Hey guys,
I've been doing a little research on concealed carry permits with the Honolulu Police Department and they have been very helpful in helping me dig up some statistics. It looks like, for 2009, there were a total of six concealed carry permits processed. Of those six, and amazing total of zero were approved. I'm sure those of us who keep up with Hawaii's may issue policy aren't surprised by those statistics.

On the other hand, armed security guards are being issued permits and it goes through a separate process than the concealed permit process. The armed guards need to go through training and pass the companies' test proficiency. Then they company sends a letter to HPD, runs a background check and then issues a different type of permit.

I am also in the process of trying to find out when the last concealed carry permit was issued.

Here are some statewide statistics from Hawaii's .gov site. It looks like someone squeeked through in Kauai in 2006.

2008

Hawaii’s county police departments also process license applications for the open and/or concealed carry of firearms in public. Statewide in 2008, 195 employees of private security firms were issued carry licenses, and one (0.5%) was rejected. One private citizen applied for a concealed carry license and was rejected at the discretion of the respective county police chief.

2007

Hawaii’s county police departments also process license applications for the open and/or concealed carry of firearms in public. Statewide in 2007, 236 employees of private security firms were issued carry licenses, and six (2.5%) were rejected. Seven private citizens applied for a concealed carry license; all were rejected at the sole discretion of the respective county police chiefs.

2006

Hawaii’s county police departments also process license applications for the open and/or concealed carry of firearms in public. Statewide in 2006, 227 employees of private security firms were issued carry licenses, and two (0.9%) were rejected. One private citizen in Kauai County applied for a concealed carry license and was approved at the sole discretion of the police chief.

2005

Hawaii’s county police departments also process license applications for the open and/or concealed carry of firearms in public. Statewide in 2005, 235 employees of private security firms were issued carry licenses, and none were rejected. Six private citizens in the City & County of Honolulu applied for a concealed carry license and were denied at the sole discretion of the police chief.

2004

Hawaii’s county police departments also process license applications for the open and/or concealed carry of firearms in public. Statewide in 2004, 263 employees of private security firms were issued carry licenses and one (0.4%) was rejected due to disqualifying factors. (Notably, 2004 marks the first year in which the rejection rate for security officer carry permits did not exceed the rejection rate for regular longarm and handgun permit applications from the general public.) Five private citizens in the City & County of Honolulu applied for a concealed carry license and were denied at the discretion of the police chief.

2003

The county police departments also process license applications for the open and/or concealed carry of firearms in public. During 2003, 249 employees of security firms were issued carry licenses and seven (2.8%) were rejected due to disqualifying factors. One private citizen also applied for a carry license and was denied at the sole discretion of the police chief.

2002

The county police departments also process license applications for the open and/or concealed carry of firearms in public. During 2002, 239 employees of security firms were issued carry licenses and 6 were rejected due to specific disqualifying factors. Four private citizens also applied for a carry license and were denied at the discretion of the respective police chiefs.

2001

The county police departments also process license applications for the open and/or concealed carry of firearms in public. During 2001, 242 employees of security firms were issued carry licenses and 14 were rejected for cause. Ten private citizens also applied for a carry license; at the discretion of the respective county police chiefs, two applicants were approved and eight were denied.

2000

The county police departments also conduct background checks and process applications for permits to carry firearms in public. During 2000, 190 employees of private security firms were approved for carry permits and four (2.1%) were denied for cause. One private citizen also applied for a carry permit and was denied.

I guess we need to find out exactly what the guy in Kauai did, and repeat.   

I just found the stats for 2000 and 2001. It looks like a couple more people were approved in 2001, although it doesn't say which county they were approved in.

I did the same research a while back...too bad I didn't see your post earlier as I have it all somewhere in my office....my next step, which I haven't been able to do, was to request a Freedom of Information act release on all of the approved permits. My reasoning was that a 9th Circuit case (actually two cases) said that while the Chief of Police does have the power to issue CCW permits, he is also required to exercise that discretion. In other words, he cannot just deny all permit applications without reviewing them. Also out of those cases were the decision that issuing criteria, at least within a single jurisdiction, needed to be consistent, i.e., if Joe Smith gets a CCW because he carries large sums of money at night because of his job, then Bob Anycitizen, who also carries large amounts of money at night for his job should also get his CCW application approved. If not then there is disparate treatment of similarily situated individuals and the one denied may have standing to initiate legal proceedings.

So, we need to find out what "need" was used on the approved CCW applications, and compare it to the denied ones. If one or more persons had substantially similar reasons as someone who got the CCW, then he could sue. Similarily, if one knew what "need" resulted in an approved CCW and truthfully had/listed those reasons on a CCW application and was denied, then they too could sue.

Anyone willing to wade thru the paperwork necessary to get the FOI request for the CCWs? If so, I have the info........

Send me the info and I'll see how far I can get on it. I'll can also try and see if I can get this information out of the guy at HPD.

I appreciate the research your doing 2aHawaii.

Send me the info and I'll see how far I can get on it. I'll can also try and see if I can get this information out of the guy at HPD.

Here's the link to a handbook detailing how to use the Hawaii Freedom of Information Act.
 
http://www.state.hi.us/lrb/par/pub/foi.pdf
 
One of the issues about releasing the info may be that it's "privileged" but I recall that in the past there was a determination that (at least in Hawaii) it wasn't. I culdn't find it but it's late and I am just getting back from a 10+ hour flight on a CG C-130 and I'm a bit tired. If I find the info I will get it to you.
 
Aloha

Thanks for the handbook. It has some really good information in it.

I'll get on it and see what I can dig up.

Chief Perry of the Kauai County Police Department has been very helpful. Here is the information that he had for me:

This is what I learned:  In the past 15+ years (as long as my firearms clerk has been employed with KPD) only one concealed carry permit was issued by the previous administration in 2006.  The circumstances related to viable death threats to a presiding circuit court judge and the permit was effective for only six months; during which time the suspect was apprehended, later convicted and sent to prison.

The news from HPD was also good even if it doesn't give much information. There haven't been any concealed carry permits issued since at least 1997 and the reasons for denial mostly consist of the applicant not meeting the “exceptional case” criteria set forth in the Rules of the Chief of Police. That means that the concealed carry permits from 2001 must have come from the Maui and/or Big Island Police Chief.

I also am trying to see if the AG's office has more concrete information going further back since the reports came from that office.

Here is the info I was thinking about. It is on the OIP website and is listed in Appendix D of the user guide, decision 90-25, on July 12, 1990.
 
Here's the link: http://www.state.hi.us/oip/opinionsummaries/opinionsummary%2090-25.html
 
Here's the text:
 

Opinion Letter Summary
Opinion Letter No. 90-25
July 12, 1990
Firearm Permit Applications
The names of registered firearms owners and a description of handguns contained in Firearm
Registration forms maintained by the police department are public under the UIPA; however,
descriptions of long guns and other personal information contained in the registration forms are
confidential and should not be disclosed to the public.

I find it interesting that the description of handguns is disclosable, but not long guns....
 
However, since the name and handgun description can be disclosed, the info on the CCW permit should be as well, excluding the "other personal information contained in the registration form are confidential..." We'll see if they think information that substantiates the "need" for a CCW is considered confidential.
 
Good luck!

Hmmm, that is an interesting opinion and seems to conflict with a newer opinion issued in 2007. It doesn't seem to matter much, though, as the reason for approval of concealed carry permits should be public information because that information doesn't identify the permit holder by name or address or fall under any of those other restricted categories. In my opinion anyway

Opinion Letter No. 07-01
February 1, 2007
Firearm Permits

In response to an inquiry from the Honolulu Police Department ("HPD"), OIP concluded that firearm permit information that identifies an individual permit holder by name or address must be deemed to be "registration data" protected under § 134-3(b), HRS, and therefore should be withheld under § 92F-13(4), HRS, of the UIPA. Other permit information that could reasonably identify the individual permit holder (such as the individual's social security number, fingerprints, and photograph) should also be segregated and withheld under the UIPA's frustration exception (§ 92F-13(3)) to maintain the confidentiality of the individual's identity.

OIP concluded that, under the UIPA's privacy exception (§ 92F-13(1)), HPD may generally withhold information that allows the identification of individuals who have been denied permits, as well as those who did not apply for a permit, who did not complete the application process, or who were granted a permit, but allowed it to lapse without acquiring a firearm. OIP noted that circumstances may alter the usual balance between the individual's privacy interests and the public interest in disclosure. Thus, HPD must determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether circumstances diminish the individual's privacy interest and/or give rise to a heightened public interest that tips the balance in favor of disclosure.
In both of the above cases, once identifying information is properly redacted, HPD must disclose the remaining information in an application or application file unless it falls within another exception to disclosure.

Here is the info I was thinking about. It is on the OIP website and is listed in Appendix D of the user guide, decision 90-25, on July 12, 1990.
 
Here's the link: http://www.state.hi.us/oip/opinionsummaries/opinionsummary%2090-25.html
 
Here's the text:
 

Quote

Opinion Letter Summary
Opinion Letter No. 90-25
July 12, 1990
Firearm Permit Applications
The names of registered firearms owners and a description of handguns contained in Firearm
Registration forms maintained by the police department are public under the UIPA; however,
descriptions of long guns and other personal information contained in the registration forms are
confidential and should not be disclosed to the public.

I find it interesting that the description of handguns is disclosable, but not long guns....
 
However, since the name and handgun description can be disclosed, the info on the CCW permit should be as well, excluding the "other personal information contained in the registration form are confidential..." We'll see if they think information that substantiates the "need" for a CCW is considered confidential.
 
Good luck!

Maybe because the letter was written before the 1994 requirement of registering long guns?

Hmmm, that is an interesting opinion and seems to conflict with a newer opinion issued in 2007. It doesn't seem to matter much, though, as the reason for approval of concealed carry permits should be public information because that information doesn't identify the permit holder by name or address or fall under any of those other restricted categories. In my opinion anyway

Quote from: http://www.state.hi.us/oip/opinionsummaries/opinionsummary%2007-01.html

Opinion Letter No. 07-01
February 1, 2007
Firearm Permits

In response to an inquiry from the Honolulu Police Department ("HPD"), OIP concluded that firearm permit information that identifies an individual permit holder by name or address must be deemed to be "registration data" protected under § 134-3(b), HRS, and therefore should be withheld under § 92F-13(4), HRS, of the UIPA. Other permit information that could reasonably identify the individual permit holder (such as the individual's social security number, fingerprints, and photograph) should also be segregated and withheld under the UIPA's frustration exception (§ 92F-13(3)) to maintain the confidentiality of the individual's identity.

OIP concluded that, under the UIPA's privacy exception (§ 92F-13(1)), HPD may generally withhold information that allows the identification of individuals who have been denied permits, as well as those who did not apply for a permit, who did not complete the application process, or who were granted a permit, but allowed it to lapse without acquiring a firearm. OIP noted that circumstances may alter the usual balance between the individual's privacy interests and the public interest in disclosure. Thus, HPD must determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether circumstances diminish the individual's privacy interest and/or give rise to a heightened public interest that tips the balance in favor of disclosure.
In both of the above cases, once identifying information is properly redacted, HPD must disclose the remaining information in an application or application file unless it falls within another exception to disclosure.

I agree with you about the conflict and that nothing in the recent decision should prevent the disclosure of the stated "need" for the CCW on the application. I actually like the newer decision in that if we ever do get shall-issue, the actual names of of CCW holders would be protected.

Again, good job researching and taking on this little project.....CCW proponants should be sending you their thanks and appreciation!

Thanks!

More info....seems in 1995 OIP decided, in response to a request for a list of CCW holders from Chief Nakamura, that ALL information related to CCW holders was confidential.
 
http://www.state.hi.us/oip/opinionletters/opinion%2095-18.pdf

However, in the 2007 opinion (you have to wade thru the full text version) you listed, it stated that:
   

OIP believes it is constrained, absent further legislative direction, to read the permitting statute and section 134-9, the concealed weapon licensing section, consistent with the registration statute to protect identifying information made confidential under that statute. See OIP Op. Ltr. No. 95-18. It appears clear, however, that the legislature did not specifically address the release of identifying information under those statutes. For example, if the legislature had specifically intended to protect identifiable Permit Information as "registration data," it would seemingly have used broader language to include information under the permitting statute and would not have limited its protective language to names and addresses. See Haw. Rev. Stat. § 134-3(b) (confidentiality provision directly follows listing of what should be included on registration form and only protects information identifying individual by name and address, which are the only identifying entries on the registration form but not in the Permit Information). Moreover, it could very well be that the legislature did not intend to protect the identity of registered firearm owners who are subsequently granted licenses to carry concealed weapons because of greater public interest in knowing the identity of these persons. For these reasons, OIP suggests that amendment of the statutes would be helpful to clarify and/or confirm what information under sections 134-2 and 134-9 the legislature intends to be confidential.

       
Now, as I have said before, IANAL, but I read this to say the the OIP thinks the 1995 decision is flawed and overbroad in that it says all information on CCW "Licenses" is protected, but is "constrained" to abide with it. This seems to contradict the 2007 decision requiring release of permit information with redactation of name and address. In the 2007 decision it stated the public interest determination may be swayed if the request for information has a legitimate concern for shedding light on the performance of an Agency. So, it seems that in any new attempt to get the info pertaining to the "need" listed on a CCW application, that said request is a general request (versus a request related to a specific permit/license holder). And that if denied, the appeal be on the basis of needing to evaluate the process the Chief of Police uses to determine who gets a CCW because of the apparent lack of the required exercise of discretion (he must review all applications and cannot just reject them all) and the apparent disparate treatment of similarily situated applicants.

I got responses from the Hawaii County and Maui County Police Departments today and both of them claim to have not issued any concealed carry permits.

Captain Rapoza of the Hawaii County Police Department had this to say:

To the best of our knowledge, our department as not granted any request to carry a concealed firearm, and has no intent on granting future request without meeting the requirements of the Hawaii Revised Statutes, Chapter 134-9. The Police Chief reviews all requests and makes the final determination. The laws governing the carrying of a firearm are very stringent in the State of Hawaii. Thank you for seeking the information from our department.

The email I got from the Maui County Police Department was very interesting and I don't know if Christopher Schmitt actually works for the Department. His email simply stated:

We do not issue concealed carry permits in the county of Maui.

I am trying to investigate the latter one more. Since we still don't have anyone that lays claim to the two permits issued in 2001, someone must have the incorrect information. Unfortunately the report provided by the state for 2001 doesn't mention which county or counties okayed the applications. Any ideas?

I just got a more in depth answer from the Maui County Police Department:

Once again, we do not and have not issued concealed carry permits in the past 15 years at least.  The only possible exceptions would be county prosecutors at the Chief of Police’s discretion.  If any prosecutors were actually issued the permit, I am unable to release any information regarding any specific person or permit.

Once again, I plan to follow up with this as this is the probable source of the permits issued in 2001.

I would definitely keep that one from Maui that says they don't issue concealed carry permits. It could come in handy if a future lawsuit, based on prior cases in the 9th Circuit decisions, comes to fruition.
 
I also thought that the AG's report on permits issued included the county, as I recall the one that mentioned the Kauai one. I wonder if HPD is taking the position that they do not need to acknowledge the issuance of permits/CCWs, sorta like the "I can neither confirm or deny..." statements.........

Interesting thread you have here... That one person denied in 2008? Yeah that was me... I actually was never told that I was denied. They never sent me back anything. I know they got it, though... My friend who works in firearms found the letter I sent in folded up in my file.

Interesting thread you have here... That one person denied in 2008? Yeah that was me... I actually was never told that I was denied. They never sent me back anything. I know they got it, though... My friend who works in firearms found the letter I sent in folded up in my file.

Your friend, can he tell if there was ever any actual review of your application, or was it just throw into your file as if it was denied without the required review?

And, if you don't mind sharing, and I understand why you might not want to, what was your reason or cause for the need of the CCW?