This thread has now become a good lesson on the 2nd amendment right for 1 person.

This thread has now become a good lesson on the 2nd amendment right for 1 person.

AND we found out the Hawaii Supreme Court are a bunch of madafackahs.

one has to be willing/able to learn for it to be a lesson

This thread has now become a good lesson on the 2nd amendment right for 1 person.

Do I own guns? What do I believe?

I believe, that when in the confines of ones own home, and based on the "Place to Keep" requirements, a person should be allowed to own ANY GUN they want. Full-auto SBR with "exploding bullets"? Go right ahead. However, when it comes to carrying in public, a person should be certified so that there is a general understanding of 'who they are' (not a felon, suspected violent crime offender, escapee from a mental ward, etc.) and the peace of mind the person is somewhat capable of deploying that firearm without a significant detriment to others. I don't believe in any law obviously designed to hinder a persons right to bear arms. Private property banned by default? That's pretty "obvious". For example, the "Sensitive Place" laws are clearly a tertiary effort to stifle gun-carrying when other options have failed, even though a person has already met the rigorous requirements to get a CCW in the state of Hawaii. If you pass your CCW in its current form? You should be able to carry any pistol, regardless of whether you tested with it or not, nearly any place by default.

This wouldn't pass the SCOTUS history and tradition requirement and eventually training requirements, licensing, and even violent felons possessing guns (at least to some degree) will eventually be thrown out in court.  But even if it won't hold up to history and tradition, at least you have some rational basis for skill requirements to prevent harm to others or shooting when you shouldn't.  But keep in mind the vast majority of crimes are prevented by just carrying a gun or displaying it during a crime, which requires no shooting skill.  Then most defensive shootings occur at very close ranges where little skill is needed.  Then factor in hitting bystanders is very rare in reality.  Then you realize that even a person with little shooting skills is very beneficial overall.

This wouldn't pass the SCOTUS history and tradition requirement and eventually training requirements, licensing, and even violent felons possessing guns (at least to some degree) will eventually be thrown out in court.  But even if it won't hold up to history and tradition, at least you have some rational basis for skill requirements to prevent harm to others or shooting when you shouldn't.  But keep in mind the vast majority of crimes are prevented by just carrying a gun or displaying it during a crime, which requires no shooting skill.  Then most defensive shootings occur at very close ranges where little skill is needed.  Then factor in hitting bystanders is very rare in reality.  Then you realize that even a person with little shooting skills is very beneficial overall.

Coupled with real world stats on how many highly trained and certified "professionals" carrying firearms shoot, wound and/or kill innocent bystanders compared with private concealed carriers, one has to question the premise that requiring the same level of training for private individuals would make carrying firearms in public any safer.  In other words, if training and certifications are what make the difference, wouldn't the stats be reversed?

I still believe most gun owners enjoy shooting and practice enough to be more than proficient.  Shooting is not like driving a car.  it's 1000 times less complicated, have much fewer rules and laws, and cost way less to get one.  In fact, nowadays, anyone who is over 18, can pass the super-easy written test and the not-that-hard driving test can get a license and legally propel a 3,000 lb+ hunk of metal and other materials down the road at lethal speeds.

But for gun owners, we worry .... ?

Hurricanes and Karens

When a hurricane hits, there could be severe damage to infrastructure. At that point, I don't care if there are caravans of unidentified people driving around with rifles, because we are all just trying to "survive". I would absolutely call the police if I saw a known felon carrying a rifle, even if they are own their own property and that doesn't make me a "Karen". Calling the cops on someone just because they are carrying a gun on private property, that's totally different, and is uncalled for. I don't agree with the "printing rule" because it can happen even with the most responsible carrying. At the same time, I don't believe open carrying during a time of peace really inspires civility, not in a place like Hawaii where the general stance towards guns is negative. I would support Open Carry if the public generally supported it, but I don't think pushing for Open Carry is the way to go about generating public support.

There's a range to violent felons banned from owning firearms, from mass murderer to guy who had a mutual consent fight after school over a girl 20 years ago.  I think we can agree the lesser felonies should have their 2A rights restored and it may be constitutional to ban hardcore felons from owning guns as they would get the death penalty back in the day.  For the ones in the middle, it would make me queasy seeing them with a gun.  But I also know for those for gun control, the thought of a law abiding citizen with a CCW makes them queasy too.  Currently it's illegal for felons to own guns, but eventually I think this will get thrown out in the courts through history and tradition.  Probably through expungement review requirements and bonds.

Getting public support is important and the long term goal for 2A rights as the 2A could be removed through a constitutional amendment or the makeup of SCOTUS can change with 2A decisions reversed.

==========
Ironic, huh?
I think I made my POINT.
 

Adding to the irony.
For context, there are 3 Kamehameha statues, one in congress, one in front of the Hawaii Supreme Court building, and one on the big island.
https://www.aoc.gov/explore-capitol-campus/art/kamehameha-i-statue

BTW thanks OF.  We're going to make a video or meme out of it.

Adding to the irony.
For context, there are 3 Kamehameha statues, one in congress, one in front of the Hawaii Supreme Court building, and one on the big island.
https://www.aoc.gov/explore-capitol-campus/art/kamehameha-i-statue

BTW thanks OF.  We're going to make a video or meme out of it.

Two on the big island.
One in Hawi and one in Hilo.
I think the Hawi one is the original.
 
Shipwrecks are a bitch.
And Hawaii's capitol should be just outside
Kahawaii
where Kamehameha was born.
lots of sharks there. seems appropriate for a capitol.
Pardon my spelling errors.

Two on the big island.
One in Hawi and one in Hilo.
I think the Hawi one is the original.
 
Shipwrecks are a bitch.

Oh yea, forgot about the one in the park.

Oh yea, forgot about the one in the park.

Contrary to what Honolulu centrist citizens think,
us white guys who have been in "real" Hawaii for a while
love the place and the people. Regardless of race or traditions.
 
We don't like the government you have chosen.

Well, I guess I don't support the 2A then, because you all have decided that I don't.

Take the $100 I donated (and everything else I have done to lobby) and buy yourself some lunch for your efforts, because I apparently was not supporting the cause to begin with.

Good luck.

Well, I guess I don't support the 2A then, because you all have decided that I don't.

Take the $100 I donated (and everything else I have done to lobby) and buy yourself some lunch for your efforts, because I apparently was not supporting the cause to begin with.

Good luck.

That's not how the donation works. It is for the lawsuit and it's expenses. The people here also do not have access to the funds to go buy lunch anyways.

When you're ready to support the cause more, feel free to ask more questions so we can help you understand things.

yeah. that's why I don't socialize with any of y'all people

This is perfectly in line with what I keep posting about Hawaii's historical experience with firearms. 

Hawaiians never went through
the Revolutionary war,
didn't create the US Constitution and all it's Amendments over time,
didn't participate in the Civil War,
never lived through the push for Manifest Destiny,
didn't deal with Jim Crow and the Civil Rights Movement,
didn't have to endure the KKK (the REAL racists who would kill non-whites, not the current "every White person is racist" BS),
The Great Depression and the aftermath,
the destruction of the nuclear family by government policies and social deviants,
and on and on ....

Hawaii's history is not the same as the mainland's.  They never gained the appreciation for self defense and our "gun culture", because they have always been under a monarch until they became a state. 

I wonder how the state courts interpret the battles fought to unite the islands under one ruler?  Is that the "Aloha" they refer to?   

Hawaiians have participated in every American conflict since the first American ships started arriving in the 1780s-1790s, given they left Hawai"i on the same ships that were often called into service, with the first major conflict being the war of 1812.

And Native Hawaiian soldiers did fight in the civil war.

But please... Continue to grace us on yet another subject you believe yourself to be an expert in.

I wouldn't say it is the worst decision ever. They made a decision that raises some issues with the Bruen case but it doesn't outright contradict it either since Bruen didn't make any mention of whether permits to carry are constitutional or not (If I understand the case correctly)

My problem is with the line of reasoning used, that the Aloha Spirit somehow trumps the US Supreme Court and that old timey founding father's language can be tossed away if modern ideas conflict.

There were literally no legal arguments. It was all patronizing feel good language.from a cheesy tourist brochure

Hawaiians have participated in every American conflict since the first American ships started arriving in the 1780s-1790s, given they left Hawai"i on the same ships that were often called into service, with the first major conflict being the war of 1812.

And Native Hawaiian soldiers did fight in the civil war.

But please... Continue to grace us on yet another subject you believe yourself to be an expert in.

The Hawaii Government declared its neutrality in the Civil War.  The fact that some Hawaiians made the decision to fight for both the Union and Confederate sides doesn't change what I said.  The Hawaii homeland did not have its homes destroyed, its crops burned, etc.  That's what I was referring to -- the islands did not "go through" the US Civil War.

And I never said Hawaiians didn't participate in "every major conflict."  I was specific about which events and conflicts I chose.  Those were more related to the Second Amendment than the federal government issuing a soldier a rifle or ordering a sailor to man a cannon.

I notice you ignored all the other examples I listed.

You never said:  is it your opinion that the people of Hawaii experienced the same gun culture as the mainland US between 1780 and 1950?  That was my point.

Hawaiians have participated in every American conflict since the first American ships started arriving in the 1780s-1790s, given they left Hawai"i on the same ships that were often called into service, with the first major conflict being the war of 1812.

And Native Hawaiian soldiers did fight in the civil war.

I'd watch that movie if someone made it

Hawaiians have participated in every American conflict since the first American ships started arriving in the 1780s-1790s, given they left Hawai"i on the same ships that were often called into service, with the first major conflict being the war of 1812.

And Native Hawaiian soldiers did fight in the civil war.

But please... Continue to grace us on yet another subject you believe yourself to be an expert in.

Wow that’s crazy I never knew that. I’ll have to read up on that sometime.

I wouldn't say it is the worst decision ever. They made a decision that raises some issues with the Bruen case but it doesn't outright contradict it either since Bruen didn't make any mention of whether permits to carry are constitutional or not (If I understand the case correctly)

My problem is with the line of reasoning used, that the Aloha Spirit somehow trumps the US Supreme Court and that old timey founding father's language can be tossed away if modern ideas conflict.

It's the "worst 2a decision ever".  You left "2a" out.  Just making sure because I'm sure you're right that it's not the "worst decision ever".

Since Bruen set a new way of making 2a related cases, this changes everything becasue cases prior to Bruen, the state could use "public safety" to justify any anti 2a law.  Now post Bruen, they cannot do that, even though in this decisions, the judge is.