Bump. Anyone?
 
  I'm currently in the mainland, but I will be submitting my request for a   CCW permit upon my return. Anyone else care to join me? I was reading   elsewhere on the forum and someone said that only 6 people applied for a   CCW all of last year. It's pretty hard to buck the system and affect   change when no one is willing to put in the work to convince the   decision makers that this is an issue that needs to be addressed.   Otherwise, if only less than 10 people continue to apply year after year, it's   hard to imagine this catching ANYONE in the government's attention.
 
  - Alex

2nd Amendment aside, has anyone ever thought of using the 14th amendment's due process and equal protection clauses to take on the "may issue" aspect of our carry law? It doesn't feel very equal when ONE other person gets to decide if YOU have significant fear for safety of life or property now does it? Especially when there are private security companies running around with their armed guards legally providing protection to the lives and assets of those who can afford their services.

  All options are currently being looked at.  Currently, I am waiting to hear back from a few letters we are sending out this week in an attempt to pool more resources.  Nordyke combined with the 5 other "good" cause cases across the nation will be important to my, or any other person's, legal case here. I am currently waiting for those rulings to avoid excessive legal costs and wait time on my part.

You are correct Alex, not many people apply, feel free to -- I encourage it. Please keep proper documentation of all parties you speak to ect for your benefit.

BMW- there is no one take the issue to at this moment, until one of the "good cause" cases go through. Hawaii has no "appeals" process, which is one other thing we are able to look at. There is only so much room in a complaint motion, so issues have to be picked one at a time.

The issues are nearly endless:
-- Essential ban on open and concealed, due to "good cause".

-- Restrictions and limitations of possession in non-sensitive places, places authorized are strictly dictated via legislation (when it should be the opposite, meaning, we tell you where you can't have it instead of can have it). Think of this, have you taken your weapon to the airport? I think you could go to jail for that.

-- Essentially banning firearms in "common use" , a test set foward by Miller vs. US and utilized in Heller, outlawing magazines > 10 rounds in capacity. I believe since magazines are commonly in use over 10 rounds, that this is viable.

-- Banning sale, possesion, import, trade ect of  tazers

-- Knife carry and additionally the lack of available options for non-lethal carry devices (like an ASP)

OK, so I'm a complete legal idiot, but would it possibly work to have 50, 100, 200+ people (preferably the majority being valid CCW holders in other states) all apply for a Hawaii CCW  (knowing that we will be denied) and THEN bring it to the NRA for possible financial assistance in a class action-esque lawsuit?

Regarding getting more assistance from fellow gun owners on the Legislative front, do we have anyone from 2AH who goes to the various local USPSA matches and has a booth with pamphlets, informational handouts, etc...?

- Alex

Actually that is not a bad idea, but I would humbly suggest that you wait a little while. I am trying to open up a dialog with SAF on the best course of action for legal action based on denial of a CCW. I don't think applying for and getting denied a permit now would adversely affect any future case, but I am not sure. It would be good to hear from someone who has already initiated similar cases in other states to see what their concerns and strategies are. I will guarantee you that if I can get that info I will make sure everyone knows what the strategy is and if they should then apply for a permit.

Sounds good. I'll be looking forward to hearing back from you.

As an aside, I'm not sure how 100+ people getting denied could do anything except help our case. But, as I stated earlier, I'm a legal idiot. 

- Alex

The only way getting denied would affect anything is if you were injured, killed, mugged, etc. and had a lawyer that could argue that FACT, "if he was allowed to defend himself this could have been avoided."

Until people realize the NEED to defend themselves the public won't be out screaming for CCW. But hey, if you wanna do all the work in organizing and applying for 100+ CCW permits, knock yourself out bud.

If I knew a woman who has been raped, mugged, domestic runaway or something -- I bet we could locate a lawyer for them, as long as the person really does have a legit background to qualify.

I revise my first theory to this, 1st show legitimate reason for CCW (which I think someone here did but I can't remember them offhand)and apply, eventually being denied, 2nd, the person with the need is then injured, etc. and hopefully not killed, 3rd, said person then sues the state.

That's the gist of it, though a lawyer I am not.

The only way getting denied would affect anything is if you were injured, killed, mugged, etc. and had a lawyer that could argue that FACT, "if he was allowed to defend himself this could have been avoided."

Until people realize the NEED to defend themselves the public won't be out screaming for CCW. But hey, if you wanna do all the work in organizing and applying for 100+ CCW permits, knock yourself out bud.

I don't understand what you're saying. What I'm trying to get at is having a group of people who are all denied their Constitutional and State given (Hawaii Constitution Article I, Section 17: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the   right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.") right to keep and bear arms could potentially file a lawsuit against the State for a Constitutional violation. Or the group could challenge the State for unfair concealed carry practices (something that the SAF has successfully done in several states). But, without having a sizable group of people who were actually denied a permit to carry concealed, it is a pretty tough sell in court. Why should the SAF or the NRA step in to help us out when only SIX people have applied and been denied a permit in the last year? Obviously, if we're not willing as individuals to put in some legwork, it will be virtually impossible to get another organization to sponsor a lawsuit.

By the way, it's good to see that you are too busy complaining about stuff on the internet to actually do something that could make a difference. Once I hear back from HiCarry, I'll make my own decision about putting in a CCW request, and potentially trying to rally others to do so as well. I'll be sure to not bother you with these trivial matters; I realize that doing ALL the paperwork involved is a pain in the ass...I would hate to burden you. 

- Alex

1st show legitimate reason for CCW

CONSTITUTIONALLY, we DO NOT NEED a legitimate reason to carry a firearm.

This is something that Hawaii has recognized in it's OWN constitution (see my post above); they recognize in THEIR OWN DOCUMENT that the people's right to BEAR arms shall not be infringed.

- Alex

They also recognize in their own document that they have the ability to change their own document as they see fit.

Legitimate reason is how the permit is worded. Simply stating the constitution says is not considered legitimate reason. If it were I would have been ccw since I was eight, and I wouldn't be permitted either. If you honestly believe you have the right from god himself, they why have this discussion. Stfu, cock and lock, and go about your daily business.

Point is, you don't have the right, you must crawl up to your gov't and beg for the permit. There in lies the problem. Solution is, from your stand point, get hundreds of people to protest and sue and tie up the courts for the next thirty years. Not going to work that way, because Hawaii doesn't change that way. If you were born and raised here you would know that. The only way this will work is if a person applied, showed legitimate cause, was denied, was injured and unable to defend himself, then the media will jump in and do what they do, and hopefully we can use that momentum to change the law.

They also recognize in their own document that they have the ability to change their own document as they see fit.

But they have NOT changed it. They are merely providing lip-service to the Constitutional right, versus what they are ACTUALLY doing.

Legitimate reason is how the permit is worded. Simply stating the constitution says is not considered legitimate reason. If it were I would have been ccw since I was eight, and I wouldn't be permitted either. If you honestly believe you have the right from god himself, they why have this discussion. Stfu, cock and lock, and go about your daily business.

First, I have NEVER said that it was a God-given right; it is a right granted by the US (and Hawaii State) Constitution. Second, you're right, at this point applying for a CCW by making the argument that the Constitution states that our right to bear arms shall not be infringed ISN'T enough...but that's what we need to change. Because that is UNCONSTITUTIONAL...by the United State's standards and HAWAII'S.


 

Point is, you don't have the right, you must crawl up to your gov't and beg for the permit. There in lies the problem. Solution is, from your stand point, get hundreds of people to protest and sue and tie up the courts for the next thirty years. Not going to work that way, because Hawaii doesn't change that way. If you were born and raised here you would know that. The only way this will work is if a person applied, showed legitimate cause, was denied, was injured and unable to defend himself, then the media will jump in and do what they do, and hopefully we can use that momentum to change the law.

How do you figure it will get tied up in court for 30 years? If we are able to convince a group such as SAF or NRA to sponsor the challenge, I have a feeling that-one way or another-it would be resolved in a much shorter timeframe...just like ALL of the other litigation that those organizations have been a part of.

Furthermore, using your own logic on how things are going to change (which I don't agree with being the only, or best, way) then we DEFINITELY need more people to apply and get denied. The odds of 1 of those 6 applicants being assaulted is very very low. However, if you bump the number up to 100, 200, or whatever, the odds GREATLY increase.

Lastly, for those people who expect the politicians to support a change to the law, there is NO WAY they will ever put their political futures on the line for a measly 6 people. Even 100 or 200 probably isn't enough. But the more people that we can get to apply, the greater likelihood that this subject starts to grab people's attention.

Other than the hour of work it would take you to write up the letter for a request for a CCW, can you provide me with a good reason NOT to do it?

- Alex

First, I have NEVER said that it was a God-given right; it is a right granted by the US (and Hawaii State) Constitution.

Not to spoil a fine fight, but you're actually mistaken here. 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created  equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable  Rights

provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty

The Founding Fathers saw our rights as given by the Creator.  They wrote the Constitution to protect those rights.  Which is why they explicitly took the time to say

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor  prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to  the people.

The Constitution, be it state or federal, merely represents an attempt by people to detail how a government should function without interfering with our rights.  It in no way is the source of those rights.  Now, personally, I don't really hold with the idea of a Creator, but I still believe that these rights are unalienable, inherent to the human condition.  It's nice that a piece of paper confirms that fact, but it shouldn't be necessary.

 

Tom,

    Touche.

- Alex

The only way getting denied would affect anything is if you were injured, killed, mugged, etc. and had a lawyer that could argue that FACT, "if he was allowed to defend himself this could have been avoided."

Until people realize the NEED to defend themselves the public won't be out screaming for CCW. But hey, if you wanna do all the work in organizing and applying for 100+ CCW permits, knock yourself out bud.

Really? And, if in your hypothetical case of the rape victim, who would you sue? On what basis? You do realize that the Chief has immunity for issues related to the issue or non-issue of a CCW, right?
And, you do realize that even if the rape victim "could" have defended herself, you still may not have a case unless she previously applied for a permit, right? It's called standing and is why Heller was the only one that survived the original Parker case that worked its way to the SCOTUS. But, you knew that, right?

Look, the bottom line is that you are not a lawyer, and for that matter, neither am I. The road to success in such a legal action is a long one. One that is riddled with all manner of technicalities that could derail efforts at anytime in the process. And, IMHO, it would be a terrible outcome to have all the hard work completely torpedoed because of poor planning.

It comes down to the fact that all too often folks who want to help jump into the situation without all the information to make the best choices. If you think getting folks to apply for and then get denied permits is a fruitless activity, then what would you suggest? One of the best strategies I have seen for folks that complain is to require them to present solutions to those complaints....ball is in your court.

I already present the solution ... Until something horrible happens the majority of people in Hawaii will continue to see guns as the problem.

Let me clarify, the NRA runs stories in their publications every month about people using CCW to defend themselves and others. These are the same situations that need to happen in this state, to wake up the majority. Because that's how our country works, the majority rules. And unless you have thousands and thousands of people storming the capitol building downtown ( remember gay marriage ban) we won't get to exercise CCW.

Further more, you can obviously copy and paste but your reading and comprehension skills are off par. I never said anything about applicants wasting their time or applying for CCW as being fruitless. I told Alex if he wanted to organize hundreds of people to apply for CCW to go right ahead. What you folks don't realize is you likely will not find hundreds of people to apply, which is why we have CCW as a not-issue policy. Hell, there aint even a hundred people on this forum.

Let me make myself clear, the NRA runs stories in their publications every month about people using CCW to defend themselves and others. These are the same situations that need to happen in this state, to wake up the majority. Because that's how our country works, the majority rules. And unless you have thousands and thousands of people storming the capitol building downtown ( remember gay marriage ban) we won't get to exercise CCW.

I think you are right on this point.  The problem it self is that a lot of Hawaii's shooters just don't have the stamina, or the attitude, to do anything about CCW. Heck I called up and talked to some of the old timer regulars that go to the range about the new reduced hours, and I didn't really get any type of response. I'm sure they care, but they were just like,'oh well' type of attitude.  This is the type of attitude that runs rampant in this state.
 
One other thing is that the conditions and crime in Hawaii is not as bad as it is in the mainland, YET...  But if the trend of increasing crime, with limited consequenses for criminals keeps rising, I'm sure people attitude will have to change.  Many will have to suffer in order for the public view of self protection to change.

That is exactly the point I want to make, the old timers, the shooters, even the everyday regular class people, don't see a need to even raise an eyebrow at this. We need to find a way to get these people to say," hey CCW is important to me and I want it". 

tonsofguns, as always, you may not have come out and said it, but your   "tone" (which admittedly is always suspect on the internet since it's   impossible to determine it strictly from typed words) what extremely   dismissive. It may not have been what you meant, but it's exactly how   your post came off.

Until people realize the NEED to defend themselves the public won't be out screaming for CCW. But hey, if you wanna do all the work in organizing and applying for 100+ CCW permits, knock yourself out bud.

And you (and Heavies) may very well be right. But my problem is that I don't see ANYONE doing ANYTHING to rally people together behind this issue. If people feel that they are alone in their issues (read: the SIX people who submitted CCW requests last year), they will NEVER put in any effort, because they realize that it is fruitless. As I said earlier, do we have anyone going to the various matches, ranges, etc... around the state to spread the word? No.

I have a feeling that if we got 50 people to submit a CCW request...and publicized it, then we would get another 25-50 more. Then those 100 people would gain another 30, and on and on. Things like this CAN go viral if properly orchestrated. Or they can fizzle out if everyone is a naysayer and just sits on the internet and complains.

- Alex

The reason I said you would have to do all the work is because honestly (sadly) in this State, you will be doing all the work.

I have been arrested, after being denied CCW, with a loaded pistol. That is the length I have gone to defend my, no, OUR, rights. I wanted to be a test case to get this thing aired out. And when my lawyers came down I was released without charges and returned my pistol less ammo. Because this State does not want this to go public. So keep telling me I just complain and do nothing. (I make smiley to lighten tone)