The state claims (in its petition for en banc hearing in Young v Hawaii), along with declarations by the county police chiefs, that unconcealed carry licenses have ALWAYS been available to "ordinary law-abiding citizens", and have NEVER been restricted solely to persons employed by some type of security firm. I asked every county police department to provide me with various statistics to highly specific questions about their issuance of both types of licenses to both types of people and both categories. The state AG annual reports do not differentiate how many "security" licenses are either unconcealed or concealed.
Honolulu PD responded to my request. Just got this a few minutes ago. It confirms that at least as far as their department goes 1. no "unconcealed" license has ever (since 2001 mandated record keeping and reporting) been issued to non-security (aka "private citizen"), and 2. no "concealed" license ever issued to security personnel.
Thus it appears, de facto, that for Honolulu PD the Hawaii AG reporting form categories of "security" and "citizen" mean, respectively, "unconcealed" and "concealed". That could just be a "coincidence", but it is "thus far" reflected in fact. This is merely another documentation that the state's claim that the only "right' to carry available, unconcealed, has in fact been limited to security personnel. Like I say, they can claim that is "just a coincidence" due to the fact that no non-securty applicant met the criteria necessary, but come on... let's get real... which I suspect at least judge O'Scannlain will be as he evaluates the evidence as to whether Hawaii is making a credible claim about the opportunity for "ordinary law-abiding citizens" to exercise their right to bear arms outside their home "in case of confrontation" (aka "self-defense").
Thanks to Captain Nilsen at HPD for taking the time to answer my questions. No other county PDs have responded at all. Apparently I'm going to have to file formal UIPA requests to attempt to get their information.