.

i guess the question is, "is a tent on the kapalama canal a place of sojourn?"

Lots of courts have held that someone living in a cardboard box on the street has an expectation of privacy.  They are protected against illegal searches and seizure by the Constitution in spite of the apparently open and publicly accessible location they might keep their stuff.  A "home" doesn't require four permanent walls and a ceiling to qualify as a residence. 

Of course, in the minds of Democrat lawmakers and judges, voting rights, free speech, and the right to privacy are important, whereas the right to bear arms is out-of-date and has no place in today's "modern, enlightened, and civilized" country!

There are even more fed Leo's then one would think doing many undercover operations sometimes without hpd knowledge. There is a pucker factor, I would assume, but if I were a ccw holder and uniformed officers came with weapons drawn on everyone they are now in control of the scene so I'd obey their commands.

This is true. A plain clothes or under cover or off duty officer is always going to have to obey the uniformed officer because if they don't and make a movement the uniformed guy will be within his rights for self defense shooting.

A CHL holder defended himself against a charging attacker at point blank range.  Got him in the stomach and the perps fled.  After that the victim placed his firearm on the counter to wait for the cops.  That is how not to get shot vs. recently another one who feared for his life during a break in and retreated armed, into a closet and dialed 911.  He didn't surrender his firearm when requested by the cops who then shot him dead, thinking he was the criminal.  fwiw in both cases the victims are black so race not a factor. 

DISCLAIMER: I get all my facts about stuff like this from TV cop shows, so keep that in mind.

That being said, i was watching a cop show where they put a bunch of regular patrol officers in plainclothes to catch a guy that planned on killing cops.  Before they hit the street, they got briefed a "color of the day."  If they got into a situation where they were challenged by another cop, they were supposed to display the color of the day.  It's not perfect, but it would hopefully lower the tensions so they could then sort it out without anything unfortunate happening.

That obviously wouldn't help a concealed carry permit holder (or well-meaning citizen carrying without a permit), though.  In any case, I'd recommend NOT having the gun in your hands when the police show up.  If I were sure the threat was over, I'd clear it and place it in plain sight, and also keep my hands in plain sight.  If I thought I might still need it, I'd reholster, but still keep my hands in plain sight and immediately tell the responding officers that I was armed.  Either way, if you're carrying without a permit, I think you're still screwed... You may be able to reduce your chances of getting shot, but I'd bet you're still headed to jail.

Lots of courts have held that someone living in a cardboard box on the street has an expectation of privacy.  They are protected against illegal searches and seizure by the Constitution in spite of the apparently open and publicly accessible location they might keep their stuff.  A "home" doesn't require four permanent walls and a ceiling to qualify as a residence. 

Of course, in the minds of Democrat lawmakers and judges, voting rights, free speech, and the right to privacy are important, whereas the right to bear arms is out-of-date and has no place in today's "modern, enlightened, and civilized" country!

This is only partially true.  The Federal Circuits and the state courts are all split on this issue.  The US Supreme Court hasn't granted cert on the issue yet.

The 9th Circuit has touched on the issue in Lavan v. City of Los Angeles, 693 F.3d 1022 (9th Cir. 2012).  They did somewhat agree with your assessment, but they also limited the scope of their holding.  The way that I read the case, the court left open the possibility that the homeless do not have the full protection that would be allowed under the Fourth;  typically the Fourth protects a reasonable expectation of privacy within the home and on the surrounding curtilage.

A case worth looking at is California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386 (1985), where the US Supreme Court decided that a Recreational Vehicle, which acted as the defendant's home, was not protected like a home under the Fourth.  Although this is a SCOTUS decision, states are free to choose not to follow SCOTUS so long as their decisions are based on an independent and adequate state ground, which many states have done.

It's important to note that the Hawaii S.Ct. has generally been more protective of privacy rights than SCOTUS.  Also, I'd argue that Carney is probably the closest you'll get to a SCOTUS decision on the matter of transient homes.

This is only partially true.  The Federal Circuits and the state courts are all split on this issue.  The US Supreme Court hasn't granted cert on the issue yet.

The 9th Circuit has touched on the issue in Lavan v. City of Los Angeles, 693 F.3d 1022 (9th Cir. 2012).  They did somewhat agree with your assessment, but they also limited the scope of their holding.  The way that I read the case, the court left open the possibility that the homeless do not have the full protection that would be allowed under the Fourth;  typically the Fourth protects a reasonable expectation of privacy within the home and on the surrounding curtilage.

A case worth looking at is California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386 (1985), where the US Supreme Court decided that a Recreational Vehicle, which acted as the defendant's home, was not protected like a home under the Fourth.  Although this is a SCOTUS decision, states are free to choose not to follow SCOTUS so long as their decisions are based on an independent and adequate state ground, which many states have done.

It's important to note that the Hawaii S.Ct. has generally been more protective of privacy rights than SCOTUS.  Also, I'd argue that Carney is probably the closest you'll get to a SCOTUS decision on the matter of transient homes.

If we examine what they have done with removing homeless encampments that might give us an idea what would fly. I have seen a homeless person's camp removed by the city workers and they box/bin up everything into the automated trash bins which they put into a truck to store. They would essentially be conducting a search as taking down tent would inevitably lead to some of it's contents being discovered. If they found something illegal they would call the cops. I don't know whether it has actually occurred or been challenged but the situation might hint at which way we could expect it to go if a homeless individual housed his gun in a tent.

I think another example to ponder would be in a legal camping situation where someone got the camping permit and took a gun with them. Park rules might mention weapons but that would be a separate issue.

I think another example to ponder would be in a legal camping situation where someone got the camping permit and took a gun with them. Park rules might mention weapons but that would be a separate issue.

I think the law is pretty black and white on this issue.  If it doesn't fall within one of the enumerated exceptions of places to keep a firearm, it would be illegal to have that firearm.  I think the only situation where one could camp and carry would be for the purpose of licensed hunting, within designated firearm-hunting areas. HRS 134-5

I think the law is pretty black and white on this issue.  If it doesn't fall within one of the enumerated exceptions of places to keep a firearm, it would be illegal to have that firearm.  I think the only situation where one could camp and carry would be for the purpose of licensed hunting, within designated firearm-hunting areas. HRS 134-5

Would not the tent be a place of sojourn?

Would not the tent be a place of sojourn?

The tent (while camping) should be covered as a place of sojourn but hey, I am no lawyer.

.

From what I remember, camping grounds are not considered a place of Sojourn in Hawaii, due to most, if not all, sites being located on county and/or state land.

What about a hotel room?

What about a hotel room?

 I am pretty sure that is covered otherwise it would be very difficult for a visitor to hunt here.

.

As far as I know, hotel room is illegal.

Keep in mind, IN THE HOTEL ROOM does not include on the balcony.

Do you mean legal?

Of course, I am not a lawyer, but for what it's worth: you can think of Hawaii's carry laws like self defense.  It's illegal to shoot and kill someone-- if you do so, you have committed a crime.  Now, you can claim self defense and the court may agree that in your particular case, no punishment is warranted due to the circumstances of your case.  In the same way, the great Communist Republic of Hawaii has decreed that having a gun outside the four walls of your house is illegal and if you have one outside those limits, you are committing a crime.  You can claim one of the exempted practices such as transporting firearms to the range or gun store, and a court/cop may agree that in your case no punishment is warranted, but that's an awfully thin thread.  Attempting to use that thin thread to sidestep the law and carry without permit is almost certainly going to wind up with you in jail.  God I hate it here, but it is what it is.

.

.

Only legal gun owners need a permit to carry while the criminals are doing it now

http://www.staradvertiser.com/newspremium/20150526_Man_held_in_federal_custody_after_police_find_gun_drugs.html?id=304972651


excerpt from story:
The ATF said when the officers caught up with Paulus and the other man, they recognized Paulus as a member of the Ride or Die gang and a person of interest in numerous weapons calls in the Waianae area. Paulus told the officers he did not have a firearm and invited them to search him.

The officers searched Paulus and found a .25-caliber handgun in a gun holster clipped to his shorts. They also found bags containing methamphetamine and cocaine. The officers recovered a .45-caliber handgun from the other man.

Police arrested Paulus for contempt in connection with a $500 criminal warrant, possessing an unregistered firearm, carrying a firearm without a permit and possessing dangerous drugs. They arrested the other man for possessing an unregistered firearm and carrying a firearm and ammunition without a permit.

the legal ramifications are bad, but imagine the possible real life consequences of being caught with a gun.

This whole hypothetical is based off the idea that a police officer will arrest you peacefully.  Since local police officers are probably not accustomed to seeing civilians carrying, what if they react to a civilan carrying by drawing, aiming, and possibly firing?

I know that I don't want to be the victim of a crime, and i know that i wouldn't want to be convicted of carrying illegally, but i definitely don't want to be shot by HPD for carrying illegally.

we can debate all we want about what a reasonable police officer would do and whether the reasonable police officer would handle the situation without it escalating too quickly.  The problem is, not all police officers are reasonable, and even the reasonable police officer will occasionally act unreasonably.  Sure it wouldn't be too bad if the worst you faced was an arrest, but at the far end of the spectrum you face possibly being killed by on or off duty law enforcement.

During the time preceding APEC I was involved with some of the planning. One question from the Feds (FBI, DSS, SS, ETC.) and the answer from the HPD representative caught my attention. We were discussing an active shooter scenario and the Fed asked about armed citizens and tips to identify them should they try to intervene in such a situation. The response from HPD? Essentially it was "if they got a gun and aren't LE, shoot 'em, cause we don't allow folks to carry here...."