In the "grassroots action" thread several people have commented that they believe the only possible way to alter Hawaii firearms laws is via litigation. I thought I'd post this column separately regarding two California CCW cases that will apparently be applying for cert from SCOTUS in the next two weeks. It is written by Charles Nichols, litigant of Nichols v. Brown, which is the only open carry lawsuit currently before the NInth Circuit Court of Appeals (NCCA) (though Young has some mention of open carry as well). Nichols makes the case, by citing Heller, that there is no constitutionally-protected right to carry concealed firearms in public, and that exact decision was reached by the NCCA in Peruta/Richards en banc. According to that reasoning, concealed carry is merely a privilege granted by the government and as such may lawfully have any restrictions placed upon it (e.g. "in an exceptional case", etc.) as deemed appropriate by the state (same as drivers license, building permit, etc.). The other case heard en banc with Peruta, Richards v Prieto, funded by SAF with Alan Gura as attorney has chosen not to file for cert.

http://newsblaze.com/business/legal/nra-asks-us-supreme-court-to-hear-two-concealed-carry-lawsuits_71825/

NRA Asks US Supreme Court To Hear Two Concealed Carry Lawsuits

The NRA still claims that there is a right under the Second Amendment to carry weapons concealed in public and the NRA still claims that states can ban Open Carry in favor of concealed carry.

You will never read about this in the mainstream press but, in a couple of weeks, you will be able to read the NRA’s cert petitions to the United States Supreme Court in a couple of concealed carry cases the NRA lost in the 9th circuit.

“[A] right to carry arms openly: “This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations.”” District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008) at 2809

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose … For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues … “ District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008) at 2816

“[T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms (art. 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons…” Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 US 275 – Supreme Court (1897) at 282.

“We therefore hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller.” McDonald v. City of Chicago, Ill., 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010) at 3050.