(I didn't see any recent thread here on this.  Sorry if I missed one.)

Forced by a circuit court decision, Illinois recently enacted a "shall-issue" carry law.  No reciprocity for other states, but the law theoretically allows non-residents to apply for an IL carry license.  But of course the antis are still fighting, and so far only residents of Hawaii are supposedly allowed to apply.

Check it out at the following link by clicking on "checklist prior to applying" and scroll down to the non-resident section. https://ccl4illinois.com/ccw/public/home.aspx

The non-resident applicant must have a CC permit from his own state, so of course they picked never-issue Hawaii as the only state allowed!  Hilarious.

I noted the quotes indicating 2 weeks was a joke.  I was demonstrating that it could literally take years to get a ruling, which could be considered a bigger joke.

If there is a split the Supreme Court wants to resolve, which of the 2 cases would it pick?  Just the one it wants to reverse or both?

Good luck!  Maybe this court will be the first lower court to understand McDonald.  After the orals, there's only the 6-to-12-month wait for publication of the opinion.

A list of some cases including status can be seen at http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Litigation_Past_and_Present

Today I was surprised to receive a letter from Mr. Kaneshiro replying to my letter quoted in post #64 of this thread.

Kaneshiro: "To clarify statements made on the program and to address the points made in the first major paragraph of your letter, in Hawaii it [bold]is legal[/bold] for a gun owner to keep a registered, legal firearm in his or her home of place of business [sic].  The definition of "home" would also include the person's front yard,  or property.  Therefore, the use of a registered firearm in one's own front yard in defense during a threatening situation is a legal use of a firearm under Hawaii law."

Of course this ignores about 3/4 of what I stated in the said paragraph.  Another example of the futility of attempting to use logic on an anti.

I viewed the program on the PBS website, and I must say, HiCarry, that you were the most articulate panel member, and the only one who could make a logical point.  You did an excellent job.

I live in Colorado and  visit Hawaii to see relatives, so I see Hawaii gun laws as horribly restrictive.  I was so impressed with the lack of rationality of Mr. Kaneshiro that I had to send him some comments.  I quickly found his office's website and, of course, they have no email address to receive comments.  That did not deter me from mailing my views to him.  Probably no one here is interested in the details of my letter, but I include it here just in case...

Mr. Keith Kaneshiro
The Department of the Prosecuting Attorney
City & County of Honolulu
1060 Richards Street
Honolulu, HI 96813

Sir:

I watched the February 3 PBS discussion of gun control.  I thank you for taking the time to participate in the program.

I am a resident of Colorado, which has gun laws much different from those of Hawaii, but I have relatives in Waimea which I visit, so I am keenly aware of the differences and was interested in the PBS program.

You made two points which appear to be mutually contradictory to me.  You stated that Hawaii state law allows the legal gun owner to possess firearms in his home for the practical purpose  of defense against intruders.  Therefore, armed self defense must be legal.  When commenting on being attacked outside the home, where the law-abiding citizen cannot be legally armed, you stated that calling for police assistance on a cell phone will give adequate protection from armed attack.  Even if the police arrive within 2 or 3 minutes, that is obviously not going to afford protection from events occurring within a few seconds.  So in this case, armed self defense is illegal.  One could just as well state that firearms in the home are unnecessary also, since one can make a 911 call from home.  Armed self defense should logically be either legal or illegal in all cases, not sometimes legal and other times illegal.

You also stated that if law-abiding citizens could carry concealed weapons, people would soon be shooting each other over trivial disagreements like who gets a parking space on the street.  Of course at that point they wouldn't be law-abiding citizens, would they?  The same argument has been advanced in every state that has enacted mandatory-issue of concealed firearm licenses, and has proven groundless every time.  We have had mandatory issue here in Colorado since 2003, with thousands of licenses issued, and there has not been a single instance where a concealed pistol licensee has used a weapon to commit a crime.  Even before 2003, anyone in Colorado who could legally own a pistol could carry it in their vehicle for self-defense, or carry it openly in most places, and there were no associated wild-west shootouts then.

The futility of gun control laws is simply that they restrict law-abiding citizens and have no effect on criminals.  I know that illegal gun possession in Hawaii incurs mandatory prison time, so I will never bring a firearm when I visit my relatives there, of course—I don't want my life wrecked, so the law works on me.  But a dealer of illegal drugs in Honolulu will not hesitate to carry an illegal pistol because additional jail time for gun possession is trivial compared to the length of his sentence if he is convicted for dealing illegal drugs.

Thanks for reading my comments.

[signed my real name]
Aurora, Colorado

I am deleting my old email address due to spam.  I looked at my Profile, but don't see any email address or a way to change it.  Can it be that 2aHawaii does not keep it?  I am probably overlooking something.

Do we need to wait for actual incorporation of the Second Amendment before challenging this decision?

I think so, because SCOTUS case 08-1521 McDonald v Chicago, which will probably be scheduled for oral arguments early in 2010, has the incorporation issue as the heart of the case, and it is extremely likely that the ruling will be in favor of incorporation.  Since the case is already in progress, the wait won't be very long anyway.

A person, technically illegally carrying a pistol...

The article did not state the man was carrying a concealed pistol; unlicensed open carry is legal in Wisconsin.

If this occurred in Hawaii, I would expect him to be arrested and charged for having a pistol on him outside his property.  HiCarry's linked story supports this theory---seems like self defense is frowned on in Hawaii, if not downright illegal.