👎

oh, too bad. I like Rick, but in this case, I think he is being pressured by the people around him.
Even though it doesn't make sense.

Yay! This bill is solid No more things like this: https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2023/03/28/patients-armed-with-weapons-gun-scare-straub-highlights-disturbing-trend/

Yay! This bill is solid No more things like this: https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2023/03/28/patients-armed-with-weapons-gun-scare-straub-highlights-disturbing-trend/

Problem solved

oh, too bad. I like Rick, but in this case, I think he is being pressured by the people around him.
Even though it doesn't make sense.

He never supported CCW. I emailed him while he was running and he said no.

Any chance of a preliminary injunction?

Any chance of a preliminary injunction?

Has to get challenged in court first.  Anybody got a lawsuit teed up?

Has to get challenged in court first.  Anybody got a lawsuit teed up?

Working on it.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Can any of the experts here guide me on what basis "sensitive place" is defined? The only reference I can find is ancient and banned loaded guns from City buildings. I see some references to a judges discretion in defining "sensitive place" as well, but this is perhaps limited to a percentage of total acreage covered and I believe a lawsuit already covered the whole 'it makes no sense to only be allowed to carry in places where there are no police, because montain lions and bears are not the only potential threats to a persons life' argument.

I just don't understand how a "bar" or "public transit" are sensitive places, or why a business has to post "GUNS ALLOWED" [vs. "guns not allowed"] which implies to me that guns are by default not allowed. I can see a mass gathering [quantity of people], school [age of people], hospital [sick people], or a shelter [economically, mentally, or physically vulnerable people] may qualify, but I cannot find any rational basis for several of these sensitive place bans.

I cannot find any rational basis for several of these sensitive place bans.

You're right, because there is none.

Now that the Mayor has put pen to paper on Bill 57, it can be challenged because it is a City Ordinance that is in definite violation of the SCOTUS Bruen decision and the 2A.

As well as the 1A; the government cannot force a person or business to speak. Which is what the new Ordinance says a business must do by placing signs on the door or in a visible place if guns are allowed on the premises.

Now that the Mayor has put pen to paper on Bill 57, it can be challenged because it is a City Ordinance that is in definite violation of the SCOTUS Bruen decision and the 2A.

As well as the 1A; the government cannot force a person or business to speak. Which is what the new Ordinance says a business must do by placing signs on the door or in a visible place if guns are allowed on the premises.

Our politicians are used to the old rules, where they could count on the court of appeals to apply the "old" two-tiered standard of intermediate scrutiny when deciding on a gun law's constitutionality. 

The Bruen standard is to exercise strict scrutiny, meaning the courts (and lawmakers that give a damn) can no longer depend on some subjective balancing of public or law enforcement safety versus individual rights.

Under strict scrutiny, the government has the burden to prove the law doesn't violate the Constitution.  Intermediate scrutiny requires the complainant to prove the law is unconstitutional.  It's a complete reversal of how the game used to be played.

Obviously, Hawaii is still operating under the old rules and think they can drag these questions out in the courts.  However, if they fail to demonstrate how the law does not violate the Constitution, the courts can issue injunctions and stays to prevent enforcement of the laws or parts of them until the state has had a chance to appeal.

Now that the ball is going to always be in their court as it were, creating more and more laws that don't satisfy the Bruen test criteria will be thwarted long before SCOTUS needs to be involved.  Either they have the facts to pass the tests, or they don't.  All these arguments about feeling safer, bringing up Hawaii culture and geography and other irrelevant issues should fall on deaf ears inside the courtroom.

That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.   

Now that the Mayor has put pen to paper on Bill 57, it can be challenged because it is a City Ordinance that is in definite violation of the SCOTUS Bruen decision and the 2A.

As well as the 1A; the government cannot force a person or business to speak. Which is what the new Ordinance says a business must do by placing signs on the door or in a visible place if guns are allowed on the premises.

nope
it cannot be challenged until the effective date and people are "harmed"...

nope
it cannot be challenged until the effective date and people are "harmed"...

If you are using a “facial” challenge to get the whole ordinance repealed, it isn’t necessary to wait till the effective date. But you would be correct for an “as applied” challenge.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you are using a “facial” challenge to get the whole ordinance repealed, it isn’t necessary to wait till the effective date. But you would be correct for an “as applied” challenge.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

SCOTUS has ruled that the violation of a right is in fact an "injury" and can be used to establish standing.  Any law that forces law-abiding citizens to forfeit their rights to avoid prosecution is unconstitutional.

Also, if a law is argued to be unconstitutional and that only by breaking said law could standing be established, standing can be established as well. 

Those rules are in the scope of state and federally protected rights of individuals, particularly as they related to the Bill of Rights.

I'm not a lawyer, but this topic has been written about quite a bit lately.

If you are using a “facial” challenge to get the whole ordinance repealed, it isn’t necessary to wait till the effective date. But you would be correct for an “as applied” challenge.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yep...Antonyuk lawsuit was files in July, prior to NYs CCIA law taking effect in September.  Both ways have advantages and disadvantages.

Perhaps they were thinking the bill has to be signed into law before a lawsuit is filed.

Any chance of a preliminary injunction?

I don't see a challenge to 57.  A challenge would be made to the State bills if passed but that would be later.

A broad injunction is highly unlikely.  It would be a stroke of luck to get it approved in the district and 9th circuit courts.  Ultimately, we'll likely have to live with sensitive places till after SCOTUS rules on a 2A case, which has a good chance next year.

Also keep in mind, if you are convicted of a sensitive place crime,  you'll be a prohibited person under HB984/sb1230.

   Ultimately, we'll likely have to live with sensitive places till after SCOTUS rules on a 2A case, which has a good chance next year.

Like just about everything in Hawaii, ahh try wait. As I have stated before, I was highly disappointed with the Bruen decision as written by Justice Thomas.  I felt he was not explicit enough.  You cannot give liberal politicians ANY wiggle room.