to have actual facts.
-
No. It's called being a narcissist, as if your imagination somehow constitutes a rational thought.
Looking at all sides is being a narcissist? :wacko: :wacko: :wacko:
-
you really think a lawyer would take this case if the police report said something different?
i guess it's possible that someone "objective" would say it's possible...
No idea. You think lawyers never write a lawsuit that contains incorrect or incomplete claims?
My point is that reading the lawsuit alone does not give you a complete understanding of the situation.
Plus, I already stated that if these things occurred as he claims they did then I hope he wins his lawsuit and the department learns their lesson.
-
Looking at all sides is being a narcissist? :wacko: :wacko: :wacko:
In the manner that you do and how you act after...YES.
-
i bet you drive even though there's a chance you may die while you are driving
two can play at your possibilities game...
No idea. You think lawyers never write a lawsuit that contains incorrect or incomplete claims?
My point is that reading the lawsuit alone does not give you a complete understanding of the situation.
Plus, I already stated that if these things occurred as he claims they did then I hope he wins his lawsuit and the department learns their lesson.
-
i bet you drive even though there's a chance you may die while you are driving
two can play at your possibilities game...
Don't forget that a meteor can also strike someone, lightning, tornado, etc...
-
Looking at all sides is being a narcissist? :wacko: :wacko: :wacko:
It is when there's only one actual side, and the rest are made-up hypotheticals concocted out of thin air.
-
It is when there's only one actual side, and the rest are made-up hypotheticals concocted out of thin air.
And how do you know that the lawsuit represents the "one actual side"?
Seems like you find a story you like and your bias doesn't want to allow you to consider any alternative story. Skepticism should be applied equally, not only when it favors your side.
-
i bet you drive even though there's a chance you may die while you are driving
two can play at your possibilities game...
Relevance?
I am not sure what is so objectionable to want to know the other side(s) of a story instead of hearing only one.
-
it's relevant because you pulled the "i'm objective, so it's possible that the lawyer filed the lawsuit without reading the police report"
yet you probably drive all the time despite the fact that objectively it's possible you may die in an accident...
if you want to hear the other side of the story, why don't you just access the police report from your work computer?
Relevance?
I am not sure what is so objectionable to want to know the other side(s) of a story instead of hearing only one.
-
And how do you know that the lawsuit represents the "one actual side"?
Seems like you find a story you like and your bias doesn't want to allow you to consider any alternative story. Skepticism should be applied equally, not only when it favors your side.
You haven't posted "an alternative story," only garbage from your imagination.
-
And how do you know that the lawsuit represents the "one actual side"?
Seems like you find a story you like and your bias doesn't want to allow you to consider any alternative story. Skepticism should be applied equally, not only when it favors your side.
HI has yet to win any 2a related lawsuit since at least 2016.
HIFICO/the atty's representing Day have not lost a lawsuit (see above)
HI state/county lawyers have a habit of presenting wrong/bad info (see above why they never won)
So if 1 were to be "objective" then it would be better understandable if this was a brand new type of issue. But with HI's track record of the above, a logical person would give Day the benefit of the doubt. There are times where being objective is more understandable, which is why in the past I have defended your stance on whataboutism. But recently, I can no longer defend your whataboutisms.
-
it's relevant because you pulled the "i'm objective, so it's possible that the lawyer filed the lawsuit without reading the police report"
yet you probably drive all the time despite the fact that objectively it's possible you may die in an accident...
if you want to hear the other side of the story, why don't you just access the police report from your work computer?
I never said anything about the lawyer filing a lawsuit without reading the police report. A lawyer would be stupid to file a suit without reading the police report.
My question is if the police report claimed something different than Mr. Day states happened. In other words, are the facts of the pepper spray incident being contested between the two parties or is it only the decision to deny the CCW that is contested. In a lawsuit both parties can stipulate that the facts are agreed upon or they can dispute the facts.
-
"I wonder if the police report claims something significantly different than what Mr. Day is saying."
wouldn't a lawyer also be stupid to file a lawsuit for a man that reported something significanlty different than what was in the police report?
goalposts moved...
I never said anything about the lawyer filing a lawsuit without reading the police report. A lawyer would be stupid to file a suit without reading the police report.
-
You haven't posted "an alternative story," only garbage from your imagination.
I did not imagine anything. I asked if there is a different story from the police report. You would be a terrible judge, just believe the first story told and not even question if the other party claimed a different version of events. Go watch some Judge Judy, at least that will start you with some basic critical thinking.
-
once again, you should be able to access all the files on your work computer...
I never said anything about the lawyer filing a lawsuit without reading the police report. A lawyer would be stupid to file a suit without reading the police report.
My question is if the police report claimed something different than Mr. Day states happened. In other words, are the facts of the pepper spray incident being contested between the two parties or is it only the decision to deny the CCW that is contested. In a lawsuit both parties can stipulate that the facts are agreed upon or they can dispute the facts.
-
I did not imagine anything. I asked if there is a different story from the police report. You would be a terrible judge, just believe the first story told and not even question if the other party claimed a different version of events. Go watch some Judge Judy, at least that will start you with some basic critical thinking.
Who did you ask?
Seems like you're speculating that the cops are too dishonest or incompetent to file an honest and accurate report.
-
"I wonder if the police report claims something significantly different than what Mr. Day is saying."
wouldn't a lawyer also be stupid to file a lawsuit for a man that reported something significanlty different than what was in the police report?
goalposts moved...
You really think lawsuits never claim something different than official police reports? You think the facts of events are never contested?
-
Who did you ask?
It was a general question, not addressed to anyone. I was simply stating an unknown piece of information I would like to know.
Are you going to jump down my throat next if I say "I wonder what heaven is like?"
Seems like you're speculating that the cops are too dishonest or incompetent to file an honest and accurate report.
You are jumping to conclusions. Dishonesty isn't the only reason facts/circumstances could differ. Even if dishonesty were at play I don't have any way of knowing who the dishonest party was or what they were being dishonest about. I just would like to know all sides version of events to have a better understanding.
-
It was a general question, not addressed to anyone. I was simply stating an unknown piece of information I would like to know.
Are you going to jump down my throat next if I say "I wonder what heaven is like?"
You are jumping to conclusions. Dishonesty isn't the only reason facts/circumstances could differ. Even if dishonesty were at play I don't have any way of knowing who the dishonest party was or what they were being dishonest about. I just would like to know all sides version of events to have a better understanding.
You assume the official side isn't the correct version. I'd call that jumping to a conclusion.
Sometimes wishing for an alternate scenario is just that ... wishful thinking.
-
You assume the official side isn't the correct version. I'd call that jumping to a conclusion.
Sometimes wishing for an alternate scenario is just that ... wishful thinking.
I said nothing of the sort. I make no assumptions as to which side is the correct side. Asking if there is conflicting statements doesn't imply taking anyone's side, it is a neutral inquiry.
-
Here's another thread that will go on longer than it should because someone is bored at night.
-
I said nothing of the sort. I make no assumptions as to which side is the correct side. Asking if there is conflicting statements doesn't imply taking anyone's side, it is a neutral inquiry.
What's your basis for asking such a question? Are there facts you haven't shared that point to another "side" to the story?
Why not just discuss the facts as presented and quit making up questions nobody can answer while calling it "being objective?"
-
What's your basis for asking such a question? Are there facts you haven't shared that point to another "side" to the story?
Why not just discuss the facts as presented and quit making up questions nobody can answer while calling it "being objective?"
Surely you have heard the saying there are two sides to every story? Should a cop respond to a bar fight or a domestic dispute and only hear one side and assume its the true version?
If some person stated Trump did something bad during his presidency, you are telling me you wouldn't want to know Trump's side, you would ":just discuss the facts as presented and quit making up questions nobody can answer"?
What is the basis to your objection? Why not simply respond by saying "I would like to know the other side of the story too but it isn't public so it is unknown for now"
-
Here's another thread that will go on longer than it should because someone is bored at night.
Stop responding then.
-
Surely you have heard the saying there are two sides to every story? Should a cop respond to a bar fight or a domestic dispute and only hear one side and assume its the true version?
If some person stated Trump did something bad during his presidency, you are telling me you wouldn't want to know Trump's side, you would ":just discuss the facts as presented and quit making up questions nobody can answer"?
What is the basis to your objection? Why not simply respond by saying "I would like to know the other side of the story too but it isn't public so it is unknown for now"
Sayings are not facts. Assuming there is another side that actually makes sense is not rational without evidence of what that side entails.
Cops don't have to listen to any side. if he sees a fight, he can arrest them both and let the judge sort it out while the two causing a public disturbance cool off and sober up.
Trump doesn't have to have a "side" unless the accusers present actual evidence of real, fact-based wrong-doing. Not some ambiguous "abuse of power" BS because he was looking for evidence of wrong-doing by the Bidens.
If there's another side to any story, it's not my place as a consumer of news to ask for the other side unless the facts reported don't add up. in this instance, they do add up -- objectively speaking. If you want more, fine, just don't assume facts not reported, as in 'that's not the full story in the police report."
Did you see the official report? Or are you trusting what the media SAID is in the report?
Yeah, i thought so.
-
Sayings are not facts. Assuming there is another side that actually makes sense is not rational without evidence of what that side entails.
Cops don't have to listen to any side. if he sees a fight, he can arrest them both and let the judge sort it out while the two causing a public disturbance cool off and sober up.
Trump doesn't have to have a "side" unless the accusers present actual evidence of real, fact-based wrong-doing. Not some ambiguous "abuse of power" BS because he was looking for evidence of wrong-doing by the Bidens.
If there's another side to any story, it's not my place as a consumer of news to ask for the other side unless the facts reported don't add up. in this instance, they do add up -- objectively speaking. If you want more, fine, just don't assume facts not reported, as in 'that's not the full story in the police report."
Did you see the official report? Or are you trusting what the media SAID is in the report?
Yeah, i thought so.
Assuming that two parties in a grievance will always tell you the same story means you live absent reality.
Cops don't have to listen to both sides but they should, it makes them better cops.
I made no assumptions here. I didn't assume that the police report said anything different and even if it did say something different I wouldn't assume that it was any more trustworthy than what Mr. Day is alleging.
-
Surely you have heard the saying there are two sides to every story? Should a cop respond to a bar fight or a domestic dispute and only hear one side and assume its the true version?
If some person stated Trump did something bad during his presidency, you are telling me you wouldn't want to know Trump's side, you would ":just discuss the facts as presented and quit making up questions nobody can answer"?
What is the basis to your objection? Why not simply respond by saying "I would like to know the other side of the story too but it isn't public so it is unknown for now"
I like taiwanese shaved ice.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
Stop responding then.
Thanks for playing
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
Sayings are not facts. Assuming there is another side that actually makes sense is not rational without evidence of what that side entails.
Cops don't have to listen to any side. if he sees a fight, he can arrest them both and let the judge sort it out while the two causing a public disturbance cool off and sober up.
Trump doesn't have to have a "side" unless the accusers present actual evidence of real, fact-based wrong-doing. Not some ambiguous "abuse of power" BS because he was looking for evidence of wrong-doing by the Bidens.
If there's another side to any story, it's not my place as a consumer of news to ask for the other side unless the facts reported don't add up. in this instance, they do add up -- objectively speaking. If you want more, fine, just don't assume facts not reported, as in 'that's not the full story in the police report."
Did you see the official report? Or are you trusting what the media SAID is in the report?
Yeah, i thought so.
He forgets when to use logic
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
Assuming that two parties in a grievance will always tell you the same story means you live absent reality.
Cops don't have to listen to both sides but they should, it makes them better cops.
I made no assumptions here. I didn't assume that the police report said anything different and even if it did say something different I wouldn't assume that it was any more trustworthy than what Mr. Day is alleging.
Who are the two parties in the Day case? The Cop is not a "party". He's the responding officer -- the referee as such. To say there are 2 sides insinuates the Cop and Day were involved in a dispute. Is that your assumption? That the officer wasn't an impartial third party?
-
Who are the two parties in the Day case? The Cop is not a "party". He's the responding officer -- the referee as such. To say there are 2 sides insinuates the Cop and Day were involved in a dispute. Is that your assumption? That the officer wasn't an impartial third party?
Day is one party, the government, or more specifically the police department is the other party.
The individual officer would probably not be considered a party since the administration is the one who denied Mr. Day, unless the officer somehow had a role in the denial. Two sides is a generic phrase, sometimes there are 3 sides or more, don't get hung up on that. The point is that people's retelling of an event can vary, they may not even be directly contradictory but they can contain subtle differences, things included or not included that present a certain image. I have no idea whether the report is consistent with Mr. Day's explanation or not. I only wondering if there were differences. Not something we need 3 pages over.
-
Day is one party, the government, or more specifically the police department is the other party.
The individual officer would probably not be considered a party since the administration is the one who denied Mr. Day, unless the officer somehow had a role in the denial. Two sides is a generic phrase, sometimes there are 3 sides or more, don't get hung up on that. The point is that people's retelling of an event can vary, they may not even be directly contradictory but they can contain subtle differences, things included or not included that present a certain image. I have no idea whether the report is consistent with Mr. Day's explanation or not. I only wondering if there were differences. Not something we need 3 pages over.
Hahahahahha.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
Hahahahahha.
He probably loved the WH Christmas video. Tap dancing is his #1 skill!
:geekdanc: :geekdanc: :geekdanc:
-
He probably loved the WH Christmas video. Tap dancing is his #1 skill!
:geekdanc: :geekdanc: :geekdanc:
I hate dancing but I guess I danced circles around you :rofl:
-
I hate dancing but I guess I danced circles around you :rofl:
In your mind.
Whoop 3 pages.
-
I hate dancing but I guess I danced circles around you :rofl:
i guess you probably believe that.
-
Big Island lost.
Day cannot be denied his CCw due to his pepper ball usage in self defense.
Alan Beck is still undefeated. Atty Rick Hilcombe also helped with this lawsuit.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
I wonder if the police report claims something significantly different than what Mr. Day is saying. It could be possible that something else in the report would justify this denial but if it is simply an admittance that he used pepper spray during an altercation once to defend himself that is pretty darn weak. If what he says is true I hope he wins.
So, its now clear the police report didnt say something different as HI lost.
I mean we all knew this already.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
So, its now clear the police report didnt say something different as HI lost.
I mean we all knew this already.
Another example of reality kicking possibility's butt!
:geekdanc: :thumbsup:
-
So, its now clear the police report didnt say something different as HI lost.
I mean we all knew this already.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
You suspected. Now you know. Glad to clear that up for you
-
You suspected. Now you know. Glad to clear that up for you
So, if you drop a hammer from a height of 3 feet, you only suspect it'll fall to the ground?
From my educated perspective, I know it'll fall 3 feet.
Glad i could clear that up for you.
-
You suspected. Now you know. Glad to clear that up for you
Nice try.
"Cmo, i was wrong about my usual whataboutism."
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
So, if you drop a hammer from a height of 3 feet, you only suspect it'll fall to the ground?
From my educated perspective, I know it'll fall 3 feet.
Glad i could clear that up for you.
Bad analogy.
-
Bad analogy.
in your argumentative opinion.
-
Bad analogy.
Hahahhahahh says the president of bad analogy/example club.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
Hahahhahahh says the president of bad analogy/example club.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
in your argumentative opinion.
-
in your argumentative opinion.
Hahahahha.