We still need to wait on the decision in Baker v. Kealoha then we'll see where it goes. For Chicago, the city had a set time period to get a new law on the books.

True, but keep in mind that Illinois had no carry system. They would have to had basically deputize people as peace officers to be able to carry. CA and HI are different in that they have laws already on the books for permits. While an intern period probably would be granted, it would most likely be shorter.

Great News !

Is it time to organize the Great Hawaii CCW application day ?

Class action anyone if Peruta stands and Hawaii fails to fall in line ?

If we can assert that HI doesn't grant anyone CCW permits on principal, and we don't have open carry, I would think we'd have a good chance to prevail.
We could also address the dissenting opinion at the same time, since they're saying the court should only be addressing CCW, not the right to bear.
( I didn't read the actuall opinions, just the links from Tom which seemed very informative. Thanks Tom. but it still means I'm ignorant. )

Keep up the good fight Chris, and thanks from all of us for the work you're doing ! 

Great News !

Is it time to organize the Great Hawaii CCW application day ?

Class action anyone if Peruta stands and Hawaii fails to fall in line ?

If we can assert that HI doesn't grant anyone CCW permits on principal, and we don't have open carry, I would think we'd have a good chance to prevail.
We could also address the dissenting opinion at the same time, since they're saying the court should only be addressing CCW, not the right to bear.
( I didn't read the actuall opinions, just the links from Tom which seemed very informative. Thanks Tom. but it still means I'm ignorant. )

Keep up the good fight Chris, and thanks from all of us for the work you're doing ! 

If Peruta stands, you will have carry in Hawaii sooner rather than later.

Let's just hope they don't opt for shall issue open carry with the hope of ostracizing people and intimidating them from carrying. This could happen but it seems unlikely.

People OC in Guam and it's been accepted for the most part. You would think they would offer them a CCW permit in Guam but they haven't... But at least they have a mode of carry.... Soon HI will too

Great News !

Is it time to organize the Great Hawaii CCW application day ?

Class action anyone if Peruta stands and Hawaii fails to fall in line ?

If we can assert that HI doesn't grant anyone CCW permits on principal, and we don't have open carry, I would think we'd have a good chance to prevail.
We could also address the dissenting opinion at the same time, since they're saying the court should only be addressing CCW, not the right to bear.
( I didn't read the actuall opinions, just the links from Tom which seemed very informative. Thanks Tom. but it still means I'm ignorant. )

Keep up the good fight Chris, and thanks from all of us for the work you're doing ! 

Let's do this Jeff!! Take a day off from work to stand in line for a good cause!

 

If this goes up to SCOTUS, pray that no one on the bench retires before then.

If this goes up to SCOTUS, pray that no one on the bench retires before then.

This. But great news no doubt!8)

 

This news calls for a beer!



 

Not to get ahead of myself, but if 134-9 is either replaced or an alternative to a newly created shall-issue statewide CCW law, PLEASE, do not forget about non-residents, if Hawaii doesn't want to recognize out of state licenses then perhaps they can have non-residents mail applications to the AG or the Department of Safety.

There is no residency requirement.  The only thing HPD said is that people need to apply in person, because they are going to see you sign the paperwork and print you.  That's what was told to me a while ago.   Technically, when I applied I was a non resident military.

All this legal stuff makes my brain hurt, but from what I can tell things are looking up. Thank you for all your hard work.

There is no residency requirement.  The only thing HPD said is that people need to apply in person, because they are going to see you sign the paperwork and print you.  That's what was told to me a while ago.   Technically, when I applied I was a non resident military.

Right. I was assuming if the state is forced to go shall issue and they adopted the bill that Sam Slom has been pushing for years. That bill requires residency. I was just thinking 3 steps ahead

I just hope they don't bounce your case due to Your LEOSA coverage.

I cant wait. Good job Funtimes. Just no get swell head. All this no mean we even LIKE you. Just kidding. Hang in there fella's. Good job.

is there an estimated time when Hawaii's case will be decided on?

Did a bit more reading on the decision today. 

By a 2-1 vote, the three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said California was wrong to require applicants to show good cause to receive a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

"The right to bear arms includes the right to carry an operable firearm outside the home for the lawful purpose of self-defense."  Judge O'Scannlain

Since Hawaii is a part of the 9th circuit like California, if this goes through, we'll have cc.  I doubt this will go to scotus.  If scotus were to go against this, it means all the other states with shall issue cc are incorrect.

is there an estimated time when Hawaii's case will be decided on?

Soon (tm).

Right. I was assuming if the state is forced to go shall issue and they adopted the bill that Sam Slom has been pushing for years. That bill requires residency. I was just thinking 3 steps ahead

I just hope they don't bounce your case due to Your LEOSA coverage.

I can say with 100% honesty I cannot carry yet. So it's not an issue.  Even if it was, it's still recommended by all agencies to get carry permits to avoid things like GFSZ etc.

Since Hawaii is a part of the 9th circuit like California, if this goes through, we'll have cc.  I doubt this will go to scotus. 

It probably will since the different circuit courts are coming to different conclusions about a federal constitutional right.  This is ripe for a supreme court decision to unify the different decisions.

If scotus were to go against this, it means all the other states with shall issue cc are incorrect.

Not necessarily.  It would mean it is up to the state to decide if you can carry.  If the supreme court rules that self defense outside the home is not a a right, the states can still allow carry, it just wouldn't be a right guaranteed bu the 2nd amendment.  The crux here is that Heller and MacDonald said that owning a gun in the home for self-defense is protected by the second amendment.   This case says that carrying a gun ("bearing arms") is also protected by the second amendment.  They basically say either open carry or conceal carry.  States have to allow one.  California and Hawaii allow neither.

Once again, I'll refer to Eugene Volokh's excellent analysis:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/02/13/more-on-the-reasoning-of-the-ninth-circuits-right-to-carry-a-gun-opinion/

If the court ruled a choice between concealed or open by choice of the State, How does that pan out? Meaning if a State decides concealed is all they will allow how does one conceal a rifle/shot gun? How is it they could conclude that at least one must be allowed, why not both are expected? That really makes no sense as it can be used to reduce the type of weapons that are carried while further adding to the illusion of an arms free society further exacerbating the intolerance of arms by hiding them. Whereas open carry will cause less people to want to carry...allowing only one form of carry enables the State to manipulate/infringe upon the second amendment in what ever direction they feel more inclined. They can either reduce the number of firearms in public by making them mandatory visible or continue exacerbating the arms intolerance through hiding their existence while disallowing rifles and shotguns. I see that part of the ruling as another form of long term eventual detriment to the carry amendment and flawed at its core with regard to potential alienation of rifles and shotguns (long guns). Perhaps the justice hadn't completely thought that part through to its inevitable end? Anyhow... I'm happy to see some adherence to our Constitution beginning to guide this matter. A rightful ruling overall.

If the court ruled a choice between concealed or open by choice of the State, How does that pan out? Meaning if a State decides concealed is all they will allow how does one conceal a rifle/shot gun? How is it they could conclude that at least one must be allowed, why not both are expected? That really makes no sense as it can be used to reduce the type of weapons that are carried while further adding to the illusion of an arms free society further exacerbating the intolerance of arms by hiding them. Whereas open carry will cause less people to want to carry...allowing only one form of carry enables the State to manipulate/infringe upon the second amendment in what ever direction they feel more inclined. They can either reduce the number of firearms in public by making them mandatory visible or continue exacerbating the arms intolerance through hiding their existence while disallowing rifles and shotguns. I see that part of the ruling as another form of long term eventual detriment to the carry amendment and flawed at its core with regard to potential alienation of rifles and shotguns (long guns). Perhaps the justice hadn't completely thought that part through to its inevitable end? Anyhow... I'm happy to see some adherence to our Constitution beginning to guide this matter. A rightful ruling overall.

Concealed carry is NEVER legal for long guns, only pistols & revolvers.  A long gun would merely have to be carried unloaded in a case for transport, or in places where open carry is legal, in a "non-aggressive, non-brandishing" manner.  Also, you couldn't walk around with one in, say, a guitar case, loaded and ready for use.

Open carry is not as "acceptable" in some places, as some people are nervous around a firearm hanging from someones belt or slung over their shoulder while standing in line at a checkout stand. 

Open carry can also make you a target.  A shooter could target you first if his intent is a mass shooting, or a thief could jump you to try and steal the gun.  Concealed carry would lessen those risks.

Most states that have Constitutional open carry do so for certain purposes in mind, such as wearing a handgun while hunting or working a section of land where natural predators may roam.  While open carry is legal in the city as well, for the reasons stated above, it might be wiser to choose concealment.

Lastly, in states with open carry, it is not necessary to have a permit.  Therefore, if you are visiting from out of state, haven't applied for CCW, and just don't carry all the time, open carry may be your only legal option if you wish to be armed. 

For example, I can carry in NC when I visit, but only openly at the moment.  When I receive my Maine non-resident CCW permit in the mail, I'll be legal to carry concealed in NC, too.  I liked having my pistol in the center console while I drove, especially long road trips, and then being able to clip it on my belt and walk from where I parked to where I was staying.  If I went out shopping or to a restaurant, I'd leave it in the trunk locked in a secured case.  I can't remember seeing anyone without a badge carrying openly in public.  CCW is so easy to obtain there, it just makes sense to get the permit and keep the gun out of plain view..

Any day now!!  The backlog for a Maine CCW permit has been horrible.  I sent the application in August, my payment cleared in October, and I was reading last week they had completed processing 5,000  backlogged applicant in January!     

I can say with 100% honesty I cannot carry yet. So it's not an issue.  Even if it was, it's still recommended by all agencies to get carry permits to avoid things like GFSZ etc.

You won't have to worry about FGFSZA in HI, you are licensed to possess a firearm simply by registering it.

In fact, that's why I only registered one of my guns in HI, because the state did a background check and licenses me to possess a gun by issuing me a registration certificate.