There could be a slim chance of reciprocity with some states with higher training requirements, only because of the time and resources needed by the police.  I estimate in Honolulu there would be 80 to 160 requests for CCW per day which the police wouldn't be able to process.

But reciprocity would need to be passed in a law and go through Karl Rhoads.  So not counting on it.

National Reciprocity would likewise need to be passed through the US Congress and signed into law, just like driver's licenses and marriage licenses are treted now.  If you have a Hawaii license, you're allowed to legally operate an automobile in any state in the country.  No need to consult a map to see which states you can legally drive through.

If the Courts recognize the right to carry is in the US Constitution, then there should be a push to pass national reciprocity for that reason alone.

Strike while the iron is hot.   

National reciprocity is possible if we retake the presidency and gain a super majority in congress in 2024.  It's a real possibility.

But for constitutionalists, it's a problem since national reciprocity is based on the interstate commerce clause, a bad precedent that led to an overpowered Federal government.  The best way is to have SCOTUS rule for constitutional carry, possible since I don't think there were carry permits when the constitution was written. 

National Reciprocity would likewise need to be passed through the US Congress and signed into law, just like driver's licenses and marriage licenses are treted now.  If you have a Hawaii license, you're allowed to legally operate an automobile in any state in the country.  No need to consult a map to see which states you can legally drive through.

If the Courts recognizes the right to carry is in the US Constitution, then there should be a push to pass national reciprocity for that reason alone.

Strike while the iron is hot.   

"then there should be a push to pass national reciprocity "
I think it was called the "Hudson" bill in 2017- 2018?
The useless Republicans controlling both the house and Senate didn't bother
to consider it.
Even with a president that would have signed it.
I don't always bitch about Democrats.
 

National reciprocity may happen sooner than we think. Thomas made a clear point about the violation of the 14th Amendment in the opinion.

Last sentence of the opinion.
"New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms in public."

"then there should be a push to pass national reciprocity "
I think it was called the "Hudson" bill in 2017- 2018?
The useless Republicans controlling both the house and Senate didn't bother
to consider it.
Even with a president that would have signed it.
I don't always bitch about Democrats.
 

The gun media hyped it up knowing in reality it was not going to pass.  It was obvious we didn't have 60 votes in the Senate to break the filibuster to pass it.  52 Republicans in the Senate at the time.

Morning news said Chris Lee was drafting legislation to require same amount of training as police in order to carry.  Of course such training is not available to civilians as far as I know.  Please correct me if I am wrong.   As I said earlier, they are going to make the requirements so difficult it will still amount to a de facto ban.

Morning news said Chris Lee was drafting legislation to require same amount of training as police in order to carry.  Of course such training is not available to civilians as far as I know.  Please correct me if I am wrong.   As I said earlier, they are going to make the requirements so difficult it will still amount to a de facto ban.

Or limited and use the excuse that if HPD needs to do the training, "we don't have the staffing".  IDK how this would hold up in court because I don't think any other state requires training to be done by the police. HPD firearms division alone cost over $1,000,00 annually to run.

do they have to do training, or do they have to pass a test?

So here's some take away,

HI law requires an "exceptional circumstance" which SCOTUS struck down.

The 2nd thing HI law requires is "good moral character", which SCOUTS said any requirements must be objective. GMC is subjective. 

Another is that SCOTUS ruled and cited historical stuff as the test.  Not the current 2 test system that has been used for decades here.  Which means other laws have a good chance of being struck down in HI.

do they have to do training, or do they have to pass a test?

HPD has an annual firearms test that they must complete to stay as an active officer.  I know cops who only shoot once a year (for the exam) and do no training on their own.  And then you have others who enjoy shooting and practice all the time on their own.

The gun media hyped it up knowing in reality it was not going to pass.  It was obvious we didn't have 60 votes in the Senate to break the filibuster to pass it.  52 Republicans in the Senate at the time.

That is true.  But forcing a roll-call vote is a good thing. 
Then one can ask why is that licence recognized in one state and not another,
of the Senators that objected?
 

Then one can ask why is that licence recognized in one state and not another,
of the Senators that objected?
 

Because guns bad, cars good.

That is true.  But forcing a roll-call vote is a good thing. 
Then one can ask why is that licence recognized in one state and not another,
of the Senators that objected?
 

The issue then becomes, do states get to decide on their own standards for issuing permits, or will the feds create a "framework" that details the minimum required?

One example is the Motorcycle Endorsement/License. I remember passing that driving test in NC.  It was super easy compared to Hawaii's.

Yet, I am able to drive a MC in Hawaii if I have a NC operator's license with a MC endorsement.   

National reciprocity should have minimum training/testing criteria for all states.  If every state meets that threshold, than each state MUST honor out-of-state carry permits. -- no exceptions.

JMO

HPD has an annual firearms test that they must complete to stay as an active officer.  I know cops who only shoot once a year (for the exam) and do no training on their own.  And then you have others who enjoy shooting and practice all the time on their own.

ok.  that's what I thought.  I know a few cops, 1 is family.  they mentioned the firearms test but not doing X amount of documented training, but enough to pass the test.  IIRC, the test is not too difficult but I forget exactly what it involves

ok.  that's what I thought.  I know a few cops, 1 is family.  they mentioned the firearms test but not doing X amount of documented training, but enough to pass the test.  IIRC, the test is not too difficult but I forget exactly what it involves

I'm trying to get the exact requirements.  This way if Sen Chris Lee wants to make it more difficult than HPD's test, then we have grounds to get the testing qualification lowered.

The issue then becomes, do states get to decide on their own standards for issuing permits, or will the feds create a "framework" that details the minimum required?

One example is the Motorcycle Endorsement/License. I remember passing that driving test in NC.  It was super easy compared to Hawaii's.

Yet, I am able to drive a MC in Hawaii if I have a NC operator's license with a MC endorsement.   

National reciprocity should have minimum training/testing criteria for all states.  If every state meets that threshold, than each state MUST honor out-of-state carry permits. -- no exceptions.

JMO

1) While I agree that everyone should train and be able to meet a minimum criteria, what is it? Who makes the standards? While not popular with a lot of people, I think State preemption should be taken away. Firearms are federally regulated through the 2nd Amendment and should stay that way. We can get a passport to travel, we can get a national open/concealed carry permit. Essentially if you are an adult, you can carry. The only thing the states should have a say in is if the carry open or concealed.

2) We are dealing with RIGHTS vs PRIVILEGES. There are no precussors to the right to vote, exercise your 1st or 5th Amendment rights. Also Thomas was explicit in his use of the violation of the 14th Amendment rights. It's the last sentence of the opinion. So I think (that being the key word) that states will have a hard time to go past minimal proficiency. Meaning if you can pass the basic marksmanship test for the local PD, you should be able to carry. They can't make it harder than what they mandate for their own PD. Does anyone know the HPD marksmanship minimums?

3) The problem will be the implementation of requirements. They can't be onerous and the fees can't be extravagant. as was stated in the SCOTUS opinion also.


So as we move forward, we can look forward to more lawsuits against the State and against the local PD as they make up new laws and their own rules (yes you HPD)

1) While I agree that everyone should train and be able to meet a minimum criteria, what is it? Who makes the standards? While not popular with a lot of people, I think State preemption should be taken away. Firearms are federally regulated through the 2nd Amendment and should stay that way. We can get a passport to travel, we can get a national open/concealed carry permit. Essentially if you are an adult, you can carry. The only thing the states should have a say in is if the carry open or concealed.

2) We are dealing with RIGHTS vs PRIVILEGES. There are no precussors to the right to vote, exercise your 1st or 5th Amendment rights. Also Thomas was explicit in his use of the violation of the 14th Amendment rights. It's the last sentence of the opinion. So I think (that being the key word) that states will have a hard time to go past minimal proficiency. Meaning if you can pass the basic marksmanship test for the local PD, you should be able to carry. They can't make it harder than what they mandate for their own PD. Does anyone know the HPD marksmanship minimums?

3) The problem will be the implementation of requirements. They can't be onerous and the fees can't be extravagant. as was stated in the SCOTUS opinion also.


So as we move forward, we can look forward to more lawsuits against the State and against the local PD as they make up new laws and their own rules (yes you HPD)

HPD's one will be UIPA'd.

FBI is online and above. So is the air marshal requirement. That's a tough one.

1) While I agree that everyone should train and be able to meet a minimum criteria, what is it? Who makes the standards? While not popular with a lot of people, I think State preemption should be taken away. Firearms are federally regulated through the 2nd Amendment and should stay that way. We can get a passport to travel, we can get a national open/concealed carry permit. Essentially if you are an adult, you can carry. The only thing the states should have a say in is if the carry open or concealed.

2) We are dealing with RIGHTS vs PRIVILEGES. There are no precussors to the right to vote, exercise your 1st or 5th Amendment rights. Also Thomas was explicit in his use of the violation of the 14th Amendment rights. It's the last sentence of the opinion. So I think (that being the key word) that states will have a hard time to go past minimal proficiency. Meaning if you can pass the basic marksmanship test for the local PD, you should be able to carry. They can't make it harder than what they mandate for their own PD. Does anyone know the HPD marksmanship minimums?

3) The problem will be the implementation of requirements. They can't be onerous and the fees can't be extravagant. as was stated in the SCOTUS opinion also.


So as we move forward, we can look forward to more lawsuits against the State and against the local PD as they make up new laws and their own rules (yes you HPD)

The minimum will have to follow existing permitting standards in the states that require them.

I think basic training and pistol operation is a must, plus local and federal laws, like transporting, brandishing, printing, etc.  It's too difficult sometimes to reconcile the transportation requirements state-to-state.  Should be no "gotchas" when it comes to having a firearm and traveling.

A test is separate from the training.  You should be able to pass the classroom test, and then take the proficiency test within a reasonable time after.  The classroom portion can be done online.  Scheduling the firing test could be a problem for working gun owners, so maybe a 30-60 day window to pass it.  If you fail, you can return in a day or two and retake it within the 30-60 days prescribed.

While I don't agree everyone needs to pass a test to own firearms, I think basic safety training should be required.  What we have here in Hawaii with NRA training seems to be fine.  You can substitute other forms like military training or hunter's ed, so I don't have an issue with that requirement.

CCW (IMHO) should require at least a minimum proficiency demonstration.  Last thing you want is someone who's never fired their carry gun in their life pulling it in public -- unless they are handing it to someone else to use who trains regularly.

Responsible gun owners will take appropriate actions to be proficient.  Unfortunately, not everyone fits that category, so mandatory training and testing will be the "common sense" restriction that I think most can agree on.

As I said, many states already have the standards in place.  We just need a minimum version for the framework.

HPD's one will be UIPA'd.

FBI is online and above. So is the air marshal requirement. That's a tough one.

I found the Hawaii Police Dept General Order 810 online.  The Procedures for firearm training and standards are all redacted -- about 2/3 of the order.

I guess they don't want anyone second-guessing their low-bar requirements for officers.  Just guessing.

The minimum will have to follow existing permitting standards in the states that require them.

I think basic training and pistol operation is a must, plus local and federal laws, like transporting, brandishing, printing, etc.  It's too difficult sometimes to reconcile the transportation requirements state-to-state.  Should be no "gotchas" when it comes to having a firearm and traveling.

A test is separate from the training.  You should be able to pass the classroom test, and then take the proficiency test within a reasonable time after.  The classroom portion can be done online.  Scheduling the firing test could be a problem for working gun owners, so maybe a 30-60 day window to pass it.  If you fail, you can return in a day or two and retake it within the 30-60 days prescribed.

While I don't agree everyone needs to pass a test to own firearms, I think basic safety training should be required.  What we have here in Hawaii with NRA training seems to be fine.  You can substitute other forms like military training or hunter's ed, so I don't have an issue with that requirement.

CCW (IMHO) should require at least a minimum proficiency demonstration.  Last thing you want is someone who's never fired their carry gun in their life pulling it in public -- unless they are handing it to someone else to use who trains regularly.

Responsible gun owners will take appropriate actions to be proficient.  Unfortunately, not everyone fits that category, so mandatory training and testing will be the "common sense" restriction that I think most can agree on.

As I said, many states already have the standards in place.  We just need a minimum version for the framework.

I definitely agree with all of this.

There should be a minimum level of training and a proficiency test to carry.  I agree that the NRA pistol course should be the minimum level of training to obtain the CCW/OC permit. It's already an agreed upon national standard. I'm just playing the devils advocate when it comes to the RIGHTS of bearing arms. If we applied the same logic to voting, there would be about 50 million people not voting every time. Which I can definitely get on board with. I'd love to see mandatory in person voter registration. It's been proven you can do it when you renew your drivers license or ID every 4 years or 8 max, state dependent. But that's a different tangent...

For transportation, use, etc., again, one national standard. NJ can't have one and California can't have another. Too many ways of unknowingly breaking the law. Even firearms attorneys don't know every states laws.

And yes responsible people will be responsible. the others, not so much