Anybody see or read this?  Hopefully I did not mess this up.

https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=8447.msg285963#msg285963

OOPS!
I guess I was more worried about a hurricane that day.

I was turned down for a concealed carry permit again( August 10,2018), usual dribble, your life isn't worth
it.  I will be applying for an open carry on Monday.  Our cops don't do this but I will
push the reporting per 134-14 to the police commission, if my honorable police chief
doesn't follow the rules.  I'm still looking for a lawyer to
do Qui Tam prosecution. US code 18 section 242.
abuse of power under color of law.

As Puna pointed out, the application forms contradict this AG letter. They have 2 categories: "Security" or "Citizen". There was never a method for applying to carry unconcealed without being in the security business.

Funny they say atm business is an example. How about being in the firearms business or transpoting guns often (going range). People can see u load them into the car.

You can be observed taking cash at an ATM or leaving the range and followed and robbed, among many other possible scenarios in which a person is "targeted" for a crime. The cops and politicians (e.g. the Attorney General, the governor, police chiefs, mayors, etc.) don't give a shit about your personal safety, they couldn't care less (no, they care about "public safety"... note the difference). They have another agenda, and that agenda involves keeping citizens as disarmed as possible, as surveilled and tracked as possible about any arms they may have, and certainly making legal threats against anyone who would consider arming themselves in public for self-defense. And on top of that, virtually no one cares at all. Have a good day.

If  security guard shoots someone the company probably gets sued and not the government. But if a private citizen shoots you can bet someone would see much deeper pockets in the government and would sue them. Not sure if they take that into account or not but it could be what they fear.

If  security guard shoots someone the company probably gets sued and not the government. But if a private citizen shoots you can bet someone would see much deeper pockets in the government and would sue them. Not sure if they take that into account or not but it could be what they fear.

But on the opposite side, can a victim sue the government for being denied a permit?

Name one case where a private citizen, not employed by any government agency, legally bearing a firearm in a legal location injured or killed an attacker and the attacker or the family of the attacker successfully sued some government agency. Just one. Okay, half a dozen.

I am unaware of any person who has been allowed a private license to CCW and has actually killed someone. What is your point? Just because they haven't been sued for it before doesn't mean they wouldn't fear such a thing. You think the government has never been sued for BS things before?

You are "unaware". That's an understatement. There are numerous, too many to count, cases of lawfully carrying private individuals committing justifiable homicides. My point is that you are making something up, pure speculation, out of thin air, with no basis in any reality at all, not one single instance ever anywhere, and then using that as a possible justification for government infringing to the extent of a total ban on the exercise of a fundamental individual enumerated constitutionally-protected natural civil right. Of course anyone anywhere can sue anyone anywhere at any time for anything... but those cases will be dismissed if they have no basis in law or fact. Fantasy cannot be used to justify anything at all in the real world. That would include you "commentary".

You miss the point. Maybe a police department has never been sued for issuing a CCW before but that is irrelevant. You made assumptions about what they care about so I speculated a possible reason why they might not want to issue. You missed the point because you said police departments are never sued for issuing CCW licenses when the point was not the actual likelihood but the fear. People fear things that have no basis in reality, but that doesn't mean the fear isn't real.

By the way, don't complain about my speculation if you are going to make such strong assumptive allegations.

Now you know how I feel 

Not really. You stated you don't have feelings. You are only "objective". Now you're contradicting yourself even about that?!

I am trying to copy and past a bit that I find important for anyone saying they need a firearm but it keeps cutting out some of the words.

Well basically the bottom half of page 8 lists a bunch of reasons for asking for a carry license that would be considered sufficient need.
It includes:
Domestic violence victims/stalking victims/political activists who have received credible threats
Witnesses who are testifying against someone likely to harm them
People who face heightened risk of attack due to profession including Physician, psychiatrist, entertainer, attorney, employed, atm resupply person, etc.