So if the police chief thinks someone is suitable and proficient, what happens when that someone screws up, ie, shoots bystander instead of bad guy. Law suits galore, naming police chief, the department, the county. It is in his best interest not to issue a permit and avoid potential liability and the way the law is currently written, it is at the police chief's discretion. Until we become a shall issue state, which would remove the liability from the police chief, it's in his best interest not to issue them, regardless of his personal views on concealed carry.
Turn that around...
What happens when girl friend gets a TRO against boy friend, but boy friend keeps stalking. He's just obvious enough to terrorize, but smart enough to not get caught by police doing anything overtly against the TRO.
Girl friend buys a pistol, practices for weeks (uses a friend's pistol at the range until the 2 week wait is over), then takes the gun home.
She feels safe and happy at home, knowing her new protector is by her side.
However, she leaves for work, goes shopping, visits family, or has appointments ... she's totally paranoid! She sees the boy friend around every dark corner, behind every tinted car window, sitting across the street ... sometimes it's him, sometimes it's imagination.
One day, she finds her car tires flattened with knife cuts in the sidewalls. She goes to the police and asks for an application for CCW.
Four days later, she gets a letter from the police chief saying she failed to justify why she needs to carry a concealed weapon in public. The chief advises her to stay in populated, well-lit areas, keep her phone charged and on her, and call 911 if she feels she is in danger.
Two days later, they find her body. She was leaving work after a late night meeting. Even though she asked for the car and house keys back, she was not aware he'd made copies. Police say she was strangled by hand while facing her attacker, based on the marks on her neck.
Now, how much responsibility and liability do you think the police chief, the city, the county, and the state have in this? The girl friend had every right, and adequate justification, to carry a concealed pistol. Thanks to the policy of the Hawaii police departments, there is no such thing as a good enough justification. It's 100% subjective and assumes the applicants are all untrustworthy regardless of prior military, LE or private shooting experience.
You use the typical anti argument "what if she hits an innocent bystander?"
#1 - COPS hit innocent bystanders ALL THE TIME. You don;t see a march on city hall to ban COPS from carrying guns, right?
#2 - When someone is carrying concealed, they are very UNLIKELY to take a shot unless they are sure they can hit their target. It's just a fact. They know pulling the trigger means firing a bullet that can kill, and most are not secure enough in their skills under pressure to act too quickly. They are hesitant and careful. They know they can die if they don't get it right. they aren't panicking and shooting at anything that moves.
#3 - whether carrying concealed, driving a car, or walking across the street, there are no guarantees someone won't get hurt or killed. That's what we call "personal responsibility". If the license holder shoots someone else, then punish them if they did something wrong. You don't punish 100% of the people by taking away a right because a very small number of them might accidentally hurt or kill another person. Hell, if we used that logic, nobody would be flying, driving, riding a bus, roller skating, biking, selling knives, hammers, bows & arrows, poisons for pests and weeds, selling lawn mowers, selling sharp landscaping implements ... I think you get my drift.
In all things, there is some inherent risk. We work to minimize that risk. There is no way that anyone knows of to eliminate risk. That's how life works.
What we also know is people have a natural right to defend their lives against a threat. Removing that right because of a hypothetical risk is illogical and unconstitutional.