HIFICO, Wolford etal vs. Lopez (Hawaii State Sensitive Places Lawsuit) (Read 50036 times)

changemyoil66

Re: HIFICO, Wolford etal vs. Lopez (Hawaii State Sensitive Places Lawsuit)
« Reply #80 on: September 02, 2023, 08:12:10 AM »
These hired gun attorneys have some talent. Soros pulled serious strings on this one.
Sarcasm? Cause from them using their strategy, theyre tards.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

dafrtknocker

Re: HIFICO, Wolford etal vs. Lopez (Hawaii State Sensitive Places Lawsuit)
« Reply #81 on: September 06, 2023, 08:05:30 PM »
Update

Hawaii Firearms Coalition
 
Update in our Hawaii sensitive places lawsuit - Wolford v Lopez -
TRO converted to PI, further proceedings in district stayed pending appeal to 9th circuit.

https://www.facebook.com/hificoorg/

changemyoil66

Re: HIFICO, Wolford etal vs. Lopez (Hawaii State Sensitive Places Lawsuit)
« Reply #82 on: September 07, 2023, 12:04:27 PM »
Does this mean we can finally carry again?

The only diff between the TRO and PI is that the TRO was for a X amount of time.  A PI is valid until the lawsuit is complete. So if you're on Oahu or Big Island, this really doesn't affect you.

zippz

Re: HIFICO, Wolford etal vs. Lopez (Hawaii State Sensitive Places Lawsuit)
« Reply #83 on: September 07, 2023, 12:38:50 PM »
It actually makes a big difference in Hawaii county as the PI means you don't need permission or guns allowed signs before entering a private property open to the public.

Heavies

Re: HIFICO, Wolford etal vs. Lopez (Hawaii State Sensitive Places Lawsuit)
« Reply #84 on: September 07, 2023, 04:36:41 PM »
Is there an ETA for oahu?

They are speaking about the city ordinances for Big Island and Honolulu counties. This case doesn’t affect them, the suit only applies to state law.

There would have to be another challenge to county ordinances.

zippz

Re: HIFICO, Wolford etal vs. Lopez (Hawaii State Sensitive Places Lawsuit)
« Reply #85 on: September 07, 2023, 05:31:48 PM »
Is there an ETA for oahu?

If the 9th turns down the appeal, then Honolulu & Hawaii County's have a good chance of stopping enforcement of their ordinances or changing their ordinances or else another attorney could jump in and sue them.  This could be done within months.  There's a 65% chance we will lose the PI.

If the 9th takes the case and puts a hold on the PI, then we will see what SCOTUS does with the 2nd Circuit Court's decision in NY vs GOA/Antonyuk.  Best case there could be something at the end of the year, or if everything plays out, it could take one to three years.

Sodie

Re: HIFICO, Wolford etal vs. Lopez (Hawaii State Sensitive Places Lawsuit)
« Reply #86 on: September 07, 2023, 06:02:13 PM »
It actually makes a big difference in Hawaii county as the PI means you don't need permission or guns allowed signs before entering a private property open to the public.

As I read the oneoahu website, the City and County of Honolulu ordinance does not include private property by default, so does that not mean that the default gun-free zone status for businesses (other than the types specifically listed) is gone for Oahu?  Am I missing something?

https://www.oneoahu.org/sensitive-places

zippz

Re: HIFICO, Wolford etal vs. Lopez (Hawaii State Sensitive Places Lawsuit)
« Reply #87 on: September 07, 2023, 06:09:45 PM »
As I read the oneoahu website, the City and County of Honolulu ordinance does not include private property by default, so does that not mean that the default gun-free zone status for businesses (other than the types specifically listed) is gone for Oahu?  Am I missing something?

https://www.oneoahu.org/sensitive-places

Each county is different, the one I referenced was for Hawaii (Big Island) county, you have to know the details of each county.

Going off Honolulu's ordinance, you still have to follow all of it including:

§ 41-__.4 Prohibition against the public carrying of firearms in a sensitive
location—Prohibition against carrying a firearm on a private business
establishment's or charitable establishment's premises without express consent.
(a) Prohibition. Except as otherwise provided by federal or State law, it is a violation
of this article for any person to intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carry on
their person a firearm, concealed or unconcealed, on the premises of:
(1) Any sensitive place; or
(2) Any business establishment or charitable establishment unless the
business establishment or charitable establishment, or an agent thereof,
has expressly consented thereto. For purposes of this subsection,
signage must be in accordance with the requirements specified in
§ 41-__.5.
For the purposes of this section, "the premises of any business establishment or
charitable establishment" includes all appurtenant grounds and parking lots of the
business establishment or charitable establishment, but does not include
privately owned or maintained streets or sidewalks.



Business Establishment. Includes any of the following establishments
operated by a business:
(1) Any hotel, except individual hotel rooms and when actively traveling
through a hotel to or from an individual hotel room;
(2) Any financial institution;
(3) Any industrial, commercial, or wholesale establishment;
(4) Any utility;
(5) Any retail establishment where goods or services are sold, leased, or
otherwise provided to the public or to another business; and
(6) Any restaurant or bar, as those terms are defined in § 41-14.1.
« Last Edit: September 07, 2023, 06:17:32 PM by zippz »

Sodie

Re: HIFICO, Wolford etal vs. Lopez (Hawaii State Sensitive Places Lawsuit)
« Reply #88 on: September 07, 2023, 06:18:18 PM »
Each county is different, you have to know the details of each.

Correction, going off Honolulu's ordinance, you still have to follow all of it including:

§ 41-__.4 Prohibition against the public carrying of firearms in a sensitive
location—Prohibition against carrying a firearm on a private business
establishment's or charitable establishment's premises without express consent.
(a) Prohibition. Except as otherwise provided by federal or State law, it is a violation
of this article for any person to intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carry on
their person a firearm, concealed or unconcealed, on the premises of:
(1) Any sensitive place; or
(2) Any business establishment or charitable establishment unless the
business establishment or charitable establishment, or an agent thereof,
has expressly consented thereto. For purposes of this subsection,
signage must be in accordance with the requirements specified in
§ 41-__.5.
For the purposes of this section, "the premises of any business establishment or
charitable establishment" includes all appurtenant grounds and parking lots of the
business establishment or charitable establishment, but does not include
privately owned or maintained streets or sidewalks.



Business Establishment. Includes any of the following establishments
operated by a business:
(1) Any hotel, except individual hotel rooms and when actively traveling
through a hotel to or from an individual hotel room;
(2) Any financial institution;
(3) Any industrial, commercial, or wholesale establishment;
(4) Any utility;
(5) Any retail establishment where goods or services are sold, leased, or
otherwise provided to the public or to another business; and
(6) Any restaurant or bar, as those terms are defined in § 41-14.1.

Thanks.  I thought it was too good to be true… :rofl:  :(

changemyoil66

Re: HIFICO, Wolford etal vs. Lopez (Hawaii State Sensitive Places Lawsuit)
« Reply #89 on: September 07, 2023, 07:53:18 PM »
As I read the oneoahu website, the City and County of Honolulu ordinance does not include private property by default, so does that not mean that the default gun-free zone status for businesses (other than the types specifically listed) is gone for Oahu?  Am I missing something?

https://www.oneoahu.org/sensitive-places
It says commerical property in a diff section. So no effect on oahu.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

RSN172

Re: HIFICO, Wolford etal vs. Lopez (Hawaii State Sensitive Places Lawsuit)
« Reply #90 on: September 07, 2023, 08:25:10 PM »
Another thing to keep in mind is that a certain segment of our population is exempt from all these laws. This select group is called na kanaka hana hewa.
Happily living in Puna

changemyoil66

Re: HIFICO, Wolford etal vs. Lopez (Hawaii State Sensitive Places Lawsuit)
« Reply #91 on: September 08, 2023, 08:29:20 AM »
Another thing to keep in mind is that a certain segment of our population is exempt from all these laws. This select group is called na kanaka hana hewa.

They almost weren't exempt in the C&C ordinance, but the counsel members found the error and fixed it.

changemyoil66

Re: HIFICO, Wolford etal vs. Lopez (Hawaii State Sensitive Places Lawsuit)
« Reply #92 on: October 05, 2023, 12:54:01 PM »
State filed it's appeal for the injunction to the 9th asking it be removed.

They sited the hundreds of testimonies from people who dont want guns in public. Too bad we cannot counter argue with hundreds or thousands who do want it since we only got about 140 on average.

They begun using laws in the late 1800's as history.

THey begun using "like laws" for analogies: Restrictions of shooting a gun in public is the same as not being able to carry one and this was a few laws prior to the Constitution even being written (early 1700's).

They begun making up things like a ball is the same as a bar. A fair and market is the same as a bank.

They keep using the words "plantiffs failed to show", where the burden is on the state, not the plantiffs.  This is part of a nation wide plan by the anti 2a to take the burden off the state to show history and tradition.

The state has like 10 high profile atty's working on this vs 2 of ours (Alan and Kevin).

Flapp_Jackson

Re: HIFICO, Wolford etal vs. Lopez (Hawaii State Sensitive Places Lawsuit)
« Reply #93 on: October 05, 2023, 12:58:18 PM »
So, if we had a majority wanting to reinstate slavery, ...
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world;
the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself.
Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
-- George Bernard Shaw

changemyoil66

Re: HIFICO, Wolford etal vs. Lopez (Hawaii State Sensitive Places Lawsuit)
« Reply #94 on: November 07, 2023, 12:23:58 PM »
17 states filed an amicus brief ( a report supporting 1 side/party) supporting Wolfard (supporting us).  That's awesome.

hvybarrels

Re: HIFICO, Wolford etal vs. Lopez (Hawaii State Sensitive Places Lawsuit)
« Reply #95 on: November 07, 2023, 03:26:39 PM »
17 states filed an amicus brief ( a report supporting 1 side/party) supporting Wolfard (supporting us).  That's awesome.

Sharing is caring, but forced redistribution is communism.

changemyoil66

Re: HIFICO, Wolford etal vs. Lopez (Hawaii State Sensitive Places Lawsuit)
« Reply #96 on: November 08, 2023, 03:51:35 PM »
The 9th is set to hear the state appealing the injuction *pause on them able to enforce the law until the hearing is done) in March/April 2023. 

This isn't to hear the case itself as it has yet to be heard in the HI court (lower). 

With the way the 9th has been ruling recently, I don't have hope that they will keep the injection active as they are corrupt.

changemyoil66

Re: HIFICO, Wolford etal vs. Lopez (Hawaii State Sensitive Places Lawsuit)
« Reply #97 on: November 21, 2023, 02:06:29 PM »
States reply to the 9th about the injuction.

They say that shared parking lots of government buildings aren't part of the law.  Guess non shared lots counted.

State is using 1889 as the year for when OK banned guns besides students in school. Kind of far from the history/traditional analague period.

State is saying that its the 3rd parties who are banning guns (private property ban), but left out that it has the weight of the law, so it's the State doing it too. Instead of the person just getting trespassed.

State is also saying that no bank has allowed a CCW holder to come in via permission, so the our lawsuit is wrong.  They are pushing the burden back on us instead of the burden being on the state to prove history and tradition.

I'll bet the 9th believes all this BS.  This is what the top lawyers came up with and is weak. Apparently ethics class was skipped as they want to take our right away.

changemyoil66

Re: HIFICO, Wolford etal vs. Lopez (Hawaii State Sensitive Places Lawsuit)
« Reply #98 on: November 23, 2023, 07:23:54 AM »
https://youtu.be/a1Ezmv6Nf-U?si=YqU8W3FaL1SNnk64

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

changemyoil66

Re: HIFICO, Wolford etal vs. Lopez (Hawaii State Sensitive Places Lawsuit)
« Reply #99 on: November 23, 2023, 08:11:59 AM »
Take away from the above

Alan says people need to do their part in the legislature to stop these types of laws. Since it takes years to fight. This is coming from the guy who makes money from these laws.

The host lives in NY and said there are 5 million gun owners. Their commie governor won by 3 million votes. If every gun owner voted, it should have been a landslide.

HI will be the 1st sensitive places that will most likely go to the 9th because HIs law passed before CA's one. CA's one is also under a lawsuit.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk