An interesting case in San Diego, California could mean concealed carry in Hawaii....

http://www.examiner.com/la-in-los-angeles/concealed-carry-of-handguns-imminent

...San Diego, like Los Angeles, issues very few licences to carry a concealed weapon. Licenses issued by both jurisdictions are capricious and arbitrary. In the case of Peruta v San Diego, the Sheriff's department favored a private organization called the Honorable Deputy Sheriff's Association. Not a single member in good standing who has applied since 2006 has been denied a license.

On Friday, the attorneys for Peruta filed a motion for a partial summary judgment. If the court grants the motion it would immediately require that all issuing authorities in the Southern District of California issue licences to carry a concealed weapon to everyone who applies and meets the non-discretionary requirements of obtaining a license or, hopefully, everyone who is at least 18 years of age and legally entitled to own a firearm as was found in Heller and McDonald.

It took the Court two months from the date that San Diego County Sheriff Gore filed his motion to dismiss the case and Judge Gonzalez issued her denial of the motion, and that included breaks for Thanksgiving, Christmas and New Years. The Court's denial of motion to dismiss was 18 pages long. Judge Gonzalez has already laid out the legal foundation for her decision. An order granting the partial summary judgement will most likely take less time....

There is another case in California that also attacks the "good cause" clause for CCW issuance...either could turn out to be very beneficial to us here in Hawaii

This is good news we can use.

Thanks a lot for the post HiCarry.

Can you explain what it would take for this case to affect us?

From what I can understand, this case isn't at a very high level and will probably change things in San Diego, maybe California. It isn't at a level where it can affect the whole 9th circuit. Of course, IANAL (or even close) and I have been known to totally misunderstand these kinds of things.

Another author also posted an article on the examiner: http://www.examiner.com/county-political-buzz-in-san-diego/a-showdown-with-san-diego-sheriff-s-dept-and-issuance-of-conceal-carry-permits-set-for-court
And Calguns wiki has an article: http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Peruta_v._County_of_San_Diego

IANAL either. But, from my understanding of the situation, the "cummulative" effects of McDonald, Heller, and, if it goes favorably in San Diego and Sacramento (where the other "may issue" case is being heard) may severely restrict the discretion of the issuing agency determination of "good cause" for a CCW. If, as some have suggested, we get a favorable ruling in San Diego, the opposing party may choose not to appeal. If that is the case we have precedent we can use in any legal challenge here. If, however they appeal, we'll have to wait to see what the appelate court says. If the Sacramento case progresses to a favorable ruling we could possibly have two cases setting favorable precedent. If one is decided favorably and one isn't, it sets up a split in the State Court system (sort of the same situation when there was a split in the Circuit decisions about the incorporation of the Second Amendment in the 9th and 7th/2nd circuits) which could mean an expidited hearing at the State Supreme Court. Which, again, if favorable could be used to our advatage if any legal challenges develope here.
And, if things go favorably in California, it may convince legislators it would be cheaper to change the law rather than litigate with a poor chance of winning. Or, it might convince the Chief to issue requested CCWs to avoid a legal challenge even if the laws don't change.

Granted none of this is the "quick fix" we'd like to see, but it could be used to our advantage in lobbying the legislators this session, as well as eventually setting us up here for a legal challenge if we cannot get the laws changed.