The U.S. District Court ruled last month that the D.C. law banning CCW was unconstitutional, and gave the City Council 90 days to either write a law allowing law-abiding citizens to carry in public, or appeal the ruling. There was initially talk of writing a law, but now it appear they will appeal. Note the weasel words used by the City Council chairperson wherein he indirectly suggests that, yes, only a 100% ban was declared unconstitutional, so if they were to create a law that banned only 99.9999999% of people from carrying, that would meet the criteria of the law ("... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"). That's his "gray area"! I'm posting this as what I suspect will be a preview of precisely what will happen in Hawaii (the only jurisdiction in the U.S. besides D.C. where no one has a CCW license) should Peruta/Prieto/Baker ever get resolved in favor of the Second Amendment and the state be forced to craft a law allowing actual ("shall issue") CCW. I really intensely dislike these people.

"What the court said very clearly was that a complete 100-percent ban on anybody being able to get a license to carry a handgun was unconstitutional. But there's a gray area between 100-percent ban and everybody can carry. And that's what we're working through."

Video report and text of the video by Emily Miller:

http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/26341727/mendelson-says-he-will-appeal-dc-gun-carry-ruling#.U_cwY3HyAYc.facebook

It will be interesting to see how the state appeals Baker, and their logic behind the appeal. I don't think they would be able to make the same argument as DC is doing, since very little of Hawaii could be even remotely considered "sensitive". Regardless, the 9th Circuit decision on granted the CA attorney general intervenor status could not come soon enough. If Peruta is overturned, Baker will be too.

It will be interesting to see how the state appeals Baker, and their logic behind the appeal. I don't think they would be able to make the same argument as DC is doing, since very little of Hawaii could be even remotely considered "sensitive". Regardless, the 9th Circuit decision on granted the CA attorney general intervenor status could not come soon enough. If Peruta is overturned, Baker will be too.

The transport laws all ostensiably deal with sensitive places. In Young I challenged those as well as the complete ban on rifle and shotgun carry in Hawaii.  Once an opinion has been render in that appeal then we will have a much better definition of what a sensitive place is.  Right now the Court have not really come up with a definition. 

The transport laws all ostensiably deal with sensitive places. In Young I challenged those as well as the complete ban on rifle and shotgun carry in Hawaii.  Once an opinion has been render in that appeal then we will have a much better definition of what a sensitive place is.  Right now the Court have not really come up with a definition.

What do you mean when talking about the transport laws?
I have been trying to figure out how they would draw the line on carrying the firearm on one's person vs carrying it to the place of target shooting, repair, place of work etc. There is nothing that I can find requiring you to own a vehicle to transport a firearm, so can someone reasonably walk a mile to the range with their unloaded firearm? What about taking it on the bus to go to work? Of course it would have to be unloaded and in a gun case.

What do you mean when talking about the transport laws?
I have been trying to figure out how they would draw the line on carrying the firearm on one's person vs carrying it to the place of target shooting, repair, place of work etc. There is nothing that I can find requiring you to own a vehicle to transport a firearm, so can someone reasonably walk a mile to the range with their unloaded firearm? What about taking it on the bus to go to work? Of course it would have to be unloaded and in a gun case.

Walking should be fine, but if you're really far from your destination prepare to be doubted. Realistically though, when's the last time you were searched by a cop when walking down the street? I never have been. I'd be more worried about being robbed (irony...)

Anecdotally, most buses/trains are not gun-friendly.

Not a lawyer.

just checked the bus website and had difficulty finding any list of rules. Not a very well designed site, at least not aesthetically. Nevermind, found it from a google search. Guns, firearms, and weapons are not mentioned.

carried a rifle with my motorcycle on H1 slung on my back , bagged of course (contoured shape). Cop drives by slams his brake and pulls around back follow for half a mile and them drives off.
when I meant slammed his brake , literally smoke came from the tires.

similar

carried a rifle with my motorcycle on H1 slung on my back , bagged of course (contoured shape). Cop drives by slams his brake and pulls around back follow for half a mile and them drives off.
when I meant slammed his brake , literally smoke came from the tires.

 

carried a rifle with my motorcycle on H1 slung on my back , bagged of course (contoured shape). Cop drives by slams his brake and pulls around back follow for half a mile and them drives off.
when I meant slammed his brake , literally smoke came from the tires.

 

carried a rifle with my motorcycle on H1 slung on my back , bagged of course (contoured shape). Cop drives by slams his brake and pulls around back follow for half a mile and them drives off.
when I meant slammed his brake , literally smoke came from the tires.

You should've fucked with him by pulling over and going through the nearest drive thru just see if he was willing to get some food and a soda to continue his pursuit.

carried a rifle with my motorcycle on H1 slung on my back , bagged of course (contoured shape). Cop drives by slams his brake and pulls around back follow for half a mile and them drives off.
when I meant slammed his brake , literally smoke came from the tires.

I bet he was trying to figure out if he had any reason or ability to stop you. But nothing in the law says you need to own a car to own a firearm.

I bet he was trying to figure out if he had any reason or ability to stop you. But nothing in the law says you need to own a car to own a firearm.

yeap
to and from the range

yeap
to and from the range

With no deviations for gas, bathroom relief, flat tire or mechanical problems, pick up a friend, etc. I'm glad you were able to avoid criminal activity that trip. 

With no deviations for gas, bathroom relief, flat tire or mechanical problems, pick up a friend, etc. I'm glad you were able to avoid criminal activity that trip. 

I was actually arrested when I have 18 with 4 guns in my car. this was at 2am in kalihi.
We were high schooler and went blasting away at tantalas dr.

Know what to say, when to say and remain silent, is what your maranda rights is all about. " I'm going to the KokoHead range in the morning", was all i said.

Good thing I had my targets, staplers, eyes and ears in my trunk, by the end they , the detective had to drop all charges and sent me home. Got my guns back too!!

"
hahahhaha!

I was actually arrested when I have 18 with 4 guns in my car. this was at 2am in kalihi.
We were high schooler and went blasting away at tantalas dr.

Know what to say, when to say and remain silent, is what your maranda rights is all about. " I'm going to the KokoHead range in the morning", was all i said.

Good thing I had my targets, staplers, eyes and ears in my trunk, by the end they , the detective had to drop all charges and sent me home. Got my guns back too!!

"
hahahhaha!

They didn't get you for shooting in a residential area or did you conveniently leave that part out?

With no deviations for gas, bathroom relief, flat tire or mechanical problems, pick up a friend, etc. I'm glad you were able to avoid criminal activity that trip. 

But the law doesn't say that...here's the text from the HRS:

[§134-24]  Place to keep unloaded firearms other than pistols and revolvers; penalty.  (a)  Except as provided in section 134-5, all firearms shall be confined to the possessor's place of business, residence, or sojourn; provided that it shall be lawful to carry unloaded firearms in an enclosed container from the place of purchase to the purchaser's place of business, residence, or sojourn, or between these places upon change of place of business, residence, or sojourn, or between these places and the following:
     (1)  A place of repair;

     (2)  A target range;

     (3)  A licensed dealer's place of business;

     (4)  An organized, scheduled firearms show or exhibit;

     (5)  A place of formal hunter or firearm use training or instruction; or

     (6)  A police station.

Note that this statue is for guns other than a pistol or handgun. That statue is similarly worded and is found under HRS 134.25
No where does it say "directly between" or that you cannot stop to get gas or a soda. Also note it doesn't say anything about going to the airport.

That being said, do we suggest that due to the "grey" nature of the wording and the overall restrictive nature of Hawaii's firearms laws, that one does indeed go directly between those specific places allowed? Yes, we do....

But the law doesn't say that...here's the text from the HRS:

Note that this statue is for guns other than a pistol or handgun. That statue is similarly worded and is found under HRS 134.25
No where does it say "directly between" or that you cannot stop to get gas or a soda. Also note it doesn't say anything about going to the airport.

That being said, do we suggest that due to the "grey" nature of the wording and the overall restrictive nature of Hawaii's firearms laws, that one does indeed go directly between those specific places allowed? Yes, we do....

If that language does not mean "directly", then any number of stops or detours would be legal, including the fact that since you are always eventually heading back to your residence or place of sojourn it would be legal to have your firearm with you all the time. I'm pretty sure that's not how the law is interpreted, but I'd like to hear of any cases of prosecution or non-prosecution.

If I remember correctly, in the Baker case oral arguments the attorney for Baker claimed before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that if one was heading to the police station with a firearm for registration and made a turn onto another street not leading directly to the police station, that one had committed a class C felony (which implies the law means "directly, without deviation or stops at any other location").

I believe that much of the issue about making stops en route to an approved location stems from New Jersey's firearms transportation laws, where you cannot make ANY deviations. In NJ if you stop for gas, food, etc its an automatic felony. Considering how anti-gun this state is, I don't want to be the test case. While it doesn't say "directly between" in the HRS, it also doesn't say that you can make any intermediate stops between your home/sojourn and the approved locations. As usual, discretion is on the DA to press charges.

If that language does not mean "directly", then any number of stops or detours would be legal, including the fact that since you are always eventually heading back to your residence or place of sojourn it would be legal to have your firearm with you all the time. I'm pretty sure that's not how the law is interpreted, but I'd like to hear of any cases of prosecution or non-prosecution.

If I remember correctly, in the Baker case oral arguments the attorney for Baker claimed before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that if one was heading to the police station with a firearm for registration and made a turn onto another street not leading directly to the police station, that one had committed a class C felony (which implies the law means "directly, without deviation or stops at any other location").

Baker may have argued that point, but I don't believe the court either affirmed the interpretation or expanded on the courts immediate definition. As mentioned, other states (New Jersey) have language that is unambiguous about going directly between those places it is legal to have a firearm. In 2009 a man was arrested at LAX with several guns. He had a legal California "Assault weapon" and California has more strict laws on transporting an "assault weapon" saying that you cannot stop anywhere en route to your legal destination with said assault weapon. Long story short, he was aquitted of any charges related to transporting his "assault weapon."

The point being, that the statutory language isn't clear on whether or not it is legally permissible to stop while otherwise legally transporting firearms in Hawaii. The strict interpretation, IMHO, is that it does not. In reality, we know that at least one person was arrested at Ala Moana for having guns in his vehicle after visiting a range and I know of at least one instance where a police officer told a person carrying guns to stop and get gas because it would be worse to run out of gas than to stop....