I'm a bit confused, todays win for Chris means that we can apply and possibly be able to get a ccw here in Hawaii?  that Hawaii will be a shall issue state?  would the win help for ccw or or open carry or both?  What exactly does the win mean for the rest of us right now?   I know Chris said April for the other case to finally come to a decision but does anyone know when change may happen in Hawaii (did anything really change yet and/or when might we actually see a change if ever?)?

Job well done. Many thanks to all, fighting the good fight. 

I'm a bit confused, todays win for Chris means that we can apply and possibly be able to get a ccw here in Hawaii?  that Hawaii will be a shall issue state?  would the win help for ccw or or open carry or both?  What exactly does the win mean for the rest of us right now?   I know Chris said April for the other case to finally come to a decision but does anyone know when change may happen in Hawaii (did anything really change yet and/or when might we actually see a change if ever?)?

My rough (and probably somewhat wrong) understanding of this is that when Chris went to court initially, he filed a request for an injunction preventing HPD from enforcing the arbitrary "May Issue" rules and issue him a concealed carry permit.  His injunction was denied.  He appealed to the 9th circuit. A three judge panel heard the case and, today,  and decided to vacate he lower court's ruling on 2nd Amendment grounds.  A couple of weeks ago, they decided the Peruta case which said basically that a state has to offer either open carry or concealed carry.  Chris's decision built on Peruta.   But California is trying to appeal Peruta to the entire 9th circuit. 

Chris's comment is that whichever way Peruta goes, so goes his case.   If the 9th circuit does not hear Peruta "en banc", which could be for any number of reasons, I assume the judge  hearing Chris's case will issue an injunction.  That's the moment to apply for a CCW.  And/Or the Supreme Court takes Peruta or another case and finally decides the issue of "bearing arms". 

So, in short if Peruta and Chris's case stand, Hawaii will have to decide if it wants concealed carry or open carry and pretty much become a shall issue for whichever one (or both) that they choose.

Hope this helps.  Disclaimer: this is my understanding which is almost certainly not 100% correct. 

.

There's a video on HNN if you wanna check it out

http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/25033588/hawaii-man-to-get-2nd-shot-at-gun-license-request

My rough (and probably somewhat wrong) understanding of this is that when Chris went to court initially, he filed a request for an injunction preventing HPD from enforcing the arbitrary "May Issue" rules and issue him a concealed carry permit.  His injunction was denied.  He appealed to the 9th circuit. A three judge panel heard the case and, today,  and decided to vacate he lower court's ruling on 2nd Amendment grounds.  A couple of weeks ago, they decided the Peruta case which said basically that a state has to offer either open carry or concealed carry.  Chris's decision built on Peruta.   But California is trying to appeal Peruta to the entire 9th circuit. 

Chris's comment is that whichever way Peruta goes, so goes his case.   If the 9th circuit does not hear Peruta "en banc", which could be for any number of reasons, I assume the judge  hearing Chris's case will issue an injunction.  That's the moment to apply for a CCW.  And/Or the Supreme Court takes Peruta or another case and finally decides the issue of "bearing arms". 

So, in short if Peruta and Chris's case stand, Hawaii will have to decide if it wants concealed carry or open carry and pretty much become a shall issue for whichever one (or both) that they choose.

Hope this helps.  Disclaimer: this is my understanding which is almost certainly not 100% correct.

ok, that makes sense to me.  thanks for the info

I'm a bit confused, todays win for Chris means that we can apply and possibly be able to get a ccw here in Hawaii?  that Hawaii will be a shall issue state?  would the win help for ccw or or open carry or both?  What exactly does the win mean for the rest of us right now?   I know Chris said April for the other case to finally come to a decision but does anyone know when change may happen in Hawaii (did anything really change yet and/or when might we actually see a change if ever?)?

It could take a few months, it could take a few years depending which way the appeals go.

Great news!  Thank you Chris Baker and your team.  Finally a step forward for this state.

Thank you Chris and your great team for tirelessly fighting for our fundamental rights.Step closer to our goals.Long live 2A . 

A BIG mahalo to Alan, Richard and Chris for all their efforts in this long drawn out battle....

Many thanks to all involved, the attorneys Mr. Holcomb, Mr. Beck, their team and to Chris! Chris thanks for taking on the system for the good of all, thanks for this site and for the HDF.

Gentlemen of the Baker team, thank you! Whenever you're in town the beers are on me! Shots too!

You guys rock. 

+2
 

aieahound I think you typed your message inside my quote so it looks like I am double quoted or someone else's quote got miss associated to me.

 


also good luck with ares armor

An interesting article from guns.com on this case.   Quotes Max Cooper of HRA who says its time for more people to apply for CCW permits...

http://www.guns.com/2014/03/21/aloha-federal-court-strikes-hawaiis-may-issue-practice-unconstitutional/

Assuming that the legal hurdles are all resolved (however quickly that happens), the state will then get to legislate procedures for this new philosophy.  Which probably means waiting a year after the courts finally say "Yep, we're done."

Assuming that the legal hurdles are all resolved (however quickly that happens), the state will then get to legislate procedures for this new philosophy.  Which probably means waiting a year after the courts finally say "Yep, we're done."

perhaps.  But in Illinois, the courts gave a (relatively short) time limit and the legislature had to scramble to enact the CCW law. 

Assuming that the legal hurdles are all resolved (however quickly that happens), the state will then get to legislate procedures for this new philosophy.  Which probably means waiting a year after the courts finally say "Yep, we're done."

Considering that SB2938, the bill to allow the first step of a handgun application for a "permit to acquire" to be done online (which could easily been done via phone right now) was only for a "working group" to study the question, and that it would have been composed of 83% outspoken opponents of such a process, AND that EVEN THAT measly bill to study a process was not even given a hearing in the current committee assignment and has thus died (aka "been deferred"), we can only imagine what hurdles this legislature and law enforcement will create before they will actually respect a court's decision that citizens are allowed to "bear" a functional handgun outside the home for self defense. I'm pretty sure I'm going to be saying lots of bad words in a really loud and nasty tone of voice when I read about various legislators' specific proposed legislation to attempt to continue to subvert the Constitution.

Assuming that the legal hurdles are all resolved (however quickly that happens), the state will then get to legislate procedures for this new philosophy.  Which probably means waiting a year after the courts finally say "Yep, we're done."

I was thinking the same thing. The current legislative session ends in May, so a realistic time frame for hashing out the new law would be sometime next year. And that's if everything else goes unchallenged.

perhaps.  But in Illinois, the courts gave a (relatively short) time limit and the legislature had to scramble to enact the CCW law.

My bad... DUH, it was Moore v. Madigan that dealt with Illinois CCW, not McDonald.

Date of McDonald v. Chicago decision: June 28, 2010 Moore v. Madigan decision: December 11, 2012

Date of Illinois issuing first CCW license: March 1, 2014

By my calculations, that's approximately THREE YEARS AND EIGHT MONTHS. Imagine how long it would have taken had they not been "scrambling"! 15 MONTHS... not bad at all, considering how legislatures work. That did include some court ordered "deadlines" and the "deadline extensions".

Peruta litigator Chuck Michel believes that case will be taken en banc, and then take between 6 months and two years to render a decision. IF it's upheld, maybe Hawaii CCW issues by 2020 2016-17.?! I'll be REALLY a bit old[er] by then!  That's assuming that IF it is upheld, that it isn't appealed to SCOTUS and accepted there, and upheld there. Add two years.

Let's hope SCOTUS takes Drake next month and settles this issue favorably in the fall of this year for the whole country, which last I checked includes even Hawaii.

Chris - Congratulations!!

Mr. Holcomb and Mr. Beck - Thanks for your expertise and persistence.

+1