Basic translation: the Chief must agree you represent an exceptional case and are at significant risk of death or serious injury. The standard is arbitrary, ambiguous and 100% subjective.
Let me point out a few other ambiguities that are completely arbitrary, capricious and undefined and thus allow for essentially random "discretion" to (clearly unconstitutionally) keep Hawaii citizens from exercising their right to bear arms.Quote
§134-9 Licenses to carry. (a)
In an exceptional case, when an applicant shows reason to fear injury to the applicant's person or property,
[As Flapp pointed out there is no terminology involved that is not totally arbitrary and subjective. That's why I've written several police chiefs and asked them to "Please provide five (5) verbatim statements appearing on applications for CCW licenses that would result in you granting the license to the applicant". Of course what I received in reply was a copy of 134-9, as if I didn't already know what that says. The police chiefs have no interest in the slightest "transparency" nor "accountability" because their true response would be "We do not grant CCW licenses no matter the circumstance". In the two applications that I was finally able to acquire via my Office of Information Practices Act (OIPA) appeals from one police department that granted two (2) (one in 2006, one in 2013) of the four (4) CCW licenses issued in the state of Hawaii in the past 17 years, the statement by the applicants was not included (among other incomplete and incorrectly filled out portions of the forms).
Also note that "when an applicant shows reason to fear injury to the applicant's person or property" is NOT sufficient "cause". The chief could easily state that while a person may have such evidence of a "reasonable" fear, that fear must also be "exceptional". Just as there is no definition of "reason to fear" there is no definition of "exceptional case". Here's one anecdote: Woman who testified against a male convicted of a crime sees the guy in a store a few years later when he gets out of prison. He "gives her a look" that she interpreted as "threatening". NOT an "exceptional case". License application denied. Totally arbitrary.]
the chief of police of the appropriate county may grant a license to an applicant who is a citizen of the United States of the age of
twenty-one years or more or to a duly accredited official representative of a foreign nation of the age of twenty-one years or more
to carry a pistol or revolver and ammunition therefor concealed on the person within the county where the license is granted.
Where the urgency or the need has been sufficiently indicated,
[As I've pointed out on this forum previously, what could possibly be the "urgency or need" to be a security guard (the only people considered for "open carry" licenses)? "I'm broke, unemployed, and my unemployment insurance has run out. I'm URGENTLY in NEED of a job!" I've never received an answer to that question either. From anyone, from police chiefs to the Office of Attorney General.] the respective chief of police may grant to
an applicant of good moral character [Another term for which there is absolutely no definition, thus making it completely arbitrary and capricious at the whim/discretion of the chief. Again, no one will answer my question as to what the legal definition of "good moral character" is.]who is a citizen of the United States of the age of twenty-one years or more, is
engaged in the protection of life and property,
[I might be getting "picky" here, but none of the dictionaries I looked at had any definitions of the word "engaged" that meant, or were synonymous with, "employed".]and is not prohibited under section 134-7 from the ownership or possession of a firearm, a license to carry a pistol or revolver and ammunition
therefor unconcealed on the person within the county where the license is granted. The chief of police of the appropriate county, or the
chief's designated representative, shall perform an inquiry on an applicant by using the National Instant Criminal Background Check
System, to include a check of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement databases where the applicant is not a citizen of the United
States, before any determination to grant a license is made.
Unless renewed, the license shall expire one year from the date of issue.
[For the copies of the two licenses that I was able to acquire via OIPA, NEITHER was granted for the legally mandated one year term. The word used in the law is "shall", not "may" or "whatever". In other words, they didn't follow the law as written, which is clear and simple (as opposed to all the other vague and ambiguous terms). So even where the law states specific concrete unambiguous terms, the police department ignored them and did whatever they wanted, using "discretion" that does not exist. In many follow up letters over many months the department would only say "We follow the law," in blatant contradiction to both statements they made about issuing the licenses for less than one year and the very documents that prove they didn't follow the law.](b) The chief of police of each county shall adopt procedures to require that any person granted a license to carry a concealed weapon
on the person shall:
(1) Be
qualified to use the firearm in a safe manner;
[There is no definition nor objective criteria as to what constitutes "qualified", nor "safe manner". They won't answer the question. 200 hundred hours of "certified" training? No one knows. It can mean whatever they want it to mean.](2)
Appear to be a suitable person to be so licensed;
[No definition anywhere of "suitable person", nor of "appear" and who determines "appearance". Nor why it's not based upon BEING a suitable person as opposed to APPEARING as one. They won't answer the question when posed to them. Not one word. Obviously another arbitrary and capricious "out" for denying someone who might actually "qualify" under one or more of the other (undefined) criteria.](3) Not be prohibited under section 134-7 from the ownership or possession of a firearm; and
(4) Not have been adjudged insane or
not appear to be mentally deranged.
[And yet again no definition and will not respond when asked exactly what that means and who will make the determination that a person APPEARS not to be mentally deranged, nor what qualifications the person making such a determination must have. I doubt any qualified mental health professional would be willing to bet their life that he/she could, with 100% accuracy, tell whether or not a person is "mentally deranged" based upon their "APPEARANCE". But I guess the police chief thinks he has the skills.](c) No person shall carry concealed or unconcealed on the person a pistol or revolver without being licensed to do so under this
section or in compliance with sections 134-5(c) or 134-25.
(d) A fee of $10 shall be charged for each license and shall be deposited in the treasury of the county in which the license is granted.
[L 1988, c 275, pt of §2; am L 1994, c 204, §8; am L 1997, c 254, §§2, 4; am L 2000, c 96, §1; am L 2002, c 79, §1; am L 2006, c 27, §3 and c 66, §3; am L 2007, c 9, §8]
[Other than those few minor quibbles, the law is perfectly rational, reasonable, and fully in accord with the U.S. Constitution and the Hawaii State Constitution which BOTH state that the "right to keep AND BEAR arms shall NOT BE INFRINGED". 
]