Based on recent reports by all major news outlets, it would seem that all military personnel have been targeted by the known dangerous organization ISIS. Based on this states requirement to show "justification" for a CCW, shouldn't this be enough? It doesn't get more clear than the U.S. Government saying this is a credible threat to all U.S. Forces. We are not talking about an angry boyfriend or pissed off neighbor. This is an organized terrorist organization. Thoughts?

All of the recent incidents of Americans being beheaded and shot by ISIS and others in the name of Islam (Oklahoma woman beheaded at work, NY ax attack by converted Muslim, ...) have not been active military.

Need to expand the population needing CCW to ALL Americans facing this real and present danger.

Statistically you're at much higher risk of dying from so many other things than being murdered by an Islamic terrorist in your own country.  This, however, does not mean you will not encounter a different version of that violent threat, and you'll be glad you were armed at that moment!

.

All of the recent incidents of Americans being beheaded and shot by ISIS and others in the name of Islam (Oklahoma woman beheaded at work, NY ax attack by converted Muslim, ...) have not been active military.

Need to expand the population needing CCW to ALL Americans facing this real and present danger.

Statistically you're at much higher risk of dying from so many other things than being murdered by an Islamic terrorist in your own country.  This, however, does not mean you will not encounter a different version of that violent threat, and you'll be glad you were armed at that moment!

Although you are correct, that does not change the fact that the law requires justification. If a DOD and FBI warning doesn't meet the intent of the law, then what does? In my opinion, you will not find better justification than this. Although people face threats everyday from ex lovers or people close to them that are real and result in loss of life, they are often hard to prove as there is no proof other than word of mouth. An FBI warning, in the other hand, is as credible as it gets.

Although you are correct, that does not change the fact that the law requires justification. If a DOD and FBI warning doesn't meet the intent of the law, then what does? In my opinion, you will not find better justification than this. Although people face threats everyday from ex lovers or people close to them that are real and result in loss of life, they are often hard to prove as there is no proof other than word of mouth. An FBI warning, in the other hand, is as credible as it gets.

We discussed this topic at length on another thread.  My suggestion was that we create a network of "verifiable threats" so that you threaten me, I threaten Q, and so on. There is just enough evidence to warrant a carry permit, but not enough evidence to identify the threat-maker!   

Anonymous threats are just as real as those from a known wacko.   

We didn't make the rules, but if they need justification, I think we can handle that!!

Although you are correct, that does not change the fact that the law requires justification. If a DOD and FBI warning doesn't meet the intent of the law, then what does?

Simple: Nothing. All you need to do is look at the practice of the county police chiefs: no one in a long long time (maybe one person in 2006) has been able to demonstrate that they personally are an "exceptional case". If no person who has had a specific threat against themselves has ever been granted a license, certainly they won't grant one to someone in the military just because military personnel in general "may" be subject to attack by enemies of the United States. The bottom line is that they don't care one whit about our natural, civil, fundamental right to self-defense outside the home, even though they've sworn an oath to uphold constitutions (U.S. and Hawaii) that guarantee that government cannot infringe on those rights to bear arms (not just firearms, but certain knives, "stun guns", tasers, pepper spray over 1/2 ounce, etc. They nokea.

Simple: Nothing. All you need to do is look at the practice of the county police chiefs: no one in a long long time (maybe one person in 2006) has been able to demonstrate that they personally are an "exceptional case". If no person who has had a specific threat against themselves has ever been granted a license, certainly they won't grant one to someone in the military just because military personnel in general "may" be subject to attack by enemies of the United States. The bottom line is that they don't care one whit about our natural, civil, fundamental right to self-defense outside the home, even though they've sworn an oath to uphold constitutions (U.S. and Hawaii) that guarantee that government cannot infringe on those rights to bear arms (not just firearms, but certain knives, "stun guns", tasers, pepper spray over 1/2 ounce, etc. They nokea.

4 people on two islands have gotten CCW permits since 2000, per the AG's yearly report.

.

4 people on two islands have gotten CCW permits since 2000, per the AG's yearly report.

Do you have the number issued by year?  If they are averaging one every 3 years, 2015 will see CCW #5!

WOO HOO!!!

 

Do you have the number issued by year?  If they are averaging one every 3 years, 2015 will see CCW #5!

WOO HOO!!!

 

2001: 10 applied, 2 approved and issued licenses "by respective police chiefs" [islands not stated]..

2006 1 issued Kauai

2013: 7 denials C&C Honolulu;1 issued Kauai

[It makes one really ugly graph...]

 <img src="http://www.chartgo.com/link.do?id=91940cd8aa" title="ChartGo.com" alt="Online Graphing" border="0" /></a><br /> <a href="http://www.ChartGo.com" >chart</a>

2001: 10 applied, 2 approved and issued licenses "by respective police chiefs" [islands not stated]..

2006 1 issued Kauai

2013: 7 denials C&C Honolulu;1 issued Kauai

[It makes one really ugly graph...]

 <img src="http://www.chartgo.com/link.do?id=91940cd8aa" title="ChartGo.com" alt="Online Graphing" border="0" /></a><br /> <a href="http://www.ChartGo.com" >chart</a>

Based on that graph, if the pattern is consistent, we won't see another issued until 2022 ...   

Where did you aquire the stats?  I know that Funtimes had a CCW permit drive.  There had to be more denied applications than what you are showing.   or did they just shed 'em?

Based on recent reports by all major news outlets, it would seem that all military personnel have been targeted by the known dangerous organization ISIS. Based on this states requirement to show "justification" for a CCW, shouldn't this be enough? It doesn't get more clear than the U.S. Government saying this is a credible threat to all U.S. Forces. We are not talking about an angry boyfriend or pissed off neighbor. This is an organized terrorist organization. Thoughts?

http://www.guns.com/2014/12/04/state-moves-to-exempt-active-military-from-concealed-carry-requirements/

State moves to exempt active military from concealed carry requirements

As part of an overall reform to Ohio’s concealed carry guidelines, lawmakers have amended a pending gun bill to allow active duty military in the state to carry without a permit.

http://www.guns.com/2014/12/04/state-moves-to-exempt-active-military-from-concealed-carry-requirements/

State moves to exempt active military from concealed carry requirements

As part of an overall reform to Ohio’s concealed carry guidelines, lawmakers have amended a pending gun bill to allow active duty military in the state to carry without a permit.

Makes sense to me. Although I would still like to see some sort of permit process that requires a basic handgun safety course. Not all military personnel get handgun training.

Where did you aquire the stats?  I know that Funtimes had a CCW permit drive.  There had to be more denied applications than what you are showing.   or did they just shed 'em?

Attorney General Special Reports 2003-2012 Release Dates

http://ag.hawaii.gov/cpja/rs/specialrpts2003_2012/

Special Reports: 2013-2014 Release Dates

http://ag.hawaii.gov/cpja/rs/specialrpts2013/

The CCW license stats are on the last or second to last page of each report. I didn't include the total applications, but here they are (as reported):

2000: 1 application (app) / denial
2001: 10 apps, 2 approved
2002: 4 apps
2003: 1 app
2004: 5 apps
2005: 6 apps
2006: 1 approved
2007: 7 apps
2008: 1 apps
2009: 3 apps
2010: 3 apps
2011: 8 apps
2012: 5 apps
2013: 8 apps, 1 approved

Sometimes the island of application and/or denial is mentioned, sometimes not. I have no idea if the AG office guarantees the accuracy of these numbers.

 

Based on that graph, if the pattern is consistent, we won't see another issued until 2022 ...   

Ironic that that is just about the same time Peruta will be wrapping up...

http://www.guns.com/2014/12/04/state-moves-to-exempt-active-military-from-concealed-carry-requirements/

State moves to exempt active military from concealed carry requirements

As part of an overall reform to Ohio’s concealed carry guidelines, lawmakers have amended a pending gun bill to allow active duty military in the state to carry without a permit.

I don't see anything in the legislation (but I just glanced through the lengthy small print legalese) waiving the current Ohio minimum age of 21 for CCW.

Makes sense to me. Although I would still like to see some sort of permit process that requires a basic handgun safety course. Not all military personnel get handgun training.

Part of the bill reads; (ii) That, through participation in the military service or through the former employment described in division (B)(3)(d)(i) of this section, the applicant acquired experience with handling handguns or other firearms, and the experience so acquired was equivalent to training that the applicant could have acquired in a course, class, or program described in division (B)(3)(a), (b), or (c) of this section.

So I guess they took that into consideration.

I still feel that some sort of documentation should be required. To say that every 18 year old military member is qualified to CCW is an assumption I would not be comfortable with. I would still like to see proof of a course as documented by a permit. Just my opinion. 

And to that end, I would feel differently if all states were gun friendly and you could reasonably expect that most people had been exposed to the safe handling of firearms prior to joining the military.

I still feel that some sort of documentation should be required. To say that every 18 year old military member is qualified to CCW is an assumption I would not be comfortable with. I would still like to see proof of a course as documented by a permit. Just my opinion. 

And to that end, I would feel differently if all states were gun friendly and you could reasonably expect that most people had been exposed to the safe handling of firearms prior to joining the military.

(d) A document[/color] that evidences both of the following:


(i) That the applicant is an active or reserve member of the armed forces of the United States, has retired from or was honorably discharged from military service in the active or reserve armed forces of the United States, is a retired trooper of the state highway patrol, or is a retired peace officer or federal law enforcement officer described in division (B)(1) of this section or a retired person described in division (B)(1)(b) of section 109.77 of the Revised Code and division (B)(1) of this section;


(ii) That, through participation in the military service or through the former employment described in division (B)(3)(d)(i) of this section, the applicant acquired experience with handling handguns or other firearms, and the experience so acquired was equivalent to training that the applicant could have acquired in a course, class, or program described in division (B)(3)(a), (b), or (c) of this section.

Maybe you can look at the Bill, there's a link in the article.