https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=495833045978914&set=a.422659679962918

Hawaii Firearms Coalition

On 29 November 2022, the Honolulu City Council heard the first reading and testimony for and against Bill 57 “Sensitive Places” Bill that would severely impact the ability to LEGALLY carry a firearm on Oahu.
The current position of the Honolulu Firearms Coalition is that “Sensitive Places” must be restricted to those found in the opinions of the Supreme Court. Currently, there are three cases that have given guidance: these are  McDonald, Heller, and Bruen.
The “Sensitive Places” list has been touched upon by the Supreme Court, including just five places; Court Houses, Jails/Prisons, Legislative Buildings, Schools (Public), and Polling Places/Voting Locations.
 If you look at Bill 57, the Mayor has taken a cut-and-paste list from places such as New York, New Jersey, and D.C. to make a list that is currently failing at every challenge in court in those exact locations.
Mayor Rick Blangiardi came in to give testimony on bill 57, and during that testimony, you could see that he believes that his mostly Unconstitutional bill will pass legal scrutiny, yet his own council was unsure of its contents meaning and the legal proceedings already in play.
The Mayor appeared openly hostile toward the opinions of the public, and thru tone and manner bully seemingly tried to intimidate the Council members and the public. He arrived a few minutes before he gave testimony and appeared to be inserted in line before others who had waited hours. He promptly left soon after.
 Hawaii Firearms Coalition has offered an open invitation to all council members to help craft a bill that will respect the rights of law-abiding citizens but also help with public safety with regard to carrying firearms in public.
We would like to thank the following members for their bold stand on the first reading of this bill with two “No” votes, Councilman Augie Tulba, District 9, Councilwoman Andria Tupola, District 1, and Councilwoman Val Okimoto with a vote of “With Reservation.”
These council members took their time to listen to the people of Hawaii, did their own research, and ultimately decided that the proposed bill was not a good thing.
We have a small amount of time before the next hearing. So reach out to your council members and let them know where you stand

We need to be careful when talking about the Bruen decision and what it said about “sensitive places.”  SCOTUS did NOT limit sensitive places to just courthouses, jails, legislative buildings, schools, and polling places.  Those are EXAMPLES, not an all-inclusive list, of places where carrying of arms can be restricted.  Other places can be designated “sensitive,” as long as the reasoning is consistent with similar reasoning from 1791.

If we keep saying “SCOTUS said you can only ban carry in five places!” we’ll get picked apart by any halfway decent lawyer, and lose credibility for all of our arguments.

noted
hifico is currently working with city council members on a CD1...

We need to be careful when talking about the Bruen decision and what it said about “sensitive places.”  SCOTUS did NOT limit sensitive places to just courthouses, jails, legislative buildings, schools, and polling places.  Those are EXAMPLES, not an all-inclusive list, of places where carrying of arms can be restricted.  Other places can be designated “sensitive,” as long as the reasoning is consistent with similar reasoning from 1791.

If we keep saying “SCOTUS said you can only ban carry in five places!” we’ll get picked apart by any halfway decent lawyer, and lose credibility for all of our arguments.

We need to be careful when talking about the Bruen decision and what it said about “sensitive places.”  SCOTUS did NOT limit sensitive places to just courthouses, jails, legislative buildings, schools, and polling places.  Those are EXAMPLES, not an all-inclusive list, of places where carrying of arms can be restricted.  Other places can be designated “sensitive,” as long as the reasoning is consistent with similar reasoning from 1791.

If we keep saying “SCOTUS said you can only ban carry in five places!” we’ll get picked apart by any halfway decent lawyer, and lose credibility for all of our arguments.

SCOTUS said that there were very few historical references to "sensitive places" and since any sensitive place has to be based on US history at the time of the Constitution's ratification, the places where guns are restricted will be very few.  The current SCOTUS would strike down most of the places in Bill 57 if it came before them.  The antigunners are throwing in everything they can like history on poaching laws, laws prior to states joining the US, a single law from a town, etc. However the liberal leanings of judges will cause them to make any excuse to allow the long list of restricted places to stand in the 2nd and 9th circuit courts of appeals.