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.

are you talking about the document that is posted in the first post in this thread that states on the bottom half of page 8 reasons to grant a carry license?

Thanks for pointing that out. Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's how the constitutions (U.S. and Hawaii) read:

"... the right of the people who "must demonstrate, among other things, that he or she [what?! no zhe, etc,?] has a need for protection that substantially exceeds that held by ordinary law-abiding citizens"  to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Not sure why the Founders had to be so wordy about it. I guess that's the only way they could make unambiguously clear that "ordinary law-abiding citizens" did NOT have those rights.

The point is that the legal opinion in the letter gives a pretty wide set of circumstances where someone can ask for and should be given a carry license.

Please give us an estimate of what "a pretty wide set of circumstances" would involve as a percentage of the pool of all law-abiding citizens.

You think that the Constitutional protection of the Second Amendment-protected rights was intended to apply only to that percentage of law-abiding citizens?

I already did, read the bottom half of page 8 of the document listed.

I never made that argument. You are preaching to the choir here but you are missing the point. I am saying that the state's own legal opinion shows the police department wrong for pretty much blanket denying permits.

No you didn't. I'm quite familiar with the list on the bottom half of page 8. I asked you what percentage of the law-abiding population of this state would likely be covered by those "exceptions" to the "no issue policy". I.e. what percentage of the state's law-abiding citizens are "eligible" to exercise the constitutionally-protected right to bear arms by those criteria?

No, it's you who is missing the point. The point is that the "criteria" issued by the AG for eligibility to exercise a right proves that it is in fact a privilege reserved for a miniscule fraction of law-abiding citizens subject to the discretion of some bureaucrat somewhere who can interpret whatever s/he wants in any way s/he wants. And that fact hardly comports, at all, with the very concept of a "right".

And the opinion of the AG does NOT "show the police department wrong for pretty much blanket denying permits". Not at all.

Ok, if I made a rough guess, maybe 10 percent. I am making my guess not limited on the specific professions mentioned but any profession that could fall under similar risk.

Ok, if I made a rough guess, maybe 10 percent. I am making my guess not limited on the specific professions mentioned but any profession that could fall under similar risk.

Seriously?! How can you write that kind of shit with a straight face? I'm guessing you likely don't. So if you stood out on a busy street corner and asked people "Do you have "credible threats [note plural in AG opinion] of death or serious bodily harm" and/or does your "job requires transporting large quantities of cash"?" that one of out ten people would answer "YES!! Funny you should ask, I'm on my way to the police station right now to get my open carry license." You are truly delusional.

And what would your guess be?

I already state my guess twice... here's the third time, just for your benefit: likely less than one per cent, perhaps substantially less than one percent (e.g. one tenth of one per cent... i.e. one person in a thousand. And probably far fewer than that.).

I made the comment, I know what my point was.

And my point was that your point is plainly wrong.

I know the letter isn't where you think it should be, it isn't where I think it should be either. But the letter is a step closer to where we think it should be than to what the police department seems to think.

From the letter, page 9
"Accordingly, we advise that chiefs of police may exercise reasonable discretion to deny licenses to otherwise-qualified applicants, but that discretion may not be exercised in an arbitrary or capricious manner. Chiefs of police should exercise their discretion to deny unconcealed-carry licenses to qualified applicants only where an applicant's characteristics or circumstances render the applicant unsuitable to carry an unconcealed firearm for reasons not captured by the express statutory requirements."

It goes on a little further but it basically says the discretion should be for cause and should not be used to nullify section 134-9 (the law for carry licenses.

The "letter" is not "a step closer". That's my point. You are wrong. The Opinion No. 18-1 is a justification for the current "no issue" policy, not a denial of it or even a questioning of it. The proof of that is that there will not be one person who was ever denied a license that will be able to come forward and say "I met those criteria, but was denied a license due to "arbitrary and capricious discretion" by the chief." If they have issued essentially no licenses (unless you are a judge or military member, the two we know of) and under the new Opinion they will continue to issue no licenses, then it is more than overtly clear that the whole point of the opinion is to keep Hawaii a de facto "no issue" jurisdiction. The Opinion is just pablum for the ignorant and uninformed that there is some theoretical hypothetical route and criteria by which a person who "really needs" to protect themselves outside their home can do so. That that is a lie is proven day in and day out by the fact that dozens (hundreds?) of people are victims of crime in this state while outside their homes and not one single one of them is able to lawfully defend themselves with the best tool for the job. It's a whitewash, a sham, a joke. But apparently to you it's a reasonable first step... even though it's neither reasonable nor a step at all.

Political activity, might be everyones best bet.

But whats the definition? Does it have to be specificically with presidents, vp, senators, mayors, etc...and supporting or not supproting them?

Or can being threatened for exercising a right, protesting a topic or legal activity count?

A large group of "political activists", about some issue or other, could all issue anonymous threats (plural required) against each other.

One problem, those would not be judged "credible". The Opinion doesn't define "credible" and we don't have to guess who would be the arbiter of "credibility", and since no one has ever received an open carry license apparently there has never ever been a "credible threat".

Now the two cases on Kauai of issuing concealed licenses may have been judged to have been "credible threats", but those licenses were both granted to government employees (a judge and a military member), so they hardly seem to apply to ordinary law-abiding citizens, and rather only further demonstrate that it is a privilege of the "connected".

That;s what I was thinking.  The letter from the AG makes it look like it's possible to get a permit.  But in reality, it's not.  Still totally up to the call of the chief and to her what's a "credible threat".  Just like when Hawaii was a non-issue CCW, then changed to "may issue".  I bet plenty of people got excited, until no one got approved.

With all due respect, I think your guess is way too high.  Of all the people you know who are not LEOs or security personnel, do you really think 10% would meet the requirements outlined by the AG?

The "letter" is not "a step closer". That's my point. You are wrong. The Opinion No. 18-1 is a justification for the current "no issue" policy, not a denial of it or even a questioning of it. The proof of that is that there will not be one person who was ever denied a license that will be able to come forward and say "I met those criteria, but was denied a license due to "arbitrary and capricious discretion" by the chief." If they have issued essentially no licenses (unless you are a judge or military member, the two we know of) and under the new Opinion they will continue to issue no licenses, then it is more than overtly clear that the whole point of the opinion is to keep Hawaii a de facto "no issue" jurisdiction. The Opinion is just pablum for the ignorant and uninformed that there is some theoretical hypothetical route and criteria by which a person who "really needs" to protect themselves outside their home can do so. That that is a lie is proven day in and day out by the fact that dozens (hundreds?) of people are victims of crime in this state while outside their homes and not one single one of them is able to lawfully defend themselves with the best tool for the job. It's a whitewash, a sham, a joke. But apparently to you it's a reasonable first step... even though it's neither reasonable nor a step at all.

I never said it was reasonable, don't put words in my mouth.

It isn't what we want but it is what we have and we should try to take advantage of it while simultaneously working for increased protection. That is what you are missing, stop looking at everything as black and white, all or nothing.

What you now have is nothing. The cops declarations (submitted by Honolulu, Kauai, and Maui PDs with those counties' amicus brief) state that the policy stated in the Opinion has always been their policy... thus the Opiinion policy. which the cops claim has always been in effect, has resulted in no unconclealed licenses ever being issued. And that policy continues in effect. Where is your "something" compared to nothing? What is it exactly that you are going to "take advantage of"? Why didn't you take advantagbe of it during the past 20 years while the same policy has been in effect? Show me.