...
IN THE MEANTIME, Peruta is the law of the land and until overturned or at least stayed pending an appeal, it seems to me that NOW is the time to demand CCW "good cause" requirement to be eliminated to conform with the 9th Circuit court ruling.
...

{For those who may not watch the above video interview...] Ventura and Orange Counties have announced that they are conforming to the Peruta decision to allow "self defense" to be considered "good cause". Due to overwhelming demand for CCW permits the Orange County board of supervisors authorized $1.5 MILLION to hire 15 people to at least temporarily process the huge amount of paperwork coming in for the permits there.

Any guesses as to whether Hawaii would hire people to process the paperwork or just keep the normal staff and let it pile up for a year or two? The courts are going to be busy trying to knock down every unconstitutional rule or regulation or delay Hawaii will conjure up in order to continue to deny law-abiding citizens their natural, civil and Constitutionally-protected right to self defense by bearing arms. Then again, if Abercrombie gets the boot in November and we have some top down leadership, maybe things will change more quickly than it now appears.

The State of Hawaii & The Governor are not above the law. They must comply with 9th Fed. Court rulings i.e. Peruta.
My reasoning is that if we ask nicely for a CCW permit application that complies with Peruta, and the State of Hawaii declines, then file for a Writ of Mandamus and have a judge order it.

Due to overwhelming demand for CCW permits the Orange County board of supervisors authorized $1.5 MILLION to hire 15 people to at least temporarily process the huge amount of paperwork coming in for the permits there.

Wow, those are some cushy temp jobs.

Any guesses as to whether Hawaii would hire people to process the paperwork or just keep the normal staff and let it pile up for a year or two? The courts are going to be busy trying to knock down every unconstitutional rule or regulation or delay Hawaii will conjure up in order to continue to deny law-abiding citizens their natural, civil and Constitutionally-protected right to self defense by bearing arms. Then again, if Abercrombie gets the boot in November and we have some top down leadership, maybe things will change more quickly than it now appears.

If we just moved to "shall issue" (or better yet, "constitutional carry") those backups and delays shouldn't be a problem. Of course, if Hawaii goes in and makes it a drag out fight, we could see the same issues as California. We still have to wait for the Baker opinion to come out. There may be some more meat to it than just "see Peruta."

.

Wow, those are some cushy temp jobs.

At least the taxpayers are getting something for their money... which isn't the case for a substantial percentage of government expenditures...

If we just moved to "shall issue" (or better yet, "constitutional carry") those backups and delays shouldn't be a problem.

Well, no matter the wording of the "shall issue" or "Constitutional carry" provision, unless you believe in miracles there are going to be a significant number of hoops to jump through and pay for. No way is this current regime going to allow people to carry "arms" in public without erecting barricades and delays. FCS, Hawaii already has the f***ing longest "waiting period" by far, and the only place besides D.C. that has all encompassing pre-confiscation, I mean "registration", so unless all these bureaucrats have brain transplants, no matter what the courts rule, we'll be twiddling our unarmed thumbs for quite a while IMO.

Of course, if Hawaii goes in and makes it a drag out fight, we could see the same issues as California. We still have to wait for the Baker opinion to come out. There may be some more meat to it than just "see Peruta."

Really? Oh, crap. I was hoping for:

In light of our disposition of the same issue in Peruta v. County of San
Diego, No. 10-56971, — F.3d — (Feb. 13, 2014), we conclude that the district
court in this case erred in denying Richard’s Baker's motion for summary judgment
because the Yolo County Hawaii policy impermissibly infringes on the Second
Amendment right to bear arms in lawful self-defense.
REVERSED and REMANDED.

I am concerned about the judges questioning of the Baker attorney at the beginning of oral arguments as to what would happen even if they ruled for Baker and against Kealoha. I'd have to listen to it again, but even then I might not understand the legal ramifications for the rest of us firearms owners in Hawaii, much less those of us on islands other than Oahu. If someone knows exactly what they meant and how that would effect Hawaii law in general as opposed to just the plaintiff, I'd appreciate an explanation. 

In light of our disposition of the same issue in Peruta v. County of San
Diego, No. 10-56971, — F.3d — (Feb. 13, 2014), we conclude that the district
court in this case erred in denying Richard’s Baker's motion for summary judgment
because the Yolo County Hawaii policy impermissibly infringes on the Second
Amendment right to bear arms in lawful self-defense.
REVERSED and REMANDED.

I am concerned about the judges questioning of the Baker attorney at the beginning of oral arguments as to what would happen even if they ruled for Baker and against Kealoha. I'd have to listen to it again, but even then I might not understand the legal ramifications for the rest of us firearms owners in Hawaii, much less those of us on islands other than Oahu. If someone knows exactly what they meant and how that would effect Hawaii law in general as opposed to just the plaintiff, I'd appreciate an explanation. 

This is the State of Hawaii's lawyer: "Criminal's might be more likely to carry guns if they think their victims are armed"
Judge: : "But criminals aren't being issued permits! At least I don't believe they are."
State of Hawaii: "If their victims are being issued permits than the criminal is more likely to come with a gun too."

This has to be the most stupid circular logic I have ever heard!
Judge:   If the victim of has a permit the victim has a little more chance of surviving an attack.
State of Hawaii lawyer:  that is not what the empirical evidence that the State of Hawaii relied upon shows is true.

Judge: So even though I may have a right to self defense under the second amendment, Hawaii can tell me outside my home how I can be safest in exercising that right.
State of Hawaii: And how everyone can be safest. Yes your honor.

Anybody want to drink that Kool-aid?

Would be really nice if they remanded it, however after i listened to the Baker oral arguments, it seems that PROBLEM with Hawaii laws are so muddled and poorly conceived and executed, that the judges were trying to question the Baker lawyer about how the chief was or was not in compliance with a law at the same time they were asking about scrutiny levels. perhaps the laws were written this way so they could be interpreted any way  the State wished. Does the state get to determine that different levels of scrutiny the moment you step outside the home? It was all so damn muddled i would not be surprised if the judges STILL don't comprehend how the law is supposed to work. And THAT is why no ruling has been forthcoming on the Baker case even though it was argued & submitted 12-6-2012.

Peruta dealt exclusively with the County Sheriff's policy and not with the State codes. Therefore waiting for the Baker case to be reversed & remanded seems pointless if we limit our request to asking for a form that complies with Peruta instead of issuing an actual permit. Don't challenge the code, challenge the sheriff's permit policy.

GAO-12-717, Gun Control: States’ Laws and
Requirements for Concealed Carry Permits Vary Across the Nation.
Page 75 of the study, clearly shows that in all of Hawaii there are no active permits
Page 76 shows that in New Jersey there are 32,000 active permits

Baker lawyer therefore argues that for regular citizens the policy constitutes an absolute ban.

State of Hawaii lawyer:  that is not what the empirical evidence that the State of Hawaii relied upon shows is true.

I haven't read the Hawaii state documents to see who or what they "relied upon" as "empirical evidence", but I'd be willing to bet that it comes from the Brady Center etc., Mayors Against etc., Moms Demand etc., or some (medical) "researcher" bought and paid for by the Joyce Foundation, LCPGV, VPC, etc.

In the opening of the oral argument Baker attorney Richard Holcomb is questioned by the judges about a preliminary injunction and how that would relate to "abuse of discretion" by the lower court judge. Judge Thomas, who wrote the dissent in Peruta (and re-iterated his objections in affirming Richards)  says to Holcomb, "Your case is in a completely different posture" (compared to Peruta and Richards).

I'm curious to see not only what the court rules in Baker, but how wide or narrow the ruling is. I'm rooting for Baker, of course, and extra wide, but suspect it might be rather narrow. Just gotta wait and see. 

If there are issues with the legal Strategy in how the Baker case was pursued, and the judge implied that the lawyer may have "shot himself in the foot" I suggest coming at it from a different angle.
Ask for a CCW application form that complies with Peruta.  Ask for any CCW application form! WHEN they deny to do even that, that is completely unconstitutional on the face of it and citing Peruta & also Richards I can not imagine ANY judge not issuing a Writ of Mandamus if applied for in Superior court.

It is always hard to tell if the judges questions are because they likely to rule for or against your position.

.

What is a Writ of Mandamus?

Who can request one?

How does one go about filing for one?

Mandamus = mandate. A writ of Mandamus is a writ requiring a public official to either do something he is required to do or prohibit the public official from doing something.

Hire a lawyer and have him file in Superior Court.

.

So anyone can request a Writ of Mandamus?

Have to be represented by a lawyer to file anything in Superior court.

.

Thanks; last question... what is Superior Court?

It's where you end up if you carry a gun without a permit.

.