Requirement 1 and 2 in his interview is not in the law.  Him adding more requirements is not right.

These people do not care about, much less are concerned about, "right"... in either sense of the word.

Any "procedure" requirement to keep and bear arms is an infringement.

Obviously.

Logan on the radio this morning.

1) People will need an NRA certified class, which most handgun owners already have. So hunters ed won't fly.
2) Shooting requirement is highly probable and NRA instructors can dictate it and sign off on it
3) He emphasizes the liability of using the gun again.
4) No word on pending apps
5) They are close to finalizing everything, and again expects to sign off at end of Aug at the latest. He stated again that he will be signing CCWs.

All the above is verbal and can change later. Lets see what's on paper and what the legislature does.

Kinda of rules out Hawaii county.
No public Pistol or rifle shooting ranges.
No NRA courses on a certified range.

This is all BS. I'm not inclined to comply anymore,
with criminals denying me my rights.
Perhaps they have too much money and too little to do
dealing with real criminals.
Instead they fuck with the guys trying to be upstanding
citizens.
They aren't police, they are soldiers in the employ of the single
party state, serving only the party.
 
.

Kinda of rules out Hawaii county.
No public Pistol or rifle shooting ranges.
No NRA courses on a certified range.

.

Ok, so I got my NRA certified handgun course from a certified NRA instructor on Oahu in 2014.  Is that still valid or are they going to say too long ago.  Since then and now I did take handgun courses at Front Sight 5 times but since it wasn't from a Hawaii instructor in Hawaii it probably doesn't count.

Ok, so I got my NRA certified handgun course from a certified NRA instructor on Oahu in 2014.  Is that still valid or are they going to say too long ago.  Since then and now I did take handgun courses at Front Sight 5 times but since it wasn't from a Hawaii instructor in Hawaii it probably doesn't count.

Theyre good for life.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

If you already own a handgun in the state of Hawaii you already meet the requirement written in the law.

(1)  Be qualified to use the firearm in a safe manner;

     (2)  Appear to be a suitable person to be so licensed;

     (3)  Not be prohibited under section 134-7 from the ownership or possession of a firearm; and

     (4)  Not have been adjudged insane or not appear to be mentally deranged.





Requirement 1 and 2 in his interview is not in the law.  Him adding more requirements is not right.

Seems there is some wiggle room as to what constitutes qualifications to use  a firearm in a safe manner so I think he is playing in that gray area. "Qualified" could be interpreted to mean something a little different for CCW than ownership.

Still not comfortable with him adding requirements but possible defensible.

I think a better way to do it from a legal standpoint would be to have the legislature pass a specific law stipulating some special CCW training than just interpreting it into the existing law.

Seems there is some wiggle room as to what constitutes qualifications to use  a firearm in a safe manner so I think he is playing in that gray area. "Qualified" could be interpreted to mean something a little different for CCW than ownership.

Still not comfortable with him adding requirements but possible defensible.

I think a better way to do it from a legal standpoint would be to have the legislature pass a specific law stipulating some special CCW training than just interpreting it into the existing law.

That is the correct way, not necessarily the better way.

One of the other landmark cases the SCOTUS just ruled on said agencies cannot broadly interpret vague laws and create rules out of thin air.

The chief is blatantly infringing on every applicant’s rights.

I’m no lawyer though

Seems to me the Chief is waiting for the bosses to give him the green light.

I don't think he has to but then, this is Hawaii.......

Seems there is some wiggle room as to what constitutes qualifications to use  a firearm in a safe manner so I think he is playing in that gray area. "Qualified" could be interpreted to mean something a little different for CCW than ownership.

Still not comfortable with him adding requirements but possible defensible.

I think a better way to do it from a legal standpoint would be to have the legislature pass a specific law stipulating some special CCW training than just interpreting it into the existing law.

What if he adds in the NY style. 16 hours of training that they don't know what it includes yet. They are giving their DOJ until April 2023 to figure that out. Which means the 16hours was a random number. They're already being sued over this.

Or what if he adds in 25 yard distance like the armored car guys have to do?  That is a great challenge for most shooters. Even 15yards can be challenging.  And as we know, most self defense shootings happens within 21 feet.

For example: NV requires a 8 hr class and their CCW is valid for 5 years. The shooting test is at 3, 5  and 7 yards and you can use any caliber since their CCW is valid for any gun. Mrs.CMO got like a 95%. Then for the renewal, it's a 6 hr class.  So basically, it's very difficult to fail.  If our leg required a specific class, it should be easily passable.

What HPD is showing is that they never intended to issue any permits as the "qualification" has yet to be made up.  This shows the corruption, which the chief is now part of. Because he could easily have signed the permits as soon as the AG made their statement. But he didn't. The new boss has failed his first test.

What if he adds in the NY style. 16 hours of training that they don't know what it includes yet. They are giving their DOJ until April 2023 to figure that out. Which means the 16hours was a random number. They're already being sued over this.

Or what if he adds in 25 yard distance like the armored car guys have to do?  That is a great challenge for most shooters. Even 15yards can be challenging.  And as we know, most self defense shootings happens within 21 feet.

For example: NV requires a 8 hr class and their CCW is valid for 5 years. The shooting test is at 3, 5  and 7 yards and you can use any caliber since their CCW is valid for any gun. Mrs.CMO got like a 95%. Then for the renewal, it's a 6 hr class.  So basically, it's very difficult to fail.  If our leg required a specific class, it should be easily passable.

What HPD is showing is that they never intended to issue any permits as the "qualification" has yet to be made up.  This shows the corruption, which the chief is now part of. Because he could easily have signed the permits as soon as the AG made their statement. But he didn't. The new boss has failed his first test.

Anything the Chiefs add to the process is illegal, period. The statute specifies the requirements and he AG letter removes the exceptional need requirement. His job is to enforce the law as written. No more, no less. The police departments cannot add additional requirements.

From the Justice Department -
Conspiracy Against Rights, 18 U.S.C. § 241

Civil Rights Conspiracy Statute - Section 241 makes it unlawful for two or more persons to agree to injure, threaten, or intimidate an individual in the free exercise or enjoyment of his or her constitutionally protected rights. What the Chief and his "bosses" are doing now

Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law, 18 U.S.C. § 242

Deprivation of Rights under the Color of Law - Section 242 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, including acts done by federal, state, or local officials within their lawful authority, as well as acts done beyond that authority, if they are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his or her official duties.

Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. As the Chiefs are making up new rules or purposely delaying the issuance of permits in accordance with the AGs letter, aren't they depriving us of our rights?

Right now the anticipation of what will happen in the next couple of weeks is mind boggling.

Will the CCW process go as it should and applicants start receiving their permits in a timely manner?  If this is so, then there is reason to celebrate a 2a right that had denied us for all these years.

Will there be unreasonable demands, restrictions, training, and expense involved?  There is sure to be outrage as it will be obvious these things are tactics implemented to discourage and deter CCW applications.

Just as the firearm acquisition procedures in Hawaii are meant to discourage and deter, it only makes sense that the CCW process will be similar in design.

I sincerely hope this is not the case and in a few weeks we will be celebrating a 2a victory.

In the meantime all I can do is: 

 

Right now the anticipation of what will happen in the next couple of weeks is mind boggling.

Will the CCW process go as it should and applicants start receiving their permits in a timely manner?  If this is so, then there is reason to celebrate a 2a right that had denied us for all these years.

Will there be unreasonable demands, restrictions, training, and expense involved?  There is sure to be outrage as it will be obvious these things are tactics implemented to discourage and deter CCW applications.

Just as the firearm acquisition procedures in Hawaii are meant to discourage and deter, it only makes sense that the CCW process will be similar in design.

I sincerely hope this is not the case and in a few weeks we will be celebrating a 2a victory.

In the meantime all I can do is: 

If they do what Logan said last Thursday, then all 1 would have to do is submit their shooting test that any NRA qualified instructor can make up. But what would the deadline be is the interesting part.

I doubt what he stated on the radio will suffice.

Anything the Chiefs add to the process is illegal, period. The statute specifies the requirements and he AG letter removes the exceptional need requirement. His job is to enforce the law as written. No more, no less. The police departments cannot add additional requirements.

From the Justice Department -
Conspiracy Against Rights, 18 U.S.C. § 241

Civil Rights Conspiracy Statute - Section 241 makes it unlawful for two or more persons to agree to injure, threaten, or intimidate an individual in the free exercise or enjoyment of his or her constitutionally protected rights. What the Chief and his "bosses" are doing now

Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law, 18 U.S.C. § 242

Deprivation of Rights under the Color of Law - Section 242 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, including acts done by federal, state, or local officials within their lawful authority, as well as acts done beyond that authority, if they are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his or her official duties.

Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. As the Chiefs are making up new rules or purposely delaying the issuance of permits in accordance with the AGs letter, aren't they depriving us of our rights?

No one in power cares. I mean the AG/state just said FU to a judge with regard to in person registration. F-U sue us is their mentality. Then when they're about to lose, they change the law and stiff the attorney with the bill. This way no attorney would want to take on any more cases.  Unless they're doing it based on principal like how Alan Beck is.

On another thread I posted the response (dated July 25) I got to my concealed and unconcealed license application, and because that said new applications would be available "within 30 days", that it would only be two more weeks until they would be available. haha. Silly me. I thought maybe those full of sh*t lying *ssholes were for once being honest. duh. So I just now (August 11) go on the county police department website to check for a status update, and THEY HAVE THE EXACT SAME WORDING THERE! No, you can't make this sh*t up! So they are telling you, if you read it last week, this week, or in two weeks, it will be 30 days from then. omg. smh.

License to Carry

In view of the recent Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) decision in the case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., et al. v. Bruen, Superintendent Of New York State Police, et al, the police departments throughout the State are working with the Department of Attorney General and our County attorneys in revising the permitting process for concealed and unconcealed firearms.

The revisions to the current process will include amending the applications being currently utilized, therefore, if still interested you will need to reapply once the revisions are finalized.  We anticipate the revisions being completed within the next 30 days and will post updated information on our department’s website.

Edited to add: Curiosity got the better of me. Called. Talked to "the captain". He knows nothing. Not when the applications might be available, who is making what decisions about the content/requirements or date of availability of the applications. "Just keep checking the website or call." LOL! What a circus!

What if he adds in the NY style. 16 hours of training that they don't know what it includes yet. They are giving their DOJ until April 2023 to figure that out. Which means the 16hours was a random number. They're already being sued over this.

Or what if he adds in 25 yard distance like the armored car guys have to do?  That is a great challenge for most shooters. Even 15yards can be challenging.  And as we know, most self defense shootings happens within 21 feet.

For example: NV requires a 8 hr class and their CCW is valid for 5 years. The shooting test is at 3, 5  and 7 yards and you can use any caliber since their CCW is valid for any gun. Mrs.CMO got like a 95%. Then for the renewal, it's a 6 hr class.  So basically, it's very difficult to fail.  If our leg required a specific class, it should be easily passable.

What HPD is showing is that they never intended to issue any permits as the "qualification" has yet to be made up.  This shows the corruption, which the chief is now part of. Because he could easily have signed the permits as soon as the AG made their statement. But he didn't. The new boss has failed his first test.

Laws can be written to be rigid or flexible. Rigid laws are easy to apply, and leave little room for someone to wiggle too much or too little control but the downside is they cannot allow for case by case, tailored responses.
Flexible language in a law can allow for a response more appropriate to the situation but the downside is that it could be abused and it could be applied inconsistently.

If a law says "be qualified to use a firearm in a safe manner" that is flexible language. The chief may not set a definition of "qualified" at the same level as you or I might but that doesn't make it corruption.
Does 8 hours of training count? Does classroom only training count? What about legal training so ensure not just that you can shoot but know when to shoot.? Does someone have to be a certain level of sight? Like it or not such questions are put to the police chiefs to decide.

I wish he would make up his mind faster though.


What do you think would be an appropriate level of training required to be considered qualified? I gave it some thought in the past and I was thinking of an 8 hour class that covered some fundamentals of shooting under stress as well as a legal portion that instructed people about when they can use force, where they can and cannot carry, interaction with police, etc.

Hawaii has been fine with the existing training requirements to acquire a handgun, including the woefully inadequate Hunter's Ed classes (no live fire training or qualification test) and the much better NRA safety training (includes live fire "intro" but no actual range training or qualification test).

If that level of training has been adequate for all this time, how is it now an issue that anyone carrying their gun needs more training MANDATED BY THE STATE?

Anyone carrying a firearm has a duty to maintain proficiency on their own, and any initial training required to get a carry license is inadequate on its own.  The owner needs to practice regularly as well as avail themselves of self defense classes that cover much more than how to shoot holes in a target.

Carrying a firearm makes you lethal. 
Qualification testing evaluates if you've practiced and can pass a test with a minimum score. 
Training makes you proficient. 

I guess I still have a question.
Why do I have to prove to to you
I have a God given right?
 

Yep.  It all comes down to personal responsibility of one's actions.

Something the government (especially the asshat politicians in Hawaii) are reluctant to give us.

In Hawaii, government is all knowing, and will have your best interests at heart. 

Just make sure you are in lockstep with the rest of the sheep out there.

Any "requirement" (or "procedure") to exercise a fundamental unalienable individual God-given/natural right is obviously an infringement (and the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence state that the role of government is to protect those rights)..

Twenty-five states, recognizing the above fact,  currently have in place permitless carry laws (aka "constitutional carry"). People may legally carry, at a prescribed age minimum, without seeking any permission of any kind from any government agency.

In nine of those states the age for legal carry is 18 (with three more allowing service members to carry at 18).

Vermont has had permitless carry since 1793. Age minimum: 18.

No training requirement of any kind.

Where are all the disasters of the unlicensed unpermitted untrained carriers?

Literally millions of people carrying without having met any rules or "procedures" imposed by any government agency and virtually no "problems".

Maybe Hawaii is different and the people here who would carry are dumbasses and sheep, like the majority of the overall population (In the 2016 Democrat primary USSR-honeymooning Bernie Sanders beat Hillary Clinton 70% to 30%).

The government here should make explicit why Hawaii residents need to meet "standards" and "requirements" and "procedures" found to be completely unnecessary in 25 other states, with no ensuing problems.

Otherwise they'd have to admit the real basis for their violations of our rights is that they are Marxist fascist authoritarians.

Any "requirement" (or "procedure") to exercise a fundamental unalienable individual God-given/natural right is obviously an infringement (and the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence state that the role of government is to protect those rights)..

Twenty-five states, recognizing the above fact,  currently have in place permitless carry laws (aka "constitutional carry"). People may legally carry, at a prescribed age minimum, without seeking any permission of any kind from any government agency.

In nine of those states the age for legal carry is 18 (with three more allowing service members to carry at 18).

Vermont has had permitless carry since 1793. Age minimum: 18.

No training requirement of any kind.

Where are all the disasters of the unlicensed unpermitted untrained carriers?

Literally millions of people carrying without having met any rules or "procedures" imposed by any government agency and virtually no "problems".

Maybe Hawaii is different and the people here who would carry are dumbasses and sheep, like the majority of the overall population (In the 2016 Democrat primary USSR-honeymooning Bernie Sanders beat Hillary Clinton 70% to 30%).

The government here should make explicit why Hawaii residents need to meet "standards" and "requirements" and "procedures" found to be completely unnecessary in 25 other states, with no ensuing problems.

Otherwise they'd have to admit the real basis for their violations of our rights is that they are Marxist fascist authoritarians.

My theory:  the Democrats of the ruling class (and probably many on the other side) have been "dumbing down" the nation through educational mismanagement and programs designed to take care of people rather than empowering them to be self-sufficient.

Now these same rulers are terrified of putting weapons in the hands of the dumbed-down population they created.  Only bad things can come of that.

Just a guess.

I wish he would make up his mind faster though.


What do you think would be an appropriate level of training required to be considered qualified? I gave it some thought in the past and I was thinking of an 8 hour class that covered some fundamentals of shooting under stress as well as a legal portion that instructed people about when they can use force, where they can and cannot carry, interaction with police, etc.

ADA comes into play if a blind person is denied.

An appropriate level of training should be the following: Not a felon. That's it.

To exercise a right, one doesn't need to show how good you are with it.  I mean look at the anti 2a protest arguments. If 1 has to show proficiency, then most of them would not be able to protest.