Young v. State of Hawaii (Read 24520 times)

zippz

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #260 on: September 12, 2018, 11:16:48 AM »
Is there a reason that no firearms org helped Beck?  Like the NRA-ILA and stuff.  Seems like this is a huge deal.   

There are issues.  Come out to our next meeting.
Join the Hawaii Firearms Coalition at www.hifico.org.  Hawaii's new non-profit gun rights organization focused on lobbying and grassroots activism.

Hawaii Shooting Calendar - https://calendar.google.com/calendar/embed?src=practicalmarksman.com_btllod1boifgpp8dcjnbnruhso%40group.calendar.google.com&ctz=Pacific/Honolulu

punaperson

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #261 on: September 12, 2018, 11:21:21 AM »
Is there a reason that no firearms org helped Beck?  Like the NRA-ILA and stuff.  Seems like this is a huge deal.   

Or if they're going to step in and help now since we all know Hawaii is bringing in million dollar teams of attorney's.  Granted maybe they don't want to take the case away from Beck because he did work hard to win, but provide their attorney's for assistance or help if needed.  Seems like the deck will be stacked in the states favor.

Wolf-please don't take this the wrong way.  I'm not calling you a bad attorney, just more help the better.  I appreciate you even taking on this case and so does my wife.  I was surprised when she actually watched the entire video of the briefing.
Why don't you ask the NRA/NRA-ILA and/or SAF and/or GOA and/or Calguns.org etc. etc. etc. Maybe they will give you an answer. They haven't answered me for literally YEARS as to why they wouldn't help (as all their concealed carry cases failed one after the other... and now they continue on with Flanagan arguing the same thing about concealed carry!). And now, SAF says they will submit an amicus brief. Can't wait for that.

Be sure to look up the history of the NRA's role in Heller (I). They tried to derail it. Just sayin'...

zippz

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #262 on: September 12, 2018, 11:38:51 AM »
Yea NRA, SAF and other groups are kinda like politics.  Agendas, backroom deals, rivalries, etc.
Join the Hawaii Firearms Coalition at www.hifico.org.  Hawaii's new non-profit gun rights organization focused on lobbying and grassroots activism.

Hawaii Shooting Calendar - https://calendar.google.com/calendar/embed?src=practicalmarksman.com_btllod1boifgpp8dcjnbnruhso%40group.calendar.google.com&ctz=Pacific/Honolulu

wolfwood

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #263 on: September 13, 2018, 01:46:07 PM »
Check this out guys Hawaii free press just released a link to a new AG's letter on the carry law.

http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/ID/22292/categoryId/118/AG-Opinion-Hawaii-Gun-Laws-Not-as-Restrictive-as-they-Seem.aspx

Flapp_Jackson

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #264 on: September 13, 2018, 01:55:33 PM »
Check this out guys Hawaii free press just released a link to a new AG's letter on the carry law.

http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/ID/22292/categoryId/118/AG-Opinion-Hawaii-Gun-Laws-Not-as-Restrictive-as-they-Seem.aspx

So, basically, they can still deny the open-carry license on the same arbitrary, discretionary police chief's decision as they do concealed carry licenses.

Looks like they are trying to pretend that reluctance to issue open-carry licenses is better than reluctance to issue concealed carry licenses, even though it was established in the hearing that Hawaii's rejection of 100% of applications is equivalent to a ban regardless of what the statute says.

Also, if the police chief feels you have sufficient justification for open carry, there's no reason the chief would not also feel you have sufficient justification for concealed carry.  The same rules are being applied to both types of carry, so where is the dividing line between unconcealed and concealed carry?

More legal maneuvering.
« Last Edit: September 13, 2018, 02:03:57 PM by Flapp_Jackson »
It is usually futile to try to talk facts and analysis to people who are enjoying a sense of moral superiority in their ignorance.

changemyoil66

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #265 on: September 13, 2018, 02:30:47 PM »
The problem is the letter gives examples which are all along the lines of you know who the person threatening your life is (credible threat).  So is someone who lives in another state threatening you via social media because of your political beliefs a credible threat?  I'm betting HPD will deny.

Having a firearm is in case someone threatens your life.  So we will be back at almost the same starting point of denying lots applicants who want to exercise a right, not a privilege.  I shouldn't need a reason why I want to exercise my 2a right.

At least TRO's and stalking victims would be able to open carry (mainly women).

punaperson

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #266 on: September 13, 2018, 02:48:56 PM »
Suzuki is a fucking liar. He talks about the reports from the county police chiefs as compiled by the AG office:

Although the Department of the Attorney General has
published statistics on firearm license applications, those
reports date back only to the year 2000...  those reports, starting
in 2004, state only the number of private individuals who applied
for (and were granted or denied) a concealed_carry license; they
do not state the number of private individuals who applied for
(and were granted or denied) an unconcealed_carry license.

His whole argument that any private citizen at any time has been and is eligible for an "unconcealed carry" license is pure bullshit. He fails to mention that the very forms used by his office that require the monthly reporting from the county police chiefs describe and annotate the types of licenses to carry firearms into two categories, and those categories are NOT "unconcealed" and "concealed", they are: "SECURITY" OR "CITIZEN". He's a fucking liar, and he knows it. What a fucking asshole. I hate these people.

« Last Edit: September 13, 2018, 02:54:13 PM by punaperson »

punaperson

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #267 on: September 13, 2018, 03:03:30 PM »
Plus, Horowitz tried to say the exact same thing (as Suzuki claims in the letter that "Well, everyone is engaged in the protection of life and property, their own.") at orals and O'Scannlain (I'd characterize his tone as disdainful, if not angry) immediately challenged him as to the preposterousness of such a claim.

Flapp_Jackson

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #268 on: September 13, 2018, 03:32:10 PM »
Plus, Horowitz tried to say the exact same thing (as Suzuki claims in the letter that "Well, everyone is engaged in the protection of life and property, their own.") at orals and O'Scannlain (I'd characterize his tone as disdainful, if not angry) immediately challenged him as to the preposterousness of such a claim.

If "everyone is engaged in the protection of life and property, their own", then that satisfies the NEED clause.

How realistic is it to only allow people with hard evidence of threats to carry, while others may only get a verbal "better watch your back" comment or similar? No way to prove you're in danger unless the threat is considerate enough to implicate himself.
It is usually futile to try to talk facts and analysis to people who are enjoying a sense of moral superiority in their ignorance.

punaperson

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #269 on: September 13, 2018, 03:49:58 PM »
If "everyone is engaged in the protection of life and property, their own", then that satisfies the NEED clause.

How realistic is it to only allow people with hard evidence of threats to carry, while others may only get a verbal "better watch your back" comment or similar? No way to prove you're in danger unless the threat is considerate enough to implicate himself.
Dude! This is Hawaii, "realistic" doesn't enter into any political consideration, nor much else really. I doubt they even know what that is. The two anecdotes I've heard here are, one, to a small general store that wanted a couple of employees to be granted licenses for protection when they took the deposit to the night deposit box at the bank after 2 AM when the store closed and were told "Hire armored car service", and two, woman who reported a stalker making verbal threats: "Move". That's what the cops here consider "realistic".

These politicians don't have the slightest thread of integrity. They just lie right to everyone's face, including the courts. I really hope Suzuki gets a chance to lie to SCOTUS (of course he would just hire people at taxpayer expense to do the job he's too incompetent to do), especially if Ginsburg and/or Breyer have been replaced by Trump nominees. Suzuki, and all his predecessors along with the police chiefs, mayors and county attorneys, should be imprisoned for violating our constitutional rights.

As I've pointed out before, there is approximately the same danger of being in a car accident as being the victim of a crime of personal confrontation (rape, assault, robbery, etc.... where a firearm for self defense might prove capable of preventing victimization), and in the first case the state mandates under penalty of law that one have car insurance, while in the second it mandates, under penalty of law, that one NOT have insurance (in the form a the most effective self-defense tools). Equal risk of injury, completely opposite treatment by the law re protecting yourself from those equally potential injuries. They don't care about "public safety". They don't care about "personal safety". They care about something else.

punaperson

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #270 on: September 14, 2018, 08:22:15 AM »
8:19 AM

Have they filed yet?

8:20 AM

Have they filed yet?

8:21 AM

Have they filed yet?

Or do I have to wait until 4:59 PM?

changemyoil66

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #271 on: September 14, 2018, 09:02:37 AM »
8:19 AM

Have they filed yet?

8:20 AM

Have they filed yet?

8:21 AM

Have they filed yet?

Or do I have to wait until 4:59 PM?

$20 says another extention

Charles Nichols

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #272 on: September 14, 2018, 02:13:18 PM »
The Petition for Rehearing En Banc is posted at my website.  You might want to consider subscribing to my site for updates.

http://blog.californiarighttocarry.org/?page_id=846

The petition is 114 pages long which means that you should download it to your local computer before trying to view it.

2ahavvaii

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #273 on: September 14, 2018, 03:45:47 PM »
The problem is the letter gives examples which are all along the lines of you know who the person threatening your life is (credible threat).  So is someone who lives in another state threatening you via social media because of your political beliefs a credible threat?  I'm betting HPD will deny.

Having a firearm is in case someone threatens your life.  So we will be back at almost the same starting point of denying lots applicants who want to exercise a right, not a privilege.  I shouldn't need a reason why I want to exercise my 2a right.

At least TRO's and stalking victims would be able to open carry (mainly women).

actually they wont because nothing has changed.  Accepting or denying applications is still at the whim of the police chiefs.  status quo.

2ahavvaii

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #274 on: September 14, 2018, 03:50:08 PM »
Dude! This is Hawaii, "realistic" doesn't enter into any political consideration, nor much else really. I doubt they even know what that is. The two anecdotes I've heard here are, one, to a small general store that wanted a couple of employees to be granted licenses for protection when they took the deposit to the night deposit box at the bank after 2 AM when the store closed and were told "Hire armored car service", and two, woman who reported a stalker making verbal threats: "Move". That's what the cops here consider "realistic".

These politicians don't have the slightest thread of integrity. They just lie right to everyone's face, including the courts. I really hope Suzuki gets a chance to lie to SCOTUS (of course he would just hire people at taxpayer expense to do the job he's too incompetent to do), especially if Ginsburg and/or Breyer have been replaced by Trump nominees. Suzuki, and all his predecessors along with the police chiefs, mayors and county attorneys, should be imprisoned for violating our constitutional rights.

As I've pointed out before, there is approximately the same danger of being in a car accident as being the victim of a crime of personal confrontation (rape, assault, robbery, etc.... where a firearm for self defense might prove capable of preventing victimization), and in the first case the state mandates under penalty of law that one have car insurance, while in the second it mandates, under penalty of law, that one NOT have insurance (in the form a the most effective self-defense tools). Equal risk of injury, completely opposite treatment by the law re protecting yourself from those equally potential injuries. They don't care about "public safety". They don't care about "personal safety". They care about something else.

i actually wonder how some of these people sleep at night.  they deny any and all applications regardless of "need".  So say someone is being stalked or threatened, and they would carry if they could legally.  They end up getting assaulted or killed.  The fact that they are now injured or dead is on these politicians and cops that denied them the right to protect themselves. 

punaperson

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #275 on: September 14, 2018, 04:49:34 PM »
i actually wonder how some of these people sleep at night. they deny any and all applications regardless of "need".  So say someone is being stalked or threatened, and they would carry if they could legally.  They end up getting assaulted or killed.  The fact that they are now injured or dead is on these politicians and cops that denied them the right to protect themselves.
I bet Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. all slept well at night (well, maybe not Hitler when he knew the end was near). People who are ideologues and see it as their duty to control other people "for their own good", and "for the good of the many", don't lose sleep over the fact that they are instrumental in people being injured or dying just because they are executing (sometimes literally) their grandiose plan to save the world.

I just wrote judge O'Scannlain with the documentation of the lies by the AG. It won't make any difference, but someone in the official decision-making chain needs to know about it.

Soleyobo

punaperson

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #277 on: September 15, 2018, 06:21:55 AM »
http://www.staradvertiser.com/2018/09/14/breaking-news/hawaii-appeals-decision-to-allow-guns-in-public/
Got a lot of mistakes in that article. Was it written by Horowitz? Repeats some of the things he erroneously claimed at the orals. Not surprising for a Podunk newspaper having a general beat reporter cover a legal issue. Doesn't help the public understand the details of the case, not that that would matter anyway.

RSN172

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #278 on: September 15, 2018, 08:22:47 PM »
i actually wonder how some of these people sleep at night.  they deny any and all applications regardless of "need".  So say someone is being stalked or threatened, and they would carry if they could legally.  They end up getting assaulted or killed.  The fact that they are now injured or dead is on these politicians and cops that denied them the right to protect themselves.

If someone was stalking me or threatened my life, I would to the following:
1.  Report it to the police so they have a record of the threat.
2.  Apply for a carry permit which will get denied.
3.  Carry my G19 everywhere I go.
« Last Edit: September 16, 2018, 01:17:24 AM by RSN172 »

changemyoil66

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #279 on: September 15, 2018, 11:06:41 PM »
I can see chief saying

1) file TRO
2) permit denied because u got a TRO
3)if TRO is broken, still no need permit. Violater is arrested
4) violator post bail, permit still denied, call HPD for help. Violator arrested again and higher bail set.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk