Article says that Kealoha has issued 183 ccw permits
Is that true?
I thought the number was more like 2 in the past 10 years.

Article says that Kealoha has issued 183 ccw permits
Is that true?
I thought the number was more like 2 in the past 10 years.

Those are the "unconcealed" licenses issued to those "engaged in the protection of life and property" (aka "security guards").

Interesting fact-based article!

Of course, emotional-based types will refuse to admit the facts because they would rather not live in a world that works in that way.

Like it or not, Hawaii is a part of America and is going to be held to the standard the rest of the Union is held too. Get over yourself kealoha

Like it or not, Hawaii is a part of America and is going to be held to the standard the rest of the Union is held too. Get over yourself kealoha

I agree. As part of the USA, Hawaii is bound by the Constitution just like every other state. Kealoha doesn't speak for all in HPD, but he does do his masters bidding.

I agree. As part of the USA, Hawaii is bound by the Constitution just like every other state. Kealoha doesn't speak for all in HPD, but he does do his masters bidding.

Unfortunately the second circuit, third circuit, and fourth circuit courts of appeal have already ruled that the states in those jurisdictions may deny CCW to anyone based upon some version of the "good cause"/"exceptional case"/"justifiable need" criteria (i.e. "no issue"). With the ninth circuit about to join that group by overruling Peruta en banc, a substantial portion of the country's highest level of the judiciary other than SCOTUS have recently ruled (and SCOTUS has denied cert and let stand) that the Constitution doesn't apply to bearing arms outside the home without government permission (and the near universal lack of granting permission by an entire state is just fine). Hawaii and the ninth circuit are really in the majority in terms of court rulings on this issue. Of course the vast majority (42) of the states themselves have elected to observe the Constitution re bearing arms, but the Hawaii legislature and executive bureaucracy will never (and I use that word knowingly) voluntarily allow CCW.

I think that CCW issuance and understanding is based on the knowledge of the voting population. Hawaii has a very low voter turnout and from my observations, "another person will take care of it" attitude. I think that's how a lot of liberal Democrats came into power as the people sold off their perspectives.

I think that CCW issuance and understanding is based on the knowledge of the voting population. Hawaii has a very low voter turnout and from my observations, "another person will take care of it" attitude. I think that's how a lot of liberal Democrats came into power as the people sold off their perspectives.

In today's litigious society, it's prudent to maintain a million or so in personal liability insurance, whether it's for injury on your property or CCW.

If you fire at an attacker and hit someone's property like a vehicle or, knock on wood, another person, you are responsible for any economic costs to that party.  You might be cleared of the shooting legally, but you still have to be able to pay for the consequences of firing your weapon.

You can always sue the estate of the deceased attacker to recover all those expenses...   

Even if the law doesn't require it, I would carry insurance on my own.

I think ren means issuance as opposed to insurance.

I think ren means issuance as opposed to insurance.

That too!

In today's litigious society, it's prudent to maintain a million or so in personal liability insurance, whether it's for injury on your property or CCW.

If you fire at an attacker and hit someone's property like a vehicle or, knock on wood, another person, you are responsible for any economic costs to that party.  You might be cleared of the shooting legally, but you still have to be able to pay for the consequences of firing your weapon.

You can always sue the estate of the deceased attacker to recover all those expenses...   

Even if the law doesn't require it, I would carry insurance on my own.

i thought the attacker is liable for damages caused in the course of defending yourself.

i thought the attacker is liable for damages caused in the course of defending yourself.

Good info about liability and the costs when hunting or in a defensive shooting.

https://www.locktonaffinity.com/nrains/excess.htm

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2014-01-11/news/ct-concealed-carry-shootings-insurance-met-3-20140111_1_insurance-policy-nra-homeowners-policies

some of the commenters (cough cough, Patricia Blair, John Kawamoto, Frank Di Giacomo and especially Richard C La Mont, who immediately ran and hid when his facts got destroyed) are super delusional.

I think that CCW issuance and understanding is based on the knowledge of the voting population. Hawaii has a very low voter turnout and from my observations, "another person will take care of it" attitude. I think that's how a lot of liberal Democrats came into power as the people sold off their perspectives.

Boy, you got that right.  Not specific to Hawaii, but in general.  Governance got so complex (largely due to not observing the Constitution in the first place) that most low-information voters just say the heck with it and vote with their bellies instead of their brains.  If they vote at all, they follow the "Gimmie-gimmie" party's line.

That is, whomever promises the most pie in the sky.

I believe the Supreme court is trying to dance with two partners, one being "State's Rights," the other being "Incorporation of the Bill of Rights to the States."

Sometimes it seems like they just tend to embrace whichever partner has the lowest-cut evening gown.

Terry

Reading the comments of the article,  I find it extremely interesting that the "most tolerant" people are actually the most anti-freedom people when you get right down to it. 

.

I think one of the biggest hurdles to less stringent gun laws is the general public perception of gun owners.  A lot of people seem to be afraid of gun owners, and think they're all rednecks with trigger fingers (I have many friends and family like this, and I'm sure most of you do too).  Hell, I live in a condo building, and after getting constant judgmental stares whenever I walked to and from my car with a rifle bag, I finally stopped going to the range as often. 

The funny thing is though that everyone I've met through this site or on the range has been really laid back and chill. Unless and until we can get the popular support, there's no real hope of getting better laws passed.

On a related note, what's to stop someone from opening his own security guard firm, and to constantly be on the job protecting him or herself, or family and friends for that matter? 

new guy remarked.

It seems like the Progressive and Liberals (who stand on their soapboxes and champion for diversity and acceptance) are, ironically, the first and most vocal advocates against any idea which they personally or philosophically disagree with or which carries a message of self-reliance and self-autonomy.

Repeating myself, "Boy, you got that right."

new guy remarked.

Quote

    It seems like the Progressive and Liberals (who stand on their soapboxes and champion for diversity and acceptance) are, ironically, the first and most vocal advocates against any idea which they personally or philosophically disagree with or which carries a message of self-reliance and self-autonomy.

230RN remarked:

Repeating myself, "Boy, you got that right."

[Even more off-topic follows...] You mean like when the oh-so tolerant rant and rave, including death threats, when a pizza place owner says she wouldn't cater a gay wedding? See what happens when a guy goes into some musliim bakeries and asks to have a gay wedding cake made. I haven't heard of a single death threat being made to these muslim bakeries yet by the tolerant outraged. Go figure.

[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=RgWIhYAtan4]