Kobayashi stated that the lawsuit should have been filed months ago and not when HIFICO did.  The issue with that is the law didn't take effect until 7/1.  So I'm not holding my breath with an honest ruling from her.

Kobayashi stated that the lawsuit should have been filed months ago and not when HIFICO did.  The issue with that is the law didn't take effect until 7/1.  So I'm not holding my breath with an honest ruling from her.

1 part

State is saying making someone put up a no guns allowed sign is forced speech.



Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

TRO issued, but only for the following

State law only, this doesnt apply to oahu or big island ordinance.

Law is suspended on the following

Parking lots belonging to city/state if its shared with another entity

Parks, beaches and their parking lot

Private property open to the public

Banks

Restaurants that serve booze


This is huge as its an obama judge who ruled.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

So the state is appealing the TRO. Even though they couldn't prove any history and tradition, they said the judge was wrong in her ruling.  This appeal is highly unusual.

What I'm surprised about is that the judge said something along the lines of "what's the big deal, if its concealed, who's going to know one is carrying". In response to the states "public safety" weak argument.

The state knows if they lose this lawsuit, the remaining places will fall as well. Which is who HIFICO donations are needed. Our historian needs to work more than normal because HI won't give up.  And this is what HI wants, is to make it too expensive for anyone to challenge. The future of HI gun laws all begin on this lawsuit.

(1) Since Heller and McDonald, the Courts of Appeals have developed a
“two-step” framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that
combines history with means-end scrutiny. The Court rejects that two-part
approach as having one step too many. Step one isbroadly consistent with
Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment’s text, as
informed by history. But Heller and McDonald do not support a second step
that applies means-end scrutiny inthe Second Amendment context. Heller’s
methodology centered onconstitutional text and history. It did not invoke
any means-end test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny, and it expressly
rejected any interest-balancing inquiry akin to intermediate scrutiny. Pp. 9–15.

SCOTUS wrote in the Bruen decision that the state cannot us a balancing rationale for justifying violation of a right. That balancing specifically included public safety versus an individual right to bear arms.

Yet, the state of Hawaii still thinks they can do so even though it goes against the Supreme Court.

interest-balancing and means-end testing encapsulates the state's rationale for placing more importance on public safety in order to violate the right to bear arms.  Can't do that anymore.  In fact, SCOTUS said that the lower courts need to revisit cases in which they applied this two-part justification and remand the cases back down for corrective action.

TRO issued, but only for the following

State law only, this doesnt apply to oahu or big island ordinance.

Law is suspended on the following

Parking lots belonging to city/state if its shared with another entity

Parks, beaches and their parking lot

Private property open to the public

Banks

Restaurants that serve booze


This is huge as its an obama judge who ruled.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

• Parking lots belonging to city/state if its shared with another entity
  Parks, beaches and their parking lot
  Private property open to the public
  Banks
  Restaurants that serve booze

So due to the Honolulu City Ordinance, there is still no CCW in the following?

• Parking lots belonging to city/state if its shared with another entity
  Parks, beaches and their parking lot
  Private property open to the public
  Banks
  Restaurants that serve booze