I don’t think we will get CCW.  However we should get open carry.  History has shown, citizen open carried muskets and for those rich gentlemen flint lock pistol.  They didn’t hide anything back then.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

How come you don’t think we’ll get CCW? I think we have a fairly good shot at winning the New York case in the Supreme Court.

How come you don’t think we’ll get CCW? I think we have a fairly good shot at winning the New York case in the Supreme Court.

I'm not a lawyer but I have read the case YUKUTAKE vs. CONNERS.  What is interesting about reading the case is the write up on how the judge determine the constitutionality of the laws.  In page 10 it talks about the Heller Framework specifically the passage that read "record includes persuasive historical evidence establishing that the [law] at issue imposes prohibitions that fall outside the historical scope of the Second Amendment."  This is the first analysis of the Heller Framework.

To me Conceal Carry falls outside the historical scope of the Second Amendment.  I don't remember any history stores, paintings, or just stories of people hiding firearms as they did their day to day business.  However, Open Carry should not fall outside the historical scope because it is easily proven that firearms (rifles and pistols) were carried openly in and around public areas.  Firearms was used to protect self and family against the wilderness and highwaymen as they conducted business between hearth/home and town/settlement.

So for open carry the second analysis is the burden of the law on the 2nd Amendment.  If the burden is too great, then the law is unconstitutional.  Since the law states no open carry, the burden is too great because the law prevents the person from open carrying firearm (which was proven in the first step as a historical norm) to protect against wilderness and highwaymen, aka bad guys, for any reason.  Hence prohibition of open carry or a permit that requires abnormal amount of reason is unconstitutional.  Meaning, the reason "self defense" should be good enough.  Anything more than that would be consider a burden, making the law unconstitutional.   (In Hawaii, I am told, maybe jokingly, you can state and prove that people have given you death treats and a permit would still be denied.)

Once again I am not a lawyer by any means.  Just a person reading case law and using my public education to understand the judicial analysis.  BTW, it could also come down to just carry a firearm.  I don't really see the difference between concealed and open.  The question is really, "Is carrying a firearm in public protected by the 2nd Amendment?"

States and police much rather you have concealed carry,  I read somewhere it was preferred cause it's less "scary" so if we get open carry we will probably get concealed.

One could also argue that they physically couldn't conceal cause most guns were too large not that they weren't allowed. Though I am not an historian.  It's there no evidence of concealed carry?  I find it hard to believe.   

States and police much rather you have concealed carry,  I read somewhere it was preferred cause it's less "scary" so if we get open carry we will probably get concealed.

One could also argue that they physically couldn't conceal cause most guns were too large not that they weren't allowed. Though I am not an historian.  It's there no evidence of concealed carry?  I find it hard to believe.

What the state or police prefer has no bearing to constitutional rights.  They can ask the citizenry to conceal vice open but they can't make a law, policy, or edict that forces conceal over open even if it "scares" other people.  Assuming open carry was constitutional protected.  That plays into the hands of the anti 2A people.  "You shouldn't own a black assault military rifle because it is so scary".  Also that type of attitude of the Police pushing the "preference" feeds their ego of "my word is law".  If you don't follow the request, then you are breaking the law and subject to arrest or citation.  For example (this happens a lot) You are not detain, arrested, or have a suspicion of wrong doing but I want you to hand over your ID so I can check for warrants.  Failure to give me your ID will result in your arrest.

I don't think the founders, when writing the 2nd Amendment, had arguments about the concealability of guns and the size of the firearms.  I really doubt (like you I'm not a historian) that founders where complaining about how bulky their firearms are and wished they were smaller so that it was easier to hide.  In my opinion people that were concealing guns back in the founding era were criminals.  i.e. the criminal wanted to put the victim in a false sense of safety until they can ambush the victim.  It is exhausting but it is amazing how heighten your awareness is when you see everybody (kids, women, old men, etc) with some type of weapon.  You trust them but you are always scanning and assessing the treat when you see a firearm.  "Rifles at the ready".

I also believe the founders/settlers really did not care about "hiding" the fact they had a firearm.  I believe "hiding" a pistol became more in fashion when the people started to be "civilized".  They wanted to give the air of "this town/city is so safe I don't need a gun" but secretly have the ability to fight back if needed.  Almost what we want today.  Give the appearance that everything is fine but if something hits the fan, the citizen has the ability to protect self and family.  The test of time according to page 12 Young, "historical analysis is to determine whether the challenged law falls within the scope of the right as it was understood during the founding era."  So just because concealing a weapon became a norm in the preceding decades after the founding, it was not the norm in the "founding era".

Anyway...  I don't think the argument should be if CCW or OC is protected but if "Carry" in any form and with any firearm (rifle or pistol) is protected.  Then let the gun owner determine how they want to carry, open or concealed, just like in the founding era.

What the state or police prefer has no bearing to constitutional rights.  They can ask the citizenry to conceal vice open but they can't make a law, policy, or edict that forces conceal over open even if it "scares" other people.  Assuming open carry was constitutional protected.  That plays into the hands of the anti 2A people.  "You shouldn't own a black assault military rifle because it is so scary".  Also that type of attitude of the Police pushing the "preference" feeds their ego of "my word is law".  If you don't follow the request, then you are breaking the law and subject to arrest or citation.  For example (this happens a lot) You are not detain, arrested, or have a suspicion of wrong doing but I want you to hand over your ID so I can check for warrants.  Failure to give me your ID will result in your arrest.

snip

Bwaahaahaa, how long have you been a firearm owner in Hawaii? HPD makes it all up as they go along. AR pistol.. legal with mods as written in HRS 134, but HPD WILL (attempt to) confiscate it if you don't weld the magazine to the lower. Is it law that you must? Up until 2020, they "made you" return to HPD for inspection of your firearm after purchase, even though the law didn't say so. But as the thug arm of the legislature, they do what they want. And nobody stops them, especially the feckless cowards in the legislature. Only HiFiCo has stood up to them and many mahalos to them for doing so.

Anyone have any insight to the in person registration "requirement" they are trying to enforce? Legislature passed another law (HB2075) that conflicts with the ruling. HPD has it on their webpage that pretty much all registrations are to be done in person unless through dealer purchase.
...
https://www.honolulupd.org/police-services/firearms/
On June 3, 2022, with the signing of a new gun law HB2075 (Act 030),
effective immediately,
the HPD Firearms Unit requires physical inspections for the following firearms:


#1 firearms and firearm receivers that are assembled without serial numbers or other identification markings

#2 firearms brought into the State from other jurisdictions

#3 firearms transferred or obtained in private sales


HB2075 (Act 030)
“If the firearm is acquired from a person who is not a dealer licensed under Section 134 – 31 or a dealer licensed by the United States Department of Justice, the firearm SHALL be physically inspected by the chief of police of the appropriate county or designee at the time of registration. “

Anyone have any insight to the in person registration "requirement" they are trying to enforce? Legislature passed another law (HB2075) that conflicts with the ruling. HPD has it on their webpage that pretty much all registrations are to be done in person unless through dealer purchase.
...
https://www.honolulupd.org/police-services/firearms/
On June 3, 2022, with the signing of a new gun law HB2075 (Act 030),
effective immediately,
the HPD Firearms Unit requires physical inspections for the following firearms:


#1 firearms and firearm receivers that are assembled without serial numbers or other identification markings

#2 firearms brought into the State from other jurisdictions

#3 firearms transferred or obtained in private sales


HB2075 (Act 030)
“If the firearm is acquired from a person who is not a dealer licensed under Section 134 – 31 or a dealer licensed by the United States Department of Justice, the firearm SHALL be physically inspected by the chief of police of the appropriate county or designee at the time of registration. “

No update yet.

No update yet.

Thanks

Well that sucks.
F'n legislature and HPD.
All they did was essentially say, "the original struck down law was written in blue ink so we just rewrote it in red ink so its legal now."

Thanks

Well that sucks.
F'n legislature and HPD.
All they did was essentially say, "the original struck down law was written in blue ink so we just rewrote it in red ink so its legal now."

Wouldn't that show some sort of malicious intent? Harassment? What do you call it when someone purposefully passes laws they know are bad?

Wouldn't that show some sort of malicious intent? Harassment? What do you call it when someone purposefully passes laws they know are bad?

We call that either corrupt or a moron.  So if they did this to 1 judge, guess what they're gonna try with regard to the SCOTUS ruling.

We call that either corrupt or a moron.  So if they did this to 1 judge, guess what they're gonna try with regard to the SCOTUS ruling.

How can they just ignore the ruling?

How can they just ignore the ruling?

Easily. Basically a "we will do what we want, if you don't like it, sue us (which means money spent on lawyers)".

How can they just ignore the ruling?

as a cop told me at the firearms division, "we have our own laws here"  (that was for something different, but same corrupt reasoning applies)

as a cop told me at the firearms division, "we have our own laws here"  (that was for something different, but same corrupt reasoning applies)

Sounds about right.

"You do what you think is legal according to the statutes and then we'll arrest you because we don't really care about what the law actually says. We make it up however we want. Go fuck yourself peasant"

And then we're stuck with legal bills and no firearms because they're all confiscated now. Hopefully we're not in jail just for following the law as written.

Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk

Easily. Basically a "we will do what we want, if you don't like it, sue us (which means money spent on lawyers)".

Yep.  Most executive branch elected officials have qualified immunity, just like the police.  If they pass a law that hurts someone, even if that law is later struck down as unconstitutional, they can't be sued.  Even if you can prove they were bribed or had ill intent.  The best that can happen is they lose their job in the next election or made to resign.

Each time we drag their sorry butts into court (which they don't have to attend -- the state hires attorneys for that), tax payers are footing the bill to defend the laws we don't agree with.  And, if by some miracle a lawsuit results in a monetary award, the tax payers and insurance carriers pay it, not the people who are directly at fault.

Add to that scenario the time it takes for cases to wind their way through the courts, for appeals to be heard, and for pending cases waiting to see how other cases are ruled on.  By the time the case is close to being decided, many of the players may have moved on with their lives, making the ruling less important to them.

I'm starting to think this is the tyranny we never imagined would come for us.  If the government "owns" the judges, the lawmakers and the police, we're bashing our collective head against a wall trying to change things.  Hopefully all these Trump-appointed judges will put this country back on a path guided by the law and not a political party's agendas.

I'm starting to think this is the tyranny we never imagined would come for us.  If the government "owns" the judges, the lawmakers and the police, we're bashing our collective head against a wall trying to change things.  Hopefully all these Trump-appointed judges will put this country back on a path guided by the law and not a political party's agendas.

It's a loop hole they found in the constitution and code/laws. No term limits for senators/reps, immunity like you mentioned, control of government agencies that are weaponized against their opponents, control over the flow of information, etc...

Our government has become what our forefathers feared the most.

Our government has become what our forefathers feared the most.

Yup

And the entire reason for the 2nd Amendment. We all know it wasn't for deer hunting.

Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk

Yup

And the entire reason for the 2nd Amendment. We all know it wasn't for deer hunting.

Well, Pelosi DOES kinda look like a deer in headlights.

Just saying...

Well, Pelosi DOES kinda look like a deer in headlights.

Just saying...