From Joe Huffman's blog today. A topic near and dear to our hearts here in Hawaii, since not one single one of us is "allowed" to exercise our right to bear arms outside our homes or businesses because not one single one of us has been granted a license to exercise that right. Here he clarifies what the laws often referred to about "licensing a right" actually literally say as opposed to how they are commonly paraphrased, and suggests the literal wording be used, to avoid claims of "misquoting the law". There are live links within the article to all the sources.

And as for the very concept of telling me I can't exercise a natural fundamental individual god-given inalienable constitutionally-protected civil right unless some self-important dick on the taxpayer-funded payroll deigns to grant me a "license": fuck you. I'm just sayin'...

[I'll add that I've slightly altered a quote of a comment that I posted separately earlier, which I believe should be submitted in Young as an amicus brief; short, sweet, and directly to the point (and I kinda think judge O'Scannlain might be on board with it):

"You have the right to defend yourself, when, where and how we say." Never go full retard dude.]

http://blog.joehuffman.org/2018/11/09/quote-of-the-day-on-licensing-a-right/

Quote of the day—On licensing a right
Posted on November 9, 2018 by Joe

I was going to make the content of this image my quote of the day because of the application to I-1639 [whic just passed overwhelmingly in Washington state and is a laundry list of all of Bloomberg's dream "gun safety regulations", which will now be litigated by SAF/NRA, et al.]:



“No state shall convert a liberty into a license, and charge a fee therefore.”

(Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105)

“If the state converts a right (liberty) into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity.”

(Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, Alabama 373 U.S. 262)

Unfortunately, as near as I can tell, neither ruling contains the word “convert”. There are some phrases that one might extrapolate to what is seen above, but they are extrapolations.

Here is the phrase in MURDOCK v. PENNSYLVANIA (CITY OF JEANNETTE) which I found to be the best fit:

A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution.

And in SHUTTLESWORTH v. BIRMINGHAM, (1969) No. 42:

“It is settled by a long line of recent decisions of this Court that an ordinance which, like this one, makes the peaceful enjoyment of freedoms which the Constitution guarantees contingent upon the uncontrolled will of an official – as by requiring a permit or license which may be granted or withheld in the discretion of such official – is an unconstitutional censorship or prior restraint upon the enjoyment of those freedoms.” Staub v. Baxley, 355 U.S. 313, 322 . And our decisions have made clear that a person faced with such an unconstitutional licensing law may ignore it and engage with impunity in the exercise of the right of free expression for which the law purports to require a license.

Hence, I would like to suggest people not use the “quote” which has been circulating for some time now. Use an exact quote from the actual cases so you won’t get drawn into a debate over the meaning of the words you used versus what the courts actually said.

The actual words should be strong enough to make the case for our rights to be free of licensing restrictions. This practice should actually be far more effective since it avoids the deflection made possible by using words not actually found in case law.

Murdock v Pennsylvania

“…It is claimed, however, that the ultimate question in determining the constitutionality of this license tax is whether the state has given something for which it can ask a return. That principle has wide applicability. State Tax Commission v. Aldrich, 316 U. S. 174, and cases cited. But it is quite irrelevant here. This tax is not a charge for the enjoyment of a privilege or benefit bestowed by the state. The privilege in question exists apart from state authority. It is guaranteed the people by the Federal Constitution…”

Right v. Privilege Distinction

http://uscivilliberties.org/themes/4398-right-v-privilege-distinction.html 

"...Most attempts to reduce immunities to privileges, and then often to withdraw them, are done through exercise of a power to regulate or tax, or at the state level, by exercise of the state ‘‘police powers.’’ Thus, while U.S. and state constitutions might recognize a ‘‘right to keep and bear arms,’’ their legislatures have tried to make it a privilege to acquire or convey title or possession to them. Congress in 1937 adopted legislation that imposed a $200 tax on certain types of firearms, and made it illegal to possess a firearm on which a tax had not been paid, and then delegated the power to executive officials to effectively prohibit the weapons by refusing to accept payment of the tax. This was done in defiance of the ancient principle that a right may not be taxed in a way that imposes an undue burden on its exercise. Congress has since prohibited acquisition or possession of similar weapons manufactured after 1985, under the alleged authority of the Commerce and necessary and proper clauses, on the argument that, following the precedent in Wickard v. Filburn (1942), they have a ‘‘substantial effect on interstate commerce.’’ Some states have argued that, since militia commanders may direct the use or nonuse of weapons by persons in called up militia status, they have the power to prohibit the acquisition or possession of any weapons even for persons not on militia duty, and to not recognize as militia those not called up by officials with the authority to impose penalties for failing to respond to a call-up. This is in conflict, however, with the ancient principle that the authority for militia, that is, defense activity, is not officials or the law, but a threat to public safety and the constitution of the state or United States, and every person aware of such a threat has not only the right but duty to defend against it, alone or in concert with others, regardless of whether officials concur or cooperate. Indeed, the concept contemplates that the officials may become the threat to which a defensive response is required..."


BTW - again mahalo nui loa to George and Alan

Murdock v Pennsylvania

“…It is claimed, however, that the ultimate question in determining the constitutionality of this license tax is whether the state has given something for which it can ask a return. That principle has wide applicability. State Tax Commission v. Aldrich, 316 U. S. 174, and cases cited. But it is quite irrelevant here. This tax is not a charge for the enjoyment of a privilege or benefit bestowed by the state. The privilege in question exists apart from state authority. It is guaranteed the people by the Federal Constitution…”

To paraphrase the words of the statist fascist tyrants of Hawaii (and New Jersey, and Maryland, and California, and ...): "Federal schmederal. That whole 14th amendment thing and McDonald... no can."

First Circuit decision of a week ago confirms no right outside the home (i.e. it's a "privilege" that may or may not be granted by the government at their whim).

https://www.ammoland.com/2018/11/first-circuit-rules-there-is-no-right-to-bear-arms-outside-the-home/#ixzz5WTEZFeSh

First Circuit Court of Appeals Rule No Right to Bear Arms Outside the Home

by Dean Weingarten

U.S.A. -(Ammoland.com)- On 2 November 2018, the First Circuit Court of Appeals held the Second Amendment effectively does not apply outside the home.  From uscourts.gov:

This case involves a constitutional challenge to the Massachusetts firearms licensing statute, as implemented in the communities of Boston and Brookline. All of the individual plaintiffs sought and received licenses from one of those two communities to carry firearms in public. The licenses, though, were restricted: they allowed the plaintiffs to carry firearms only in relation to certain specified activities but denied them the right to carry firearms more generally.

The plaintiffs say that the Massachusetts firearms licensing statute, as implemented in Boston and Brookline, violates the Second Amendment. The district court disagreed, and so do we. Mindful that “the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 626 (2008), we hold that the challenged regime bears a substantial relationship to important governmental interests in promoting public safety and crime prevention without offending the plaintiffs' Second Amendment rights. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's entry of summary judgment for the defendants. In the last analysis, the plaintiffs simply do not have the right” to carry arms for any sort of confrontation” or “for whatever purpose” they may choose. Id. at 595, 626 (emphasis omitted).

The Court specifically said the decision applies to both open and concealed carry of handguns. They reserved the power to infringe on concealed carry more than open carry.

Judge Selya [born 1934, appointed by Reagan in 1986] wrote the decision for the unanimous three-judge panel. They held that allowing police to decide if a citizen has a “need” to carry a gun outside the home allows sufficient exercise of Second Amendment rights.

Hey even Mass will give someone a "restricted" license, one of the criteria being out in the woods hiking fishing or camping.
I could live with that here.
Feel the cool breeze on my butt sometimes when I am out off the grid.
Restricted carry would be a start.

Staub v. City of Baxley, 355 U.S. 313 (1958)

Page 355 U. S. 322

"It is settled by a long line of recent decisions of this Court that an ordinance which, like this one, makes the peaceful enjoyment of freedoms which the Constitution guarantees contingent upon the uncontrolled will of an official -- as by requiring a permit or license which may be granted or withheld in the discretion of such official -- is an unconstitutional censorship or prior restraint upon the enjoyment of those freedoms."

Page 355 U. S. 325

"..It is undeniable that the ordinance authorized the Mayor and Council of the City of Baxley to grant "or refuse to grant" the required permit in their uncontrolled discretion. It thus makes enjoyment of speech (the bearing of arms) contingent upon the will of the Mayor and Council of the CityChief of Police, although that fundamental right is made free from congressional abridgment by the First (Second) Amendment and is protected by the Fourteenth from invasion by state action. For these reasons, the ordinance, on its face, imposes an unconstitutional prior restraint upon the enjoyment of First Second Amendment freedoms and lays "a forbidden burden upon the exercise of liberty protected by the Constitution." Cantwell v. Connecticut, supra, at 310 U. S. 307..."

(My emphasis and not actual wording of the decision)

As referenced above...

http://blog.joehuffman.org/2018/11/15/saf-nra-file-federal-lawsuit-challenging-initiative-1639/

SAF, NRA FILE FEDERAL LAWSUIT CHALLENGING INITIATIVE 1639

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation and National Rifle Association have filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging gun control Initiative 1639 in Washington State, on several grounds.

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. In addition to SAF and NRA, plaintiffs include gun dealers and young adults in the affected age group.

The lawsuit challenges the measure on the grounds that it violates the commerce clause by banning sales of rifles to non-residents, and that it unconstitutionally impairs the rights guaranteed by the First, Second and Fourteenth Amendments, and Article I Section 24 of the Washington State constitution by preventing the sale to otherwise qualified adults under age 21 of certain rifles.

* * * * *
For those who want to see the full 30 page text of the new "commonsense gun safety regulations":

https://www.sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/initiatives/finaltext_1531.pdf

Among the other numerous idiocies of this new law is the following definition of an "assault rifle":

"Semiautomatic assault rifle" means any rifle which utilizes a portion of the energy of a firing cartridge to extract the fired cartridge case and chamber the next round, and which requires a separate pull of the trigger to fire each cartridge.

Good to know that my Ruger 10/22 is an "assault rifle"... I'm pretty sure we've seen numerous armies and cops around the world using those "battlefield weapons of war". It's almost enough to make one think these people are ignorant morons beyond measure... except they know EXACTLY what they are doing. "Now go register that .22LR... otherwise we won't know where to come and get it when we ban them. No one needs a .22LR semiautomatic assault rifle."

Response of one gun store to the precise legal wording of I-1639, as brought to you by the 10 geniuses, and their lawyers (who will now whine to the courts and the legislature that they must "fix" "the loophole" they created), who "donated" millions of dollars to foist it on the ignorant masses of Washington:

http://blog.joehuffman.org/2018/11/22/statement-on-i1639/

Statement on #I1639

From a gun store, Precise Shooter, just north of Seattle:

As a local firearms dealer, we are committed to delivering the best firearms to local shooters at the best price while fully compliant with the existing laws.

The advantage of AR platform is that it is effectively a “lego set”: different components of the rifle snap together easily even when they come from different manufacturers.

In particular, AR-15 consists of two main components that simply snap together, and upper receiver…



…and a lower receiver…



The upper receiver is an unserialized part and can be sold without a background check. The lower receiver is not a rifle and thus is not subject to the requirements of the initiative.

Therefore, if the initiative in fact passes the court scrutiny, you would still be able to buy America’s most popular rifle just as you did before, it will just be coming in two separate pieces. And of course we will be carrying a full assortment!

Two important exceptions.

Lower receiver cannot be sold to a person under 21 per federal regulations. So if you are a young shooter, you have until January 2019 to buy your rifles.

Also, we cannot legally break existing rifles into uppers and lowers if they were designated as a rifle by the manufacturer. But almost every AR-15 vendor makes these two components available separately.

We will be working with Ruger and other manufacturers of 10/22 components to make the same deal available for 10/22 as well. We will also research and make available an economic 22lr solution based on AR platform.

Best regards,

Your friends at Precise Shooter

The cars/firearms analogies aren't particularly a solid argument for either side who uses it. For the grabbers, they assert that they have to be registered annually, you have to file paperwork for transfers, and owners drivers have to take written and practical tests at intervals in order to be able to legally keep and use cars. None of these arguments hold any water here in Hawaii, because we are already burdened by all that unconstitutional crap (except for interval re-registration... but don't hold your breath). The rights people argue that you can buy any kind of car in any state and don't need any kind of license or registration if you don't take it out on a public roadway, etc. Okay, so, best not to use the cars/guns analogy to argue a point, but, still, this video is funny... taking the argument hyperbolically re Washington's I-1639 as would be applied to vehicles...