Pretty much.

Although you could carry in banks with consent, realistically no banks will give that consent.

You could walk around in circles of parking lots shared with government offices.

I thought the default ban in banks was stopped with the injuction. So banks would need a no guns approved sign.

What every gun owner in the USA needs to do is get Trump back in office.  The Kamala administration will certainly continue to stack courts against not only the 2A, but the constitution in general. 

This time I hope Trump will surround himself with better advisors.  I firmly believe bad advice from the NRA was the probable cause for the bump stock fiasco, which we see now spiraling out of control. 

Thankfully the judges that HE appointed is keeping the anti gun bureaucracy under control, for now.

We sure cannot take another 4 to 8 years of left control.  Kiss your rights bye bye.

I thought the default ban in banks was stopped with the injuction. So banks would need a no guns approved sign.

The absolute ban, even with a guns allowed sign, was stopped in court.  Now they are like any other private property open to the public, like a 7-11 or Macy's, that requires a guns allowed sign or other consent.

The absolute ban, even with a guns allowed sign, was stopped in court.  Now they are like any other private property open to the public, like a 7-11 or Macy's, that requires a guns allowed sign or other consent.

The injunction stated no "vampire rule" for private property open to the public. So if banks are like any other private property open to the public, then it's an automatic approval to CCW in there. But they can ban them with said sign.

The 9th upheld that banks cannot be sensitive places. So no automatic ban.

Unless I'm wrong.

The injunction stated no "vampire rule" for private property open to the public. So if banks are like any other private property open to the public, then it's an automatic approval to CCW in there. But they can ban them with said sign.

The 9th upheld that banks cannot be sensitive places. So no automatic ban.

Unless I'm wrong.

Consent on private property open to the public is not needed in California.  Consent is still required in Hawaii

I see that the C&C www.oneoahu.org/sensitive-places page hasn't been updated to reflect the recent circuit court decision.  The HPD page links to it, and when I applied for CCW they verbally told me to watch that page for any changes in the law.  I guess it doesn't mean anything, but you'd think they would make an effort to keep the page updated.

Appeal to En Banc filed yesterday (full 9th circuit panel) since the 3 judge basically removed almost all the injunction.

If you can donate or again because this is costing more money.

https://www.givesendgo.com/GAXTH?utm_source=sharelink&utm_medium=copy_link&utm_campaign=GAXTH&fbclid=IwY2xjawFX_NhleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHQcANWmbQGIQqPMqs3vwr4EucKPCfAeRK0tU2WPSlnSeeYmw1_rpkRJSFg_aem_K1qYhg97CJZxcqZFUvMWGg

The state is being asked by the 9th for their reply to our challenge to the ruling. WHich means the 9th will probably take it en bac (full judges panel). I'm still not holding my breath as the 9th has more anti 2a judges than judges who abide by the constitution.  But this is 1 step closer for SCOTUS to take a look.

Hawaii responded to the petition.

To sum it up, until a decision to be heard en banc (full 9th judge panel), the current 9th (3 judge panel) ruling isn't in effect yet.

Which means the automatic ban on private property open to the public is still not enforceable by the law. So u can carry without having to ask permission.  The 9th's 3 judge panel ruled that you cannot, but haven't signed the order yet due to the above.

Some people already knew this, but the AG"s office refused to confirm it. Had the 9th's ruling been in effect, I'm sure the AG's office would have stated so, but instead stated something like "we cannot confirm anything".

To sum it up again, it's a procedural matter right now why you can still carry on private property open to the public without needing permission.

I just saw this - so this would apply to public parks and beaches, they're not currently enforcing there either right?  I guess that would explain why they haven't changed the https://www.oneoahu.org/sensitive-places web page yet.

Hawaii responded to the petition.

To sum it up, until a decision to be heard en banc (full 9th judge panel), the current 9th (3 judge panel) ruling isn't in effect yet.

Which means the automatic ban on private property open to the public is still not enforceable by the law. So u can carry without having to ask permission.  The 9th's 3 judge panel ruled that you cannot, but haven't signed the order yet due to the above.

Some people already knew this, but the AG"s office refused to confirm it. Had the 9th's ruling been in effect, I'm sure the AG's office would have stated so, but instead stated something like "we cannot confirm anything".

To sum it up again, it's a procedural matter right now why you can still carry on private property open to the public without needing permission.

Attorney Alan Becks FB post update:

Its been about two months since we filed the request to have our challenge to Hawaii's sensitive places law heard by the en banc court.  That is the lawsuit challenging Hawaii's prohibitions on where you can carry a handgun.  So far we have heard nothing from the court.  Due to the amount of time that has passed, I suspect that this means the en banc petition will be denied but a sizable number of the Ninth Circuit judges are unhappy with that decision and are writing a dissent to voice their disagreement.  Dissents like these serve as a message to the Supreme Court that it should take a case.  If I am right the next step is to petition the Supreme Court for review. Petitions cost a sizable amount of money because of the specialized printing and formatting costs which need to be outsourced to a special printing company. We are getting close to raising the money we need to file the petition due to the generous donations of Hawaiian gun owners.  I am hoping one more push during the holiday season will take us over the top.  This fundraiser is the only mechanism we have to raise money for this lawsuit.  If you are passionate about the Second Amendment in Hawaii, I am hopeful you will consider making a donation to this lawsuit.  Please note, I am not using any of this money to pay myself.  All of this money goes to the actual costs of this litigation. 



https://www.givesendgo.com/GAXTH?utm_source=sharelink&utm_medium=copy_link&utm_campaign=GAXTH&fbclid=IwY2xjawHP0T9leHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHV6RyYfqgFPflQbhZpeOQ0JHPG4I6NjNn4ymsUbVj9X04Vn4OtyOBAvE3g_aem_U5goiUrpEiSDJEJnPQEa1g

The 9th Circuit declined to hear this lawsuit in the full judge panel (En Banc).  So the ruling the 3 judge panel made is now in effect.

This means the only place you can carry besides the sidewalk is in a bank.  The default ban on private property open to the public is in effect, so is the ban in restaurants that serve booze, parks and beaches.

Alan and Kevin filed a motion to dispute the above, but it's a long shot.  Next is to see if SCOTUS will take the case due to this going against what another circuit ruled.  This will cause additional cost to file to SCOTUS.

Donate what ever you can spare in the link below:

https://www.givesendgo.com/GAXTH?utm_source=sharelink&utm_medium=copy_link&utm_campaign=GAXTH&fbclid=IwY2xjawH1EVhleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHWtUXhLSxS8XcYaQIMhngSydi9NZVsAsRob3AOMJ8BiiBZV_3TOEMBbhVw_aem_IH6GVyDhoWhgqB3aTTeXsQ

How about restaurants not serving alcohol and parking lots of public/private buildings?

How about restaurants not serving alcohol and parking lots of public/private buildings?

Restaurants would need a "guns allowed" sign, which most will not post.

Cannot carry in parking lots of banned places or places where you don't get authorization.

Restaurants would need a "guns allowed" sign, which most will not post.

Cannot carry in parking lots of banned places or places where you don't get authorization.

You can also get a verbal or email from them as well.

A petition was filed to stay the 9ths ruling until SCOTUS decides if they want to hear the case or not.  The petition was granted. So you can CCW again.

This is HUGE!!!!!!!!!!

Donate in the Give Send Go if you can and tell friends to do the same.  Just to give an idea of cost, the paperwork needs to be printed on a special kind of paper when sending to SCOTUS.  This cost alone is about $8,000.  Then it has to be proof read and this can cost between $1500-$3,000.  This doesn't even include any attorney fees involved or other expenses.

This can affect HI for life, so give now or don't grumble later.

Thanks for the update and YES i did my part and DONATED!

Have a Great Weekend all!

 

Thanks for the good news and great efforts. I donated to support

Update

The court gave 90 days for the stay and in that time, Alan and Kevin have to submit their petition to SCOTUS or the 9ths ruling takes effect.

So they gotta print all their paper before 90 days.

So those waiting to donate later, do it sooner if u can.

Also, if i already donated and can afford more, please do. Ive donated about 3 times or so for this lawsuit.



Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Petition to SCOTUS filed.  Now the waiting game to see if SCOTUS will hear the case or not. But until then, the 9ths ruling is on hold.