Write up from HIFICO social media

"A new lawsuit was filed today against the County of Hawaii. Mr Day reached out to HIFICO a couple of weeks ago after being arbitrarily denied a license to carry firearms. We put him in contact with attorneys Alan Beck and Rick Holcombe, who filed today's lawsuit on his behalf.

Here are the details of the lawsuit;

The plaintiff, Mr. Day, works as an independent contractor for a company that provides property preservation services for real estate obtained through foreclosure proceedings. In January 2023, Mr. Day received a work order to clean and secure a property in Volcano, HI. Believing the property had been foreclosed upon, Mr. Day entered the property to perform the required work.

However, the owner of the property, who had previously vacated the property, became aware of Mr. Day's presence through a doorbell camera. This led to a confrontation between the owner and Mr. Day, during which Mr. Day used a chemical irritant device in self-defense. Despite the confrontation, the two parties de-escalated before the police arrived, and neither party was arrested.

The lawsuit focuses on the denial of Mr. Day's application for a concealed carry permit by the Hawaii Police Department (HPD). The denial cited Mr. Day's involvement in "recent violent conduct" based on the aforementioned confrontation.

The lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of Hawaii's firearm permitting scheme, arguing that it grants law enforcement officials too much discretion in determining an applicant's suitability, violating Second Amendment rights. The complaint also points to recent legal developments, such as the Supreme Court's decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. Bruen, to support the claim that the permitting scheme is unconstitutional.

Mr. Day seeks relief from the court, asserting that the denial of his concealed carry permit based on discretionary factors violates his Second Amendment rights and challenging the constitutionality of Hawaii's firearm permitting laws."

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

I wonder if the police report claims something significantly different than what Mr. Day is saying. It could be possible that something else in the report would justify this denial but if it is simply an admittance that he used pepper spray during an altercation once to defend himself that is pretty darn weak. If what he says is true I hope he wins.

I wonder if the police report claims something significantly different than what Mr. Day is saying. It could be possible that something else in the report would justify this denial but if it is simply an admittance that he used pepper spray during an altercation once to defend himself that is pretty darn weak. If what he says is true I hope he wins.

Nope.

Unless Day was arrested for domestic abuse or convicted of a violent crime, he's able to get his license.

The state can't exercise a subjective and arbitrary scheme of deciding who gets a license based on criteria like moral character and so forth.  See Bruen for that explanation.  It's the whole reason HI had to start ussuing licenses and stop requiring an "extreme need" to qualify.

A police report for responding to an altercation that was resolved and involved no arrests is not grounds for denial. 

The state will lose this one.

I wonder if the police report claims something significantly different than what Mr. Day is saying. It could be possible that something else in the report would justify this denial but if it is simply an admittance that he used pepper spray during an altercation once to defend himself that is pretty darn weak. If what he says is true I hope he wins.

Does it matter? Day was never charged with anything or arrested.  Thanks for playing and wasting time. BTW, Alan Beck has yet to lose a lawsuit.

Does it matter? Day was never charged with anything or arrested.  Thanks for playing and wasting time. BTW, Alan Beck has yet to lose a lawsuit.

This one likes (loves?) to toss out hypotheticals and 'facts' not mentioned in any reports to present opposing sides' possible arguments -- without any idea if what he's saying is true or not.

I think he's just here to argue, whether he has anything to support his imagined 'facts' or not.

This one likes (loves?) to toss out hypotheticals and 'facts' ....

It is called being objective. I know this is a foreign concept for you, but there is no downside to considering all possibilities.

A lawsuit isn't a comprehensive view of the case. If you read only the lawsuit and think you understand everything then you aren't being objective.

Does it matter? Day was never charged with anything or arrested.  Thanks for playing and wasting time. BTW, Alan Beck has yet to lose a lawsuit.

Trying to look at all sides of an issue is never wasting time.

Good for Alan Beck. As I said, if everything this guy says is true, I hope he wins his case.

It is called being objective. I know this is a foreign concept for you, but there is no downside to considering all possibilities.

A lawsuit isn't a comprehensive view of the case. If you read only the lawsuit and think you understand everything then you aren't being objective.

No.  It's called being a narcissist, as if your imagination somehow constitutes a rational thought.

Reminds me of teenagers having lunch and just tossing out random thoughts that have nothing to do with reality -- just to hear themselves talk and pretend others are interested.

It is called being objective. I know this is a foreign concept for you, but there is no downside to considering all possibilities.

A lawsuit isn't a comprehensive view of the case. If you read only the lawsuit and think you understand everything then you aren't being objective.

Here's another thread that will go on for pages because someone refuses to accept they asked an irrelevant question and then refuse to admit they asked an irrelevant question.

No.  It's called being a narcissist, as if your imagination somehow constitutes a rational thought.

Reminds me of teenagers having lunch and just tossing out random thoughts that have nothing to do with reality -- just to hear themselves talk and pretend others are interested.

Let's keep his train of thought going. Maybe Day was a convicted felon, I mean, it's only 1 side of the lawsuit that says he isn't one right?

Let's keep his train of thought going. Maybe Day was a convicted felon, I mean, it's only 1 side of the lawsuit that says he isn't one right?

Maybe he voted for Trump, and that makes him a suspect in the Jan 6 assault on democracy?  There are people still being incarcerated without having the benefit of a trial, with more still being arrested for just being there.

Don't know if he even voted in 2016 and 2020, but I'm being objective here.

you really think a lawyer would take this case if the police report said something different?
i guess it's possible that someone "objective" would say it's possible...

 

I wonder if the police report claims something significantly different than what Mr. Day is saying. It could be possible that something else in the report would justify this denial but if it is simply an admittance that he used pepper spray during an altercation once to defend himself that is pretty darn weak. If what he says is true I hope he wins.

you really think a lawyer would take this case if the police report said something different?
i guess it's possible that someone "objective" would say it's possible...

"What-if" means never needing to have actual facts.

No.  It's called being a narcissist, as if your imagination somehow constitutes a rational thought.

Looking at all sides is being a narcissist? 

you really think a lawyer would take this case if the police report said something different?
i guess it's possible that someone "objective" would say it's possible...

No idea. You think lawyers never write a lawsuit that contains incorrect or incomplete claims?

My point is that reading the lawsuit alone does not give you a complete understanding of the situation.

Plus, I already stated that if these things occurred as he claims they did then I hope he wins his lawsuit and the department learns their lesson.

Looking at all sides is being a narcissist? 

In the manner that you do and how you act after...YES.

i bet you drive even though there's a chance you may die while you are driving
two can play at your possibilities game...

No idea. You think lawyers never write a lawsuit that contains incorrect or incomplete claims?

My point is that reading the lawsuit alone does not give you a complete understanding of the situation.

Plus, I already stated that if these things occurred as he claims they did then I hope he wins his lawsuit and the department learns their lesson.

i bet you drive even though there's a chance you may die while you are driving
two can play at your possibilities game...

Don't forget that a meteor can also strike someone, lightning, tornado, etc...

Looking at all sides is being a narcissist? 

It is when there's only one actual side, and the rest are made-up hypotheticals concocted out of thin air.

It is when there's only one actual side, and the rest are made-up hypotheticals concocted out of thin air.

And how do you know that the lawsuit represents the "one actual side"?

Seems like you find a story you like and your bias doesn't want to allow you to consider any alternative story. Skepticism should be applied equally, not only when it favors your side.