If things are run the same, it would have to be done at an open shoot by an organization like HRA, HDF, etc....

I think there should also be a separate section available for this type of qual that is open during all range hours since HDF is once a month and HRA is twice a month.  IDK what the other groups have.

You're not focusing.

If an NRA Instructor is conducting evaluations for CCW at KHSC, they are doing all the things people need to practice/test.  That means drawing from concealment and using "banned" targets.

If any organization is conducting their own training that's open to the public, sure -- they can reserve an action bay or the Silly range -- wherever the Cops practice.

What I'm getting at is, the days of banned targets on the pistol range should be a thing of the past. 

As for practicing your draw, that can be done in your home, but the full :"draw, fire twice in a specific max time limit" needs to be accommodated.  Whether or not they have a special section for that. it needs to be made available -- both for individual and instructor-supervised practice.

I'm sorry but wasn't that the whole  issue with SCOTUS vs NY ?
Shall issue vs May Issue ?

Yup and only thing the AG has issued  is a statement to HPD about exception circumstance and good moral character.  They haven't removed that from the law yet. No emergency meeting was held for this to change the law prior to the next legislative session starting (Jan 2023).

What I find more messed up is further down there's a clause that the chief can limit the time 1 can carry. So if he wanted to, he could say no can CCW after 10pm.

What I'm getting at is, the days of banned targets on the pistol range should be a thing of the past. 

I posted about silhouettes in another thread and Rocky responded with a good idea which was a  picture of just the shape of what resembles a hydro flask (scoring section of a silhouette).  So this can be used or just tear off the head portion of the silhouette since those are zero's anyways.  Also can remove the arms, since those are zero's too.  There is no way KHSC would change the rules and allow silhouettes.

Yup and only thing the AG has issued  is a statement to HPD about exception circumstance and good moral character.  They haven't removed that from the law yet. No emergency meeting was held for this to change the law prior to the next legislative session starting (Jan 2023).

What I find more messed up is further down there's a clause that the chief can limit the time 1 can carry. So if he wanted to, he could say no can CCW after 10pm.

Who is "they"?

The Legislature won't be in session until Jan 2023.  Until then, the SCOTUS made it illegal to enforce an arbitrary "exceptional circumstances" requirement for CCW -- more specifically any requirement that allows the issuing agency to exercise individual discretion, which includes "good moral character."

if they want to specify specific levels of crimes that are disqualifiers, they can do that.  But, the rule has to be objective and applied equally to all applicants, not some government employee who decides if you deserve a license.  The subjective BS rules are unconstitutional per SCOTUS.

I bet Chief Kealoha could have produced dozens of references attesting to his "good moral character."  Doesn't mean squat, does it?

We should start a "CCW Applicant Pyramid," where we start with 3 references, then they each add a new reference, etc.  Each person applying for CCW takes the last 3 additions and requests a reference letter.  No sense in bothering our coworkers and friends.  At least this plan provides only references we know support CCW.

I posted about silhouettes in another thread and Rocky responded with a good idea which was a  picture of just the shape of what resembles a hydro flask (scoring section of a silhouette).  So this can be used or just tear off the head portion of the silhouette since those are zero's anyways.  Also can remove the arms, since those are zero's too.  There is no way KHSC would change the rules and allow silhouettes.

There's no logical argument for the target restriction, I believe, given the current turmoil with CCW, all rules are now on the table.

Ask for everything, and see how much they are willing to argue about.

Who is "they"?

Lawmakers (senators and reps).

There's no logical argument for the target restriction, I believe, given the current turmoil with CCW, all rules are now on the table.

Ask for everything, and see how much they are willing to argue about.

Everyone here knows there is no logical reason to ban the targets.  Once the range opens, orgs will ask about changing the rules.  I'm sure special areas to do this will also be requested since the pistol side minimum is 25 yards.

Lawmakers (senators and reps).

Are they allowed to change the law without the Legislature being in session?

#Rhetorical
#LegislativeSpecialSession--Right!
#KickTheCan

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.

I reviewed and see this under "Guards" and such so . . ."Never mind" 

Yes. The entire 134 is unconstitutional

Agreed!
What are we willing to do about it?

stalling until the next legislative session, so that Karl Rhoads can drop a few turds into the punchbowl.

It will be worked on, but it will take time.

I am 72  I don't have a lot of time but that can also be an advantage for the ones who Ainokea carry. 

Haven’t read the final rules all the way through yet, but this part still concerns me:

“15-23 Standards for issuance of License to Carry Concealed Firearm.
…
(1) Pursuant to Section 134-9(b), Hawaii Revised Statutes, an applicant… shall ‘[a]ppear to be a suitable person to be so licensed.’
…
The Chief may apply the following objective factors when determining whether an applicant… poses a heightened risk to public safety such that the applicant is not ‘a suitable person to be so licensed’:
(A) Whether the applicant has been involved in any incidents of alleged domestic violence within the ten years preceding the application;
(B) Whether the applicant has been involved in any incidents of careless handling, storage, or carrying of a firearm…;
(C) Whether the applicant has been involved in incidents of alcohol or drug abuse…
(D) Whether the applicant has been involved in other violent conduct…” (emphasis added)

So if somebody alleges that you were involved in domestic abuse, even if there’s no evidence it happened, Chief can deny?

If these are “objective factors,” where’s the objective definitions of “careless handling [or] storage,” “alcohol or drug abuse,” and “other violent conduct”?  If some punk takes a swing at me and I defend myself, is that “other violent conduct”?

Still serious problems with these rules…

Haven’t read the final rules all the way through yet, but this part still concerns me:

“15-23 Standards for issuance of License to Carry Concealed Firearm.
…
(1) Pursuant to Section 134-9(b), Hawaii Revised Statutes, an applicant… shall ‘[a]ppear to be a suitable person to be so licensed.’
…
The Chief may apply the following objective factors when determining whether an applicant… poses a heightened risk to public safety such that the applicant is not ‘a suitable person to be so licensed’:
(A) Whether the applicant has been involved in any incidents of alleged domestic violence within the ten years preceding the application;
(B) Whether the applicant has been involved in any incidents of careless handling, storage, or carrying of a firearm…;
(C) Whether the applicant has been involved in incidents of alcohol or drug abuse…
(D) Whether the applicant has been involved in other violent conduct…” (emphasis added)

So if somebody alleges that you were involved in domestic abuse, even if there’s no evidence it happened, Chief can deny?

If these are “objective factors,” where’s the objective definitions of “careless handling [or] storage,” “alcohol or drug abuse,” and “other violent conduct”?  If some punk takes a swing at me and I defend myself, is that “other violent conduct”?

Still serious problems with these rules…

Did u write testimony or come in person to testify?

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Did u write testimony or come in person to testify?

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Yes.  Couldn’t be there in person, but submitted three pages of single spaced testimony, and called out each of those issues in detail (along with a number of others, at least some of which got changed).

Yes.  Couldn’t be there in person, but submitted three pages of single spaced testimony, and called out each of those issues in detail (along with a number of others, at least some of which got changed).

Awesome! Since once these are set, its almost impossible to change again, unless the law changes.

At least u did what u could.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

There are some states that include in their CCW/CFP permitting a clause regarding ""Moral Turpitude" .

Haven’t read the final rules all the way through yet, but this part still concerns me:

“15-23 Standards for issuance of License to Carry Concealed Firearm.
…
(1) Pursuant to Section 134-9(b), Hawaii Revised Statutes, an applicant… shall ‘[a]ppear to be a suitable person to be so licensed.’
…
The Chief may apply the following objective factors when determining whether an applicant… poses a heightened risk to public safety such that the applicant is not ‘a suitable person to be so licensed’:
(A) Whether the applicant has been involved in any incidents of alleged domestic violence within the ten years preceding the application;
(B) Whether the applicant has been involved in any incidents of careless handling, storage, or carrying of a firearm…;
(C) Whether the applicant has been involved in incidents of alcohol or drug abuse…
(D) Whether the applicant has been involved in other violent conduct…” (emphasis added)

So if somebody alleges that you were involved in domestic abuse, even if there’s no evidence it happened, Chief can deny?

If these are “objective factors,” where’s the objective definitions of “careless handling [or] storage,” “alcohol or drug abuse,” and “other violent conduct”?  If some punk takes a swing at me and I defend myself, is that “other violent conduct”?

Still serious problems with these rules…

CCW rules in an anti-2a and anti-gun environment.

Recipe for disaster.

https://www.khon2.com/local-news/oahu-gun-permitting-begins-next-week-expect-hurdles/

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Is it legal for the C&C to retroactively apply the new “rules” to all the pending applications that where made prior to this adoption?