Hello all,

I was looking for folks to provide some advice
In regards to applying for concealed carry, should we do it now? I have some kind of list if found that I beleive fun times made IRT applying, all I need to complete the packet are my passport photos and my weapons and security qualifications from my old ship. Any guidance for what we should do next would be awesome. Thank you.


-Rico

Hello all,

I was looking for folks to provide some advice
In regards to applying for concealed carry, should we do it now? I have some kind of list if found that I beleive fun times made IRT applying, all I need to complete the packet are my passport photos and my weapons and security qualifications from my old ship. Any guidance for what we should do next would be awesome. Thank you.


-Rico

FWIW, HRA is now recommending people apply

FWIW, HRA is now recommending people apply

spoke to several of the HRA bigwigs this week
they noted that harvey has been recommending people apply for years now
his recommendation did not change due to the baker decision
HRA wants HPD to know there is a demand, and that's why they have been saying this

personally, i am waiting to get the go-ahead from funtimes and wolfwood
what you do is your own personal decision

spoke to several of the HRA bigwigs this week
they noted that harvey has been recommending people apply for years now
his recommendation did not change due to the baker decision
HRA wants HPD to know there is a demand, and that's why they have been saying this

personally, i am waiting to get the go-ahead from funtimes and wolfwood
what you do is your own personal decision

Just as an aside, I've noted that some people do not recommend (at least in the past) that you apply for a Hawaii CCW because, as we all know, you will be denied, and that if you apply for out-of-state CCW licenses in places like Utah, Florida, etc. they ask if you have ever applied for and been denied a CCW. Perhaps they know and discount the fact that NO ONE in Hawaii is ever granted a license, but maybe that denial will count against you in their process anyway, since you might actually have some disqualifying characteristic and the Hawaii police chiefs do not issue a document that states the reason for the denial, just denial. If you have no intention of ever applying for out-of-state CCWs in order to gain reciprocity then you have nothing to lose. Who knows, maybe in the next few days all the Hawaii police chiefs will issue a joint statement saying that they are following the lead of several California county sheriffs who have decided to abide by Peruta (which rules Baker) and are issuing CCWs based solely upon request for self defense.    

Just as an aside, I've noted that some people do not recommend (at least in the past) that you apply for a Hawaii CCW because, as we all know, you will be denied, and that if you apply for out-of-state CCW licenses in places like Utah, Florida, etc. they ask if you have ever applied for and been denied a CCW. Perhaps they know and discount the fact that NO ONE in Hawaii is ever granted a license, but maybe that denial will count against you in their process anyway, since you might actually have some disqualifying characteristic and the Hawaii police chiefs do not issue a document that states the reason for the denial, just denial. If you have no intention of ever applying for out-of-state CCWs in order to gain reciprocity then you have nothing to lose. Who knows, maybe in the next few days all the Hawaii police chiefs will issue a joint statement saying that they are following the lead of several California county sheriffs who have decided to abide by Peruta (which rules Baker) and are issuing CCWs based solely upon request for self defense.    

yeah, this is another of the reasons why i haven't applied in the past either

on a side note, all the instructors i talked to were saying that tons of people were asking when CCW classes start

on a side note, all the instructors i talked to were saying that tons of people were asking when CCW classes start

Yeah, if only the rights of the citizens and the Constitution counted for anything around here...

If Hawaii does go ahead and "agree" with our constitutional 2a rights, will it include reciprocity ?   

Previous denials have no bearing on your ability to get a license in another place. It's all FUD from people who don't have a clue about what they are speaking of.

If Hawaii does go ahead and "agree" with our constitutional 2a rights, will it include reciprocity ?   

If you have to ask, then you likely already know the answer to your question ;-).

I think reciprocity will come from the federal level.

If you have to ask, then you likely already know the answer to your question ;-).

I think reciprocity will come from the federal level.

  No I did not know.
Was not sure if Peruta case affected/included CA's rules regarding reciprocity.

If you have to ask, then you likely already know the answer to your question ;-).

I think reciprocity will come from the federal level.

In general, that is determined by each state AG.  Variables include set requirements for issue (any training requirements like: classroom time, range time, military experience acknowledged,then the logistical items like:  fingerprints, what/if any form of permit/license will look like and then the infrastructure for producing and issuing like drivers license style in some states with photo or plain paper as in other states with no photo and so on).  Some states meet or exceed the requirements of others which is why some recognize some others while not recognizing others.  Each state AG must sign an agreement with those other AG's they wish to have reciprocity with....it only counts if BOTH AG's agree and sign.  Some AG's decide they will only recognize state residents (like CO for example).  The state AG sets policy on this and until such is done, I think it would be a waste of time to flood HPD with a stack of denials "pending policy".

Federal Reciprocity or the National CHL/CHP/CWL/CWP or whatever it'll be called is a touchy subject as it can easily become a very sharp double edged sword.  Recognized across the country regardless of state residency can have its perks when traveling from state to state for business or vacations and such.  However, being in a National database is the other side of that coin....with a USAG like Holder....a very bad thing.

When word comes down that we need to apply, we should make a concerted effort. Perhaps we could organize a apply for CCW sign up day.

When word comes down that we need to apply, we should make a concerted effort. Perhaps we could organize a apply for CCW sign up day.

there's definitely gonna be a group signup day
we had like 5 guys on thursday that wanted to go down with a copy of the baker brief and apply on friday
and that was out of less than 10 people

The best bet is to wait until it is confirmed.  Don't wanna waste time going there yet.  I'm sure Chris and his attorney will update everyone when info is received.  The group application day sounds interesting. 

there's definitely gonna be a group signup day
we had like 5 guys on thursday that wanted to go down with a copy of the baker brief and apply on friday
and that was out of less than 10 people

I was going to take Baker, Peruta, and McDonald, but figured they couldn't care less, since they haven't cared about things being unconstitutional so far. Not sure showing them any paper would have the slightest influence, though I suspect I can guess the reactions of the clerks in the office here:  Besides, we don't have any forms to fill out here, we are supposed to write a letter to the chief of police... how's that for a formal legal process?

With regard to permits CCW post Baker, as I have suggested before, limit the request to a CCW FORM that COMPLIES with Peruta, Richards, & Baker.

IF they refuse the first step of providing a form that complies with the law, then legal action is indicated, possibly filing for a writ of mandamus that they provide the form.

Point is to limit the scope of your request to make refusal clearly unconstitutional.

You could wait for Peruta to shake out final appeal filings in the 9th Circuit for a couple weeks.

With regard to permits CCW post Baker, as I have suggested before, limit the request to a CCW FORM that COMPLIES with Peruta, Richards, & Baker.

IF they refuse the first step of providing a form that complies with the law [my emphasis], then legal action is indicated, possibly filing for a writ of mandamus that they provide the form.

Point is to limit the scope of your request to make refusal clearly unconstitutional.

You could wait for Peruta to shake out final appeal filings in the 9th Circuit for a couple weeks.

None of those cases are currently legally binding, so asking for a form that complies with them is meaningless, as I'm sure the police department would tell you (perhaps stifling a laugh), or maybe they'd just make "no comment". Baker has simply been "vacated and remanded" (it was not "reversed") to the Hawaii District Court to make a new ruling consistent with Peruta. I.e. the ruling could conform to the Peruta dictates, but still find for Kealoha for other reasons.

Peruta litigator Chuck Michel is convinced that Peruta will be taken en banc and has stated that that process, if granted, could take 6 months to two years, so at this point waving a copy of the Baker "vacate and remand" decision wouldn't likely impress or influence anyone in the county police departments to issue anyone a CCW license, nor would their denial of such a license request seem to be unlawful because the law is now the same as it has been, and will continue to be until either the District Court of Hawaii issues a new ruling contradicting their previous ruling, or Peruta is finalized one way or another and "shall issue" is determined by that ruling to be mandated for all the Ninth Circuit jurisdictions. But, of course, I am not a lawyer... so you can pretty much ignore everything I wrote... 

waving a copy of the Baker "vacate and remand" decision wouldn't likely impress or influence anyone in the county police departments to issue anyone a CCW license, nor would their denial of such a license request seem to be unlawful because the law is now the same as it has been, and will continue to be until either the District Court of Hawaii issues a new ruling contradicting their previous ruling, or Peruta is finalized one way or another and "shall issue" is determined by that ruling to be mandated for all the Ninth Circuit jurisdictions. But, of course, I am not a lawyer... so you can pretty much ignore everything I wrote... 

That is why I limited my request to demanding the FORM to apply, not that a permit be issued.

As far as whether or not En Banc review will happen, anyone who claims to know that is just guessing.

Previous denials have no bearing on your ability to get a license in another place. It's all FUD from people who don't have a clue about what they are speaking of.

Sometimes it does. If the denial was based on some disqualification (mental issue, conviction, restraining order, etc.), answering affirmative to the question usually gets a closer look during the review of the application.

Other than that, I think it's a silly question to have on an application because any serious issue should come up during a background check. 

That is why I limited my request to demanding the FORM to apply, not that a permit be issued.

Oh, you meant they need to provide a form that conforms to current law, not conforms to something that might happen in the future re Peruta, Richards, and Baker? You're saying they don't have a form or process that currently conforms to current law? Because that wouldn't seem to be your meaning when you wrote: "...limit the request to a CCW FORM that COMPLIES with Peruta, Richards, & Baker." Why would they have a form conforming to rulings that are not (finalized) law? Baker hasn't even been reversed (yet). I guess they could do it out of the goodness of their hearts (like some of the sheriffs in California counties have), but since the police and attorney general's office here testify against any and every minuscule movement in the direction of Constitutional and/or rational evidence-based firearms laws, I rather doubt it.

As far as whether or not En Banc review will happen, anyone who claims to know that is just guessing.

I never used the word "know" in describing Peruta litigator Chuck Michel's view on the matter, I wrote "convinced". I was paraphrasing him and ought to have said "believes there is a strong likelihood". His belief is based upon his familiarity with the situation and the fact that Richards has asked for en banc. Michel also believes that Hawaii will ask for en banc. I guess we'll see how accurate his beliefs are. He'll be filing the response in opposition to Cal AG Harris's intervenor (sp?) status on the 25th or 26th I believe. If the court grants her that status, she will ask for en banc, and that would be another party asking for that. Not that all the parties asking for it couldn't all be denied, but Michel suggested that if there are three parties calling for en banc that that fact might influence at least putting en banc up for a vote.

Like I said, I hope SCOTUS takes Drake and settles this in the fall of this year.