J.D. Tucille of Reason magazine briefly discusses the difference between right and a privilege, and the options available if one lives in a jurisdiction where the right is not recognized and the privilege is denied (He has experience in New York City, but the same applies here).

I've written to every state legislator and the AG and governor and police chiefs and asked them how they are NOT violating their oath of office  by not allowing people to legally (via legislation or enforcement) exercise their right to bear arms. Not surprisingly none have written back and explained the apparent discrepancy, if not contradiction.

We're on our own. We got a bad choice and a bad choice. And Hawaii politicians and law enforcement like it and want to keep it exactly that way. So much for the Constitution(s).

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF HAWAII
ARTICLE I
BILL OF RIGHTS

RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS
Section 17.  A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


Carry a Gun—Without a Permit
If you have to ask permission, it’s a privilege, not a right. And maybe you shouldn’t bother to ask.

http://reason.com/archives/2017/05/02/carry-a-gunwithout-a-permit

Excerpts:

Well, the philosophical rationale should be clear; if you have to ask permission, it's a privilege, not a right. Permission can be rescinded, and is always exercised at the sufferance of whoever is empowered to say "yes" or "no." A license to speak your mind granted in place of First Amendment protections, or an annual fee to keep the cops from tossing your house as a substitute for Fourth Amendment restrictions on search and seizure, might give you a little breathing room, but each breath would be drawn in the shadow of fears about lost paperwork or pissed-off officials. Owning and carrying the means to defend yourself is no different, with the rights embodied in the Second Amendment at odds with any requirement that their exercise requires a stack of forms filled out and filed.

* * * * *
Then there are practical fears about the ever-simmering controversy over firearms. After the publication of gun owners' names and addresses by news outlets in New York, who really wants to add themselves to lists that may well be harvested by opponents of self-defense rights? Putting yourself on those lists runs the very real risk of painting a target on your back for political enemies, or for officials enforcing potentially tighter laws under a future regime. It's much safer, when exercising freedoms that drive some people into hostile frenzies, to stay under the radar.

Which brings us back to constitutional carry, an improvement on my own New York carry. As it is, plenty of well-intentioned people already carry without permits, in restrictive jurisdictions, out of principle, or to avoid unwelcome entries in databases. Legalizing the practice allows people to deal with dangers to life, limb, and property while also minimizing legal peril.

If I ever run into any politicians, I'm going to ask them about the above.