Rules are not laws.   You seriously don't understand the legal aspect of this stuff. 

Educate yourself.

They did ban them from the park.

They tried to camp on the park and were banned from doing so.

They set up their tents on the sidewalk outside of the park property.

I've forgotten more about the De-Occupy vs. Honolulu case than you will probably ever know.  It's not like I haven't worked on this case. Oh, wait - I was the one who brought the case to the attorneys.  I've also done investigations and testified in federal court on this case.

They are not banned from the park.  They cannot sleep in the park, because it would violate park regulations.  They are more than free to go into the park anytime that does not violate the parks hours of operation.

Rules are not laws.   You seriously don't understand the legal aspect of this stuff.

You have no concept about my level of understanding.

The simple fact is that if you're being unsafe with firearms at Kokohead, you'll get kicked out.

You do it again, I guarantee they ban you.

If you believe differently, prove it.

Be unsafe on the public side of Kokohead everytime you go and see what happens.

The rules at Kokohead are obviously different from other parks such as Kapiolani as the rules are in place to prevent sudden DEATH or serious injury. You can argue the legal aspects of rules and laws but in this case there are obvious sudden consequences that are farther reaching than any argument - getting killed by another person's stupid mistake is a high risk at Kokohead if you don't follow the rules. That risk is mitigated by the implementation of rules. Despite rules there are dumb arse clowns that don't understand them i.e. pointing a rifle at their neighbors or everyone down the line. Next time someone disobeys rules, I can elevate the situation, call HPD and say the shooter threatened me with a gun. Want that? Or how about the countless ass clowns who play with their firearms during a ceasefire when there are people down range. I see people mock the ROs and disobey the rules on purpose. I have no problem with unsafe, disobeying people getting kicked out and banned. I don't want to get shot.

We make mistakes once in awhile. We also can't control what another person's perception, actions or opinions of you are. Our egos get bruised once in awhile. Detach. Move on. Focus on the next time you go shooting, don't ponder on this situation, it's not worth the thought or effort. Enjoy shooting. Carpe diem. iChing.

The rules at Kokohead are obviously different from other parks such as Kapiolani as the rules are in place to prevent sudden DEATH or serious injury.

Sure, and so are the rules that are in place at a beach, national parks, museums, a basketball court or even a public pool they are all different, and many of them are there to prevent death or serious injury; you could just as quickly break your neck or hurt yourself running around a pool!   There are administrative regulations, procedures, and guidelines that govern the implementation and creation of those 'rules'.

You can argue the legal aspects of rules and laws but in this case there are obvious sudden consequences that are farther reaching than any argument - getting killed by another person's stupid mistake is a high risk at Kokohead if you don't follow the rules.

So because something is unsafe and dangerous, the rules that govern due process should be discarded? Hrmmm.  That sound distinctly similar to the arguments that people make against CCW and why some people shouldn't have guns at all.  No joke, you do understand that this is the same line of thinking that is used against pro-gun entities and individuals in court right now?  I understand the end result for safety, and I don't disagree with it at all - but there are processes to get something to happen.  Kokohead does not have that process in place, and they should; they like to do things how they want to do them, and not necessarily how the rules, regulation, and precedent says it should be done.  However, it's Hawaii, so what can we really expect? 

I've seen, and been on the receiving end of some threats from Mike of being banned from the park for so called 'violations' that are wholly unrelated to anything affecting public safety.  We had discussions with corporate counsel and the Director, and those issues were resolved favorably for me.  What KK is missing is that there is a huge difference from being removed temporarily and being banned.  If I go into a public place yelling and screaming, say the legislature, they will likely kick me out,and that would probably be legit.  However, I could come back the next day and probably repeat the process.  To "ban" someone takes far more effort, and if it's a public place that you are being 'banned' from, then they have specific guidelines that should be met under the constitution. 

Some things that happen to ban someone:
1.) They have to be informed of what they did (generally in writing);
2.) They get a hearing, where evidence is presented against them;
3.) they get an appeal process.

Sex offenders are banned from many public parks in the interest of public safety. It's not punitive to them, but safety for others.  Likely the same effect could be had with a shooter who continues to violate the rules.  One issue is that even sex-offenders aren't supposed to be banned from their places of education, college, church etc.  With the minimal places that one can exercise their 2nd Amendment rights, and in light of Ezell, I don't know how that would affect a judges reasoning if it removed the only place a shooter could train (since that element was found to be corollary to the right of self-defense).   

This whole issue would very likely be a case of first impression since most places do not have public shooting ranges, but there are some basic legal tenets that would be very instructive for the issue.

This discussion is what I tried to avoid ... a general back and forth about whether the ROs are allowed to enforce the range rules, and the shooter has no recourse for appeal.

All I was hoping to find out is how far the "gun owner is responsible for everything a shooting partner does with his gun" goes in terms of having the owner ejected/banned.

I didn't point a gun at anyone, nor did I cause my daughter to (assuming the RO saw what he said he did).

If it was just a case of intimidation, or a misplaced assumption of her age, then both situations answer my question .... it would not be appropriate to ban/eject ME as punishment for HER rule infraction.

 

What if they call the police can you be trespassed like they do on private property?

This discussion is what I tried to avoid ... a general back and forth about whether the ROs are allowed to enforce the range rules, and the shooter has no recourse for appeal.

All I was hoping to find out is how far the "gun owner is responsible for everything a shooting partner does with his gun" goes in terms of having the owner ejected/banned.

I didn't point a gun at anyone, nor did I cause my daughter to (assuming the RO saw what he said he did).

If it was just a case of intimidation, or a misplaced assumption of her age, then both situations answer my question .... it would not be appropriate to ban/eject ME as punishment for HER rule infraction.

 

You would probably be better off discussing this with the RO's.  I would think they would be better able to explain. 

What if they call the police can you be trespassed like they do on private property?

You really have to look at the differences between §708-814 and §708-814.5, which is what would govern Kokohead..  ACLU in Center v. Lingle (2005?) sued  for similar actions to what is being suggested at Kokohead right now; their case was regarding Act 50, which allowed people to be trespassed for 1 year w/o due process and the bad stuff was repealed by the legislature.

So to answer your question: yes.  But it doesn't look like it comes with the 1 year prohibition that 708-814 would have.

One important thing I saw is that even §708-814 is stated to be subject to constitutional scrutiny when applied in light of religious or political activities.


-- 2006 ACLU Legal report:
• Act 50 (Squatter’s Law)
The ACLU of Hawaii challenged Act 50, the “Squatter’s Law”, which gives public officials overly
broad powers to ban individuals from using public spaces such as beaches, streets, and sidewalks. The
legislature, in response, repealed most of the egregious provisions. The ACLU lobbied the legislature
to pass Senate Bill 2687, which would have repealed the rest of the act. Unfortunately, this bill died at
the end of the 2006 Legislative session.


I have got to get back to homework this is really bad hahaha.  2A hawaii worse than Facebook!

I have got to get back to homework this is really bad hahaha.  2A hawaii worse than Facebook!

Worse?

Or better??      

Sure, and so are the rules that are in place at a beach, national parks, museums, a basketball court or even a public pool they are all different, and many of them are there to prevent death or serious injury; you could just as quickly break your neck or hurt yourself running around a pool!   There are administrative regulations, procedures, and guidelines that govern the implementation and creation of those 'rules'.

So because something is unsafe and dangerous, the rules that govern due process should be discarded? Hrmmm.  That sound distinctly similar to the arguments that people make against CCW and why some people shouldn't have guns at all.  No joke, you do understand that this is the same line of thinking that is used against pro-gun entities and individuals in court right now?  I understand the end result for safety, and I don't disagree with it at all - but there are processes to get something to happen.  Kokohead does not have that process in place, and they should; they like to do things how they want to do them, and not necessarily how the rules, regulation, and precedent says it should be done.  However, it's Hawaii, so what can we really expect? 

I've seen, and been on the receiving end of some threats from Mike of being banned from the park for so called 'violations' that are wholly unrelated to anything affecting public safety.  We had discussions with corporate counsel and the Director, and those issues were resolved favorably for me.  What KK is missing is that there is a huge difference from being removed temporarily and being banned.  If I go into a public place yelling and screaming, say the legislature, they will likely kick me out,and that would probably be legit.  However, I could come back the next day and probably repeat the process.  To "ban" someone takes far more effort, and if it's a public place that you are being 'banned' from, then they have specific guidelines that should be met under the constitution. 

Some things that happen to ban someone:
1.) They have to be informed of what they did (generally in writing);
2.) They get a hearing, where evidence is presented against them;
3.) they get an appeal process.

Sex offenders are banned from many public parks in the interest of public safety. It's not punitive to them, but safety for others.  Likely the same effect could be had with a shooter who continues to violate the rules.  One issue is that even sex-offenders aren't supposed to be banned from their places of education, college, church etc.  With the minimal places that one can exercise their 2nd Amendment rights, and in light of Ezell, I don't know how that would affect a judges reasoning if it removed the only place a shooter could train (since that element was found to be corollary to the right of self-defense).   

This whole issue would very likely be a case of first impression since most places do not have public shooting ranges, but there are some basic legal tenets that would be very instructive for the issue.

Don't take this out of context as the argument being presented is about Kokohead not about pro guns or anything broader. Don't let this argument creep out as you did by cutting and pasting my response, which I can also argue that anti gun folks do as well.
Like I said, take responsibility for the actions of your daughter whether in the eyes of the RO or more importantly as a father. Reading the post again it seemed that the OP was the more experienced shooter. A lot of extra movement to shoot and spot could have been minimized by establishing your shooting position then positioning your spotting scope.
example:
The event has passed without any physical harm to anyone. No one got shot or hurt with the exception of an ego - and that's easily repaired. Kokohead's corrective actions are tame compared to a military range, where as a recruit had an already shotgunned, shouldered M16 smacked into my face because the selector was not on safe. Perhaps this thread should've been titled "Who's responsible for my daughter?"

The event has passed without any physical harm to anyone. No one got shot or hurt with the exception of an ego - and that's easily repaired. Kokohead's corrective actions are tame compared to a military range, where as a recruit had an already shotgunned, shouldered M16 smacked into my face because the selector was not on safe. Perhaps this thread should've been titled "Who's responsible for my daughter?"

Once again, you missed the entire point of my question.  I stated this is not about me being right or wrong, or whether my daughter did anything wrong, or whether or not I am a responsible parent or shooter.

It is ONLY about the RO's threat to ban me for the actions of my daughter.  Does he have that authority, or doesn't he?  If she were a minor, I would agree he does, because the range rules clearly state that.  However, she is well over 18 (able to own a rifle) and over 21 (able to own a pistol).

I don't think he can hold me responsible based on the rules, laws, and information I have at the moment.  I wanted to ask if anyone here knows of some rule I don't that makes me responsible for her breaking a range rule (not breaking a gun law, and not shooting someone, and not intentionally refusing to follow range rules).

I think I have already gotten the answer.  No such rule, law, or guidance exists.  He was either acting on an assumption (she was a minor), or was just blowing smoke to intimidate me.

If the title of this thread is confusing, perhaps it's the situation being complicated by:
(1) the statements of the RO making me responsible for her when that's not the case,
(2) the manor of the RO's approach (warning me afterward instead of notifying her directly the moment he saw her being unsafe), and
(3) the tense environment created by a state legislature which tries to make gun ownership and use so strictly controlled while enacting such poorly written laws.

I do appreciate everyone's input.  The discussion demonstrates how true the old saying is:

It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.

I was sure I knew what the rules were at the range, that EACH INDIVIDUAL is responsible for his or her own conduct.  The exception is when the shooter is a minor accompanied by an adult.

This weekend had me questioning whether what I knew just ain't so.

I've brought newbie adult friends to the range before and when they did not act safely, I got scolded by the RO "stay with and watch your friends"!

I take it in the spirit that everyone has the same responsibility of being an RO when in the range. Actions of my friends reflect badly on me and eventually reflects badly on the RO.

Safety is everyone's responsibility and as a shooter in the KHSC, if we see someone not acting safely, we are all also obliged to say something.

When the RO scolds you for the actions of your friends (or in this case, your daughter), it is an indication that the RO sees you as the most senior of the group and expects you to give an "educational beatdown" to the younger folks in your group that puts anyone at risk.

In some ways, the RO scolding you is an honor that he sees you as the more experienced guy and thereby expects more from you.  Take it in the spirit that the RO sees you as a delegated RO for the group and puts you in higher regard than others.

I've brought newbie adult friends to the range before and when they did not act safely, I got scolded by the RO "stay with and watch your friends"!

I take it in the spirit that everyone has the same responsibility of being an RO when in the range. Actions of my friends reflect badly on me and eventually reflects badly on the RO.

Safety is everyone's responsibility and as a shooter in the KHSC, if we see someone not acting safely, we are all also obliged to say something.

When the RO scolds you for the actions of your friends (or in this case, your daughter), it is an indication that the RO sees you as the most senior of the group and expects you to give an "educational beatdown" to the younger folks in your group that puts anyone at risk.

In some ways, the RO scolding you is an honor that he sees you as the more experienced guy and thereby expects more from you.  Take it in the spirit that the RO sees you as a delegated RO for the group and puts you in higher regard than others.

Well said. 

I've brought newbie adult friends to the range before and when they did not act safely, I got scolded by the RO "stay with and watch your friends"!

I take it in the spirit that everyone has the same responsibility of being an RO when in the range. Actions of my friends reflect badly on me and eventually reflects badly on the RO.

Safety is everyone's responsibility and as a shooter in the KHSC, if we see someone not acting safely, we are all also obliged to say something.

When the RO scolds you for the actions of your friends (or in this case, your daughter), it is an indication that the RO sees you as the most senior of the group and expects you to give an "educational beatdown" to the younger folks in your group that puts anyone at risk.

In some ways, the RO scolding you is an honor that he sees you as the more experienced guy and thereby expects more from you.  Take it in the spirit that the RO sees you as a delegated RO for the group and puts you in higher regard than others.

What you said is nothing I don't already practice.  My daughter took the handgun safety class in December with me.  I've made sure she learns, remembers, and practices all safety basics.  I always tell her when she's not being as careful as she could be (I'm her parent as well as a responsible gun owner, so that's my job!).  I didn't give her access to the gun safes until she practiced with me and demonstrated proper gun safety and operation.

I really don't see the RO talking to me in a threatening manner the same as bestowing an honor on me, so maybe it's a double-edged sword:  you get the be honored as the person in charge, but you also get a$$ chewings on your friends' behalf in a much-less-than-honorable fashion. 

I get scolded for my friends two benches down doing something stupid.

Instead of going online and whining about it, I ask the RO exactly what my friend did wrong then I instruct my friend not to do what they're doing. (To my friend who just happens to be a member of this forum, You know who you are)

I get scolded for my friends two benches down doing something stupid.

Instead of going online and whining about it, I ask the RO exactly what my friend did wrong then I instruct my friend not to do what they're doing. (To my friwnd who jist happens to be a member of this forum, You know who you are)

If you see anything in my posts that look like "whining," please let me know. 

I didn't need to ask what she did wrong, because he already told me what he believes she did wrong.

Hopefully your statement wasn't directed at my thread specifically.

They check my ID everywhere and every time I buy cigarette/alcohol even though I'm 30+. Physically appearances can be deceiving especially for a female. I get yelled at almost every time I go to range.. lol ..   But I just say sorry and move on because I'd got kicked out for once trying to clarify with the RO about a procedure in a military range and I was being very polite too. Please just  try not doubt a RO, luckily you are not a in a military facility.   

Just be grateful that there are ROs. There was a job posting a few mos. ago and from what I heard they have a hard time filling them. No ROs = no range time. Understand that these people have to deal with people with various experiences, backgrounds and languages - all the while trying to keep armed people safe from each other and themselves. I've seen people bring uncased firearms, people loading firearms behind the line, open carry and explaining to the ROs that they did on another range on the mainland or whatever.
Being scolded is not an "lol" moment. Learn, understand why it was unsafe and move on. Shoot safely. Kokohead is our only public range.

Just be grateful that there are ROs. There was a job posting a few mos. ago and from what I heard they have a hard time filling them. No ROs = no range time. Understand that these people have to deal with people with various experiences, backgrounds and languages - all the while trying to keep armed people safe from each other and themselves. I've seen people bring uncased firearms, people loading firearms behind the line, open carry and explaining to the ROs that they did on another range on the mainland or whatever.
Being scolded is not an "lol" moment. Learn, understand why it was unsafe and move on. Shoot safely. Kokohead is our only public range.

ren, I understand.  I already said I respect the tough job ROs face, and I also said I understand they are not perfect. I agree with everything you said.  It just doesn't have much to do with my question. 

So far, subject to new information being offered, I haven't seen anything that tells me I can be punished at the range for my daughter's mistake as long as it was just that ... a mistake.  If there had been an "actual emergency" in which injury or damage occurred, I'm sure the other laws would apply.  But to my knowledge, the threat was just that ... a threat.  There's nothing in the range rules that would subject me to punishment if my daughter were to do something serious enough to be banned herself.

Hopefully this helps others.  This is a difficult topic, because too many interpret it as another "I'm mad because an RO yelled at me" thread.  That was never the subject. 

It was always about whether someone can be punished (ejected/banned) for someone else breaking the range rules.