Young v. State of Hawaii (Read 38372 times)

RSN172

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #280 on: September 16, 2018, 06:52:40 AM »
I can see chief saying

1) file TRO
2) permit denied because u got a TRO
3)if TRO is broken, still no need permit. Violater is arrested
4) violator post bail, permit still denied, call HPD for help. Violator arrested again and higher bail set.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

5) violator physically attacks you causing severe bodily injury.
6) police come to the hospital to take your statement and recommend you get a big dog.

punaperson

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #281 on: September 16, 2018, 07:02:16 AM »
I can see chief saying

1) file TRO
2) permit denied because u got a TRO
3)if TRO is broken, still no need permit. Violater is arrested
4) violator post bail, permit still denied, call HPD for help. Violator arrested again and higher bail set.
Well, the chief won't "say" that, or anything else. All there will be on the public record is "denied", and the official reporting document that must be filed with the AG's office monthly will read, under "Reason": "Did not meet chief's criteria". And then a judge on a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel can write in an opinion "We don't know why those people were denied licenses. They may have been prohibited persons." But that would never happen, right?

Charles Nichols

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #282 on: September 16, 2018, 01:00:25 PM »
I can see chief saying

1) file TRO
2) permit denied because u got a TRO
3)if TRO is broken, still no need permit. Violater is arrested
4) violator post bail, permit still denied, call HPD for help. Violator arrested again and higher bail set.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

A TRO is valid for at most 14 days and is limited to similarly short extensions.  One would not use a TRO to obtain a permit.  A TRO can be converted into a motion for a preliminary injunction if the other side agrees,  If not then if longer term relief is sought then one follows with a motion for a preliminary injunction, which, if granted, endures until there is a final judgment, the preliminary injunction is stayed, or overturned on appeal (or becomes moot).

2, 3, and 4 are nonsensical.

zippz

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #283 on: September 16, 2018, 02:45:53 PM »
Has the police department or State ever said open carry is restricted to security guards?  I know in reality it is, but looking for a reference.
Join the Hawaii Firearms Coalition at www.hifico.org.  Hawaii's new non-profit gun rights organization focused on lobbying and grassroots activism.

Hawaii Shooting Calendar - https://calendar.google.com/calendar/embed?src=practicalmarksman.com_btllod1boifgpp8dcjnbnruhso%40group.calendar.google.com&ctz=Pacific/Honolulu

Flapp_Jackson

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #284 on: September 16, 2018, 02:50:09 PM »
A TRO is valid for at most 14 days and is limited to similarly short extensions.  One would not use a TRO to obtain a permit.  A TRO can be converted into a motion for a preliminary injunction if the other side agrees,  If not then if longer term relief is sought then one follows with a motion for a preliminary injunction, which, if granted, endures until there is a final judgment, the preliminary injunction is stayed, or overturned on appeal (or becomes moot).

2, 3, and 4 are nonsensical.

To issue a CCW permit using a TRO/injunction as justification (evidence of a threat) is to admit the court orders are impotent.  No state is going to admit a TRO alone is insufficient to provide protection for the victim.

Basically, a TRO is a catch 22 for CCW permit issue:

  - If you apply for a carry permit and don't have a TRO, there's no threat.  It needs to be made official by requesting a TRO. 

  - If you document the threat in a TRO, then you're already protected by the court order.  Hence, no carry permit needed.
It is usually futile to try to talk facts and analysis to people who are enjoying a sense of moral superiority in their ignorance.

Flapp_Jackson

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #285 on: September 16, 2018, 03:03:15 PM »
If I'm reading the aggregated opinions right, the court basically said open carry in Hawaii is a right, meaning the state must allow it.

So, they can require licenses, but the laws ought to be changed to "shall issue", not the "may issue if the police chief is in the mood that day, but don't count on it" way the AG's letter stated, right?
It is usually futile to try to talk facts and analysis to people who are enjoying a sense of moral superiority in their ignorance.

macsak

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #286 on: September 16, 2018, 03:05:18 PM »
To issue a CCW permit using a TRO/injunction as justification (evidence of a threat) is to admit the court orders are impotent.  No state is going to admit a TRO alone is insufficient to provide protection for the victim.

Basically, a TRO is a catch 22 for CCW permit issue:

  - If you apply for a carry permit and don't have a TRO, there's no threat.  It needs to be made official by requesting a TRO. 

  - If you document the threat in a TRO, then you're already protected by the court order.  Hence, no carry permit needed.

changemyoil66

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #287 on: September 16, 2018, 03:20:04 PM »
It was a joke.
A TRO is valid for at most 14 days and is limited to similarly short extensions.  One would not use a TRO to obtain a permit.  A TRO can be converted into a motion for a preliminary injunction if the other side agrees,  If not then if longer term relief is sought then one follows with a motion for a preliminary injunction, which, if granted, endures until there is a final judgment, the preliminary injunction is stayed, or overturned on appeal (or becomes moot).

2, 3, and 4 are nonsensical.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

punaperson

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #288 on: September 16, 2018, 04:03:04 PM »
If I'm reading the aggregated opinions right, the court basically said open carry in Hawaii is a right, meaning the state must allow it.

So, they can require licenses, but the laws ought to be changed to "shall issue", not the "may issue if the police chief is in the mood that day, but don't count on it" way the AG's letter stated, right?
Judge O'Scannlain decided that: "[T]he Second Amendment encompasses the right of a responsible law-abiding citizen to carry a firearm openly for self-defense outside of the home."

Note that the term he used is "responsible law-abiding citizen".

That same term is used by the Attorney General in his "opinion", and that opinion is quoted and referenced extensively in the state's petition for an en banc hearing, and no doubt would be an extensive part of the state's brief should the case go en banc. Note however what the AG adds to the "phrase" "responsible law-abiding citizen" as to what else would be required to acquire an "unconcealed" carry license: "[A]n applicant must demonstrate, among other things, that he or she has a need for protection that substantially exceeds that held by ordinary law-abiding citizens."

Judge O'Scannlain did not decide that "ordinary law-abiding citizens" are only eligible to exercise their Second Amendment protected right to carry "unconcealed" outside the home IF, and ONLY IF they can demonstrate some "need" that "substantially exceeds" that of the "other" "ordinary law-abiding citizens". The AG opinion seems to substantially contradict judge O'Scannlain's ruling. The AG's claim that the law is not "facially" invalid (if you believe his lies about unconcealed carry licenses have always been available to "ordinary law-abiding citizens") does not bear directly on the fact that it IS invalid "as applied" (amounts to a de facto ban). They have no proof that such a license has ever been issued, and of course no one can prove a negative, so it's impossible to prove they never issued, or even denied, one.

I think we all know how the en banc court will rule. The only question remaining is will SCOTUS accept the case if it gets there, and then, how will they rule. We may know the answer to that question sometime around 2023.

« Last Edit: September 16, 2018, 08:43:26 PM by punaperson »

Charles Nichols

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #289 on: September 16, 2018, 05:51:47 PM »
To issue a CCW permit using a TRO/injunction as justification (evidence of a threat) is to admit the court orders are impotent.  No state is going to admit a TRO alone is insufficient to provide protection for the victim.

Basically, a TRO is a catch 22 for CCW permit issue:

  - If you apply for a carry permit and don't have a TRO, there's no threat.  It needs to be made official by requesting a TRO. 

  - If you document the threat in a TRO, then you're already protected by the court order.  Hence, no carry permit needed.

Do you have a State of Hawaii or 9th circuit court of appeals decision to back that up or is it something you just invented?

Flapp_Jackson

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #290 on: September 16, 2018, 06:07:11 PM »
Do you have a State of Hawaii or 9th circuit court of appeals decision to back that up or is it something you just invented?

Which part?
It is usually futile to try to talk facts and analysis to people who are enjoying a sense of moral superiority in their ignorance.

Flapp_Jackson

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #291 on: September 16, 2018, 06:23:07 PM »


The Hawaii TRO system is significantly flawed and ineffective. It's not unreasonable to assume many of those the system failed tried to get permits to carry and were denied. Since the reasons for denial are not reported, nor are the justifications made public, there's no way to know how many were in an endless TRO cycle and unable to legally arm themselves.

https://www.khon2.com/news/always-investigating/flaws-in-protective-order-system-leave-abuse-victims-vulnerable_20180104063102991/901464059
It is usually futile to try to talk facts and analysis to people who are enjoying a sense of moral superiority in their ignorance.

Charles Nichols

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #292 on: September 16, 2018, 07:13:53 PM »
Which part?

You wouldn't be asserting a claim in which you could not back up every part would you?

Flapp_Jackson

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #293 on: September 17, 2018, 02:40:32 AM »
You wouldn't be asserting a claim in which you could not back up every part would you?

Are you going to answer every question with a question?
It is usually futile to try to talk facts and analysis to people who are enjoying a sense of moral superiority in their ignorance.

punaperson

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #294 on: September 17, 2018, 09:55:44 AM »
I will be sending this to all the county police chiefs either later today or tomorrow, pending possible input from outside sources. Oahu, aka "Honolulu City and County" will not allow email inquiries, so I will have to mail that via snail mail, not that there is any hurry, but in case any of you on Oahu are going in there anyway, maybe you can deliver a version signed with your name. Or not. I'm not expecting any real answer anyway, just want to get something "on the record".

Chief of Police,

1. How many “unconcealed” carry licenses did you issue to “private individuals”, i.e. persons not employed in any capacity as any kind of “security” personnel, in 2017?

2. How many “unconcealed” carry licenses have you issued to “private individuals”, i.e. persons not employed in any capacity as any kind of “security” personnel in all the years prior to 2017? And in which specific years did you issue how many such licenses?

3. How many “unconcealed” carry licenses have you issued to “private individuals”, i.e. persons not employed in any capacity as any kind of “security” personnel thus far (September 17) in 2018?

4. Could you please tell me, for those “unconcealed” carry licenses you have issued to “private individuals” not employed in any capacity as any kind of “security” personnel, how, and under what category on the mandated monthly reporting form issued by the Office of the Attorney General, did you report those issuances (i.e. under the “Security” category, or under the “Citizen” category)?

5. Could you please tell me, for those “unconcealed” carry licenses you have denied to “private individuals” not employed in any capacity as any kind of “security” personnel, how, and under what category on the mandated monthly reporting form issued by the Office of the Attorney General, did you report those denials (i.e. under the “Security” category, or under the “Citizen” category)?

6. Could you please tell me, for those “unconcealed” carry licenses you have denied to “private individuals” not employed in any capacity as any kind of “security” personnel, how, and under whichever category on the mandated monthly reporting form issued by the Office of the Attorney General, you reported those denials (i.e. under the “Security” category, or under the “Citizen” category), what were the statements made by you for denial under the “Reasons” column?

Thank you,

2ahavvaii

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #295 on: September 17, 2018, 10:03:26 AM »
^

What's the email addresses?  I can make similar inquiries, and let you know if I get something other than a canned response.  Honestly, your chances are pretty low of getting any meaningful response.

London808

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #296 on: September 17, 2018, 10:04:58 AM »
Are you going to answer every question with a question?

Thats what he does. His legal argument is based on his feeling and what he goggled and if you ignore that he starts on personal attacks.
"Mr. Roberts is a bit of a fanatic, he has previously sued HPD about gun registration issues." : Major Richard Robinson 2016

punaperson

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #297 on: September 17, 2018, 10:36:07 AM »
^

What's the email addresses?  I can make similar inquiries, and let you know if I get something other than a canned response.  Honestly, your chances are pretty low of getting any meaningful response.
I've gotten actual answers maybe 10% of the time. More to create a record of "Here is the response of the government to this inquiry".

Police department contact info

hawaii county

961-2244

chief ferreira

hcpdone@hawaiicounty.gov

captain wana

aimee.wana@hawaiicounty.gov


Kauai

Kauai Police Department
3990 Kaana Street, Suite 200
Lihue, HI 96766
(808) 241-1711

Michael M. Contrades
Acting Chief of Police
Kauai Police Department

mcontrades@kauai.gov


Maui

Tivoli Faaumu
Chief of Police
crs@mpd.net
Phone: (808) 244-6300


Honolulu

Honolulu Police Department
801 South Beretania Street
Honolulu, HI 96813

Main Phone Number (Police Information)
(808)529-3111

Executive Officer
Honolulu Police Commission
1060 Richards St., Suite 170
Honolulu, HI 96813
Telephone number (808)723-7580
Email: policecommission@honolulu.gov

punaperson

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #298 on: September 17, 2018, 10:44:13 AM »
Just in case anyone is interested, here is Mr. Nichols' podcast re the Young v Hawaii petition for rehearing en banc. He does not have kind words for the state's attorneys and their arguments.

https://soundcloud.com/californiaopencarry/podcast-7-the-young-v-hawaii-petition-for-rehearing-en-banc?utm_source=soundcloud&utm_campaign=share&utm_medium=facebook

Flapp_Jackson

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #299 on: September 17, 2018, 10:55:25 AM »
Thats what he does. His legal argument is based on his feeling and what he goggled and if you ignore that he starts on personal attacks.

If that's his idea of a personal attack, he must be new to the Internet!   :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
It is usually futile to try to talk facts and analysis to people who are enjoying a sense of moral superiority in their ignorance.