A reduced version would be a B-29 a.k.a. "25 Yard Police Pistol Silhouette", 14"x 22"
7 point is 7x10 decreasing 1" per +point.

Quote from: Stack_Xchange on November 14, 2022, 04:08:42 PM

I think most indoor ranges here will go out to 20-25m

    Bigger issue is a lot of ranges do not permit "holster work" much less from concealed.

     And if the "type 2''  holster is not a requirement, does the " minimum four-hour lecture" and  "written multiple-choice examination" still require
inclusion of "proper holsters for carrying concealed and unconcealed firearms," ?

Its in the rules what the class needs to consist of. I dont remember off the top of my head. But low light and weapon retention is required

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

B-29 is 50-foot silhouette; B-34 is 25-yard.

U can use the targets at the required state distances. As long as theyre NRA targets.  If im reading the rules correctly.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

One question is whether the C&C will now allow the same targets for practice at KHSC as they require for CCW testing.  That's especially relevant if the tests are going to be given at KHSC.

Makes more sense to allow silhouette targets for CCW qualification practice versus some irrational and arbitrary ban on them.

That rule has never made a lick of sense to me.

They are also going to have to allow practice drawing from concealment.

Can't expect people to pass a test they never practiced for, and can't expect them to all afford cost of practicing at a private range.

This whole anti-CCW scheme is going to continue snowballing into an overly-complicated, unmanageable clusterfk.

Maybe we need to change our focus from C&C Hon. to the HI rev stat 134-9 and challenge the unconstitutional language or maybe even revisit the entire ch 134 in light of Bruen.

Maybe we need to change our focus from C&C Hon. to the HI rev stat 134-9 and challenge the unconstitutional language or maybe even revisit the entire ch 134 in light of Bruen.

Forgot that instructors need to be approved by HPD.  So lets see how long that takes from 11/20/22 if people apply to teach on this date.

Do you have a link to read the entire rule?

Do you have a link to read the entire rule?

says "from the holster"
this means it doesn't have to be from concealment?
can go with OWB with clothing cleared of the holster and gun?

15-24 goes right back to "NEED" and denotes a "MAY ISSUE"

§ 15-24
(1) Pursuant to HRS § 134-9(a), the applicant must “sufficiently indicate that the
applicant has an “urgency” or “need” to carry a firearm and is “engaged in the
protection of life and property.”
(A) The “urgency” or “need” is “sufficiently indicated” only if an applicant
has a need to carry a firearm for protection that substantially exceeds the
need possessed by ordinary law-abiding citizens.

(B) Being “engaged in the protection of life and property” does not require an
applicant to be employed in a job that entails the protection of life or
property, such as a Guard, but it does require the applicant to be taking
part, generally, in the protection of life, property, or both.

(C) The life or property being protected is not limited to the applicant’s life or
property but can extend to that of others.

(2) The Chief may consider the following non-exhaustive list of factors when
determining whether an applicant has an “urgency” or “need” to carry a firearm
and is “engaged in the protection of life and property”:
(A) Whether the applicant has been subjected to a credible threat of harm to
life, property, or both.
(B) Whether there has been corroboration of the threat, from police,
government, or other records; from prior history with the same person or
at the same location; or from witnesses, documents, or other first-hand
sources.
(C) Whether the applicant has been the victim of crime, such as domestic
abuse, in which the applicant was specifically targeted, as opposed to the
applicant being the victim of random crime.
(D) Whether temporary restraining orders, protective orders, or other court
orders or proceedings demonstrate a risk of harm to life or property.
(E) Whether the applicant’s profession supports the need for a firearm due to
the heightened risk of attack or violence that the applicant faces.
(F) Whether the applicant lives or works in a rural area far from police
protection, as opposed to living or working in an urban area with a
significant police presence.
(G) Whether the applicant is employed in ajob that requires protection of the
life or property of others.
(H) Whether a spouse, close family member, or other dependent of the
applicant faces a heightened risk of bodily harm and the applicant is
engaged in the protection of that person.
(I) Whether the applicant has an “urgency” or “need” to carry a firearm
unconcealed rather than concealed, taking into account considerations
such as whether an Unconcealed License will enable the applicant to
protect life or property more effectively than a Concealed License, and
whether the intended use of the Unconcealed License is likely to cause
terror and panic among the general public.
(J) Other factors not mentioned above but reasonable and appropriate to the
decision whether to grant or deny an application for an Unconcealed
License.

One question is whether the C&C will now allow the same targets for practice at KHSC as they require for CCW testing.  That's especially relevant if the tests are going to be given at KHSC.

Makes more sense to allow silhouette targets for CCW qualification practice versus some irrational and arbitrary ban on them.

That rule has never made a lick of sense to me.

They are also going to have to allow practice drawing from concealment.

Can't expect people to pass a test they never practiced for, and can't expect them to all afford cost of practicing at a private range.

This whole anti-CCW scheme is going to continue snowballing into an overly-complicated, unmanageable clusterfk.

Yes. The entire 134 is unconstitutional

I think until HRS134-9 is changed and "exceptional circumstance" is removed, this portion will remain. Which mean it would have to be during the legislative session.