I don't see how they can legally interpret the second amendment and the RKBA incorporated into the state constitution any other way than how the supreme court has already interpreted it. Right to keep arms, right to bear arms.

maybe mention that:

making the distinction of a person with an approved immediate threat to life and property, that may carry, while denying a person with less immediate threat seeking a permit to legally carry a gun for the same purpose of self defense can only be one of two things: denial of equal protection under the law, or denial of due process of incorporation under the 14th amendment.

if that is going to be their response to Joe Q. Public, then the police department should be telling armored car guards to just call the police if there is trouble, or advise them to just stop carrying around so much money in that van if you don't want to get robbed.

Good work, Alex!  great letter.

It seems to me we are getting very close to putting a class action suit against the state.  If 'form letters' are being used for routine denials, then the whole intent of the 2nd amendment is being violated.  If no one is getting a permit, then it is obvious that the govt. is 'infringing' the rights of the average citizens.  They certainly have the right & responsibility to deny permits to criminals or incompetent people, but that should not extend to all citizens.

I'll probably never carry.. openly or concealed.. well, maybe if i was going to be in a seedy part of town at night.. but that is not the point.  I should be able to exercise my right to if i want.  I probably won't picket the white house, either, but it is my right to do so if i want.  That is the issue, it seems to me.  Our constitutional rights are being slowly depleted.  It is long overdue for us to insist on our rights being restored to us.. before they govt. decides to take more.  We are supposed to be what the govt. is of, for, & by.  They should fear us & defer to us, not the other way around.
scotty

There has to be something we can do about this.  Can't the state be sued for infringing upon the rights of our citizens?

There has to be something we can do about this.  Can't the state be sued for infringing upon the rights of our citizens?

Stay tuned

I think thats the reason why SHOPO was brought in for comment. They aren't HPD but the union that represents the POs.

It seems to me we are getting very close to putting a class action suit against the state.

It is impossible to ever pass shall-issue or constitutional-carry bills in Hawaii, so litigation is the only way to get the current will-not-issue practice declared unconstitutional (which it obviously is).  You've got some denials, and with Heller and McDonald on the books now, strike while the iron is hot!

When you go to court, I will happily contribute to the cause.

Any updates on this topic? I plan to apply this week, anything I should know?
Thanks 

Any updates on this topic? I plan to apply this week, anything I should know?
Thanks 

Document your encounter as best as you can.  Don't take no for an answer is the best thing I can say.  Each island has its own little problems (and it's good that we are figuring them out in advance). 

Anytime you are given a rule, ask to see it in writing (The dept likes to 'make' things up).

Post deleted and revised.

OK, so I got my response...too bad it was from Chief Kealoha, AGAIN. What an absolute joke this government is: I'm pretty sure the way that the rest of the world does business is if you have a problem, you take it up with their supervisor; if they can't fix your problem, then you go up some more...all the way up until you've reached the top or you get resolution that you are happy with. I wish someone could explain to me why I would expect the man who denied my permit to magically change his mind. Of course he's going to say no again...that's why I requested that Mayor Carlisle reviewed it. Not that expected him to approve it, but it would be nice if he would be man enough to say no himself. Anyways, enough ranting, here is Chief Kealoha's response:

Quote

Dear Mr. Europa:

Mayor Peter Carlisle has asked me to respond to your letter of December 10, 2010, requesting a review of your application for a license to carry a firearm.

Pursuant to Chapter 134 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes, the Chief of Police of the appropriate county has been given the authority to issue such licenses. Therefore, we have conducted another review of your application, and our decision to deny your request has been reaffirmed.

Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please call Officer Glen Yagyagan of our Records and Identification Division at xxx-xxxx.

                                                                                                                      Sincerely,
                                                                                                                      Louis M. Kealoha
                                                                                                                      Chief of Police

cc: Mayor Peter B. Carlisle

Interesting response. What is particularly interesting to me is that the City and County of Honolulu has officially denied me the right to bear arms either openly or concealed. This flies directly in the face of both the United States and Hawaii State Constitutions. To quote from the US Supreme Court's 2008 Heller Decision, ""Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation."

OK, my next letter will be going out on Monday to the Hawaii Attorney General. Not that I hold very much hope of AG Suzuki overturning the decision, their website does say, "The Attorney General also represents the State and its citizens in affirmative actions seeking to protect the rights and interests of the people of Hawaii."

Please feel free to comment or add any thoughts that you would like to see added to the letter.

- Alex

Mine is hanging on the wall.....

I'm observing this with great interest.  Looks like it's "holding their feet to the fire" time.

Excellent letters.

This...

Pursuant to Chapter 134 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes, the Chief of Police of the appropriate county has been given the authority to issue such licenses. Therefore, we have conducted another review of your application, and our decision to deny your request has been reaffirmed.

...sounds like pure "weasel-words" to me.  What went on while "we conducted another review," and, per funtimes' remark, what precise portions of "Chapter 134" are being cited?

Does Hawaii have an equivalent to FOIA (Freedom Of Information Act), where ordinary mortals such as you and I can request records and documention regarding decisions made?

I am told that in states which require a demonstration of "need" on the applications, a proper response is "All lawful purposes."  Don't know if that's helpful or suitable in your situation, but just FYI.

I wonder what the penalties are for someone denying someone else's civil rights?  I see it in Hawaii's Bill of Rights, but what remedies do you have?  Civil?  Criminal?

Feet to the fire time, folks.

Remember, in boxing, it's the jabs and body punches that lead up to the telling blows to the head.

Keep on punchin'.


Terry, 230RN

^^^Seems a bit lacking in reasons why the CCW was denied. 

Perhaps if you folks contacted the Star Advertiser they might be able to help dig up some info............then again maybe not.

A question occurs to me while filling out the narrative for my CCW:  Has Chief Kealoha issued permits to security guards, armored car drivers, etc?  I'm hoping that's the case, so I can make the point that I am no less trustworthy than they are, and there are far fewer attempted robberies of banks and armored cars than there are of private citizens.  Of course, my permit request will still get denied, because logic seems to be in pretty short supply with the anti-gunners, but at least I'll be able to say I gave it the old college try...

A question occurs to me while filling out the narrative for my CCW:  Has Chief Kealoha issued permits to security guards, armored car drivers, etc?  I'm hoping that's the case, so I can make the point that I am no less trustworthy than they are, and there are far fewer attempted robberies of banks and armored cars than there are of private citizens.  Of course, my permit request will still get denied, because logic seems to be in pretty short supply with the anti-gunners, but at least I'll be able to say I gave it the old college try...

Armed security guards & armored car drivers do not require CCW's. The companies they work for are licensed to conduct business under HRS 463.

Armed security guards & armored car drivers do not require CCW's. The companies they work for are licensed to conduct business under HRS 463.

Guards and/or detectives still obtain and utilize the permits issued under HRS 134-9 for their work.  I'm down to make a guard agency if anyone wants to split the bond

Quote from: Colt808 on July 13, 2011, 10:47:24 PM

Armed security guards & armored car drivers do not require CCW's. The companies they work for are licensed to conduct business under HRS 463.

Guards and/or detectives still obtain and utilize the permits issued under HRS 134-9 for their work.  I'm down to make a guard agency if anyone wants to split the bond

This is incorrect, 134-9 does not apply as no permits are issued. Armed guards carry under the "...place of business, residence, or sojourn..." restriction/exemption. They are limited to the location for which the company is responsible. In the case of armored car drivers/guards, their vehicle and collection/delivery points are considered their place of business.  Also the weapons carried by armed guards are owned and registered to the company, not the guard. Every guard signs them out/in at the start/end of the work shift. The only requirement under HRS 134 is they must not be prohibited from owning/possessing a firearm.  **Armed security are not allowed concealed carry**

Yes I know the whole lending a firearm question can be raised on this, but that's a completely different matter.

Colt808, are you sure about this? According to the numbers released in previous statistics, there are quite a few approvals for armed guards carry permits. From what I understand, they are issued open carry permits and are tested by the company they are working for. It may be different from a company that has armed guards stationed at it's location as opposed to armed transports.

Quote from: Funtimes on July 13, 2011, 11:37:09 PM

Quote from: Colt808 on July 13, 2011, 10:47:24 PM

Armed security guards & armored car drivers do not require CCW's. The companies they work for are licensed to conduct business under HRS 463.

Guards and/or detectives still obtain and utilize the permits issued under HRS 134-9 for their work.  I'm down to make a guard agency if anyone wants to split the bond

This is incorrect, 134-9 does not apply as no permits are issued. Armed guards carry under the "...place of business, residence, or sojourn..." restriction/exemption. They are limited to the location for which the company is responsible. In the case of armored car drivers/guards, their vehicle and collection/delivery points are considered their place of business.  Also the weapons carried by armed guards are owned and registered to the company, not the guard. Every guard signs them out/in at the start/end of the work shift. The only requirement under HRS 134 is they must not be prohibited from owning/possessing a firearm.  **Armed security are not allowed concealed carry**

Yes I know the whole lending a firearm question can be raised on this, but that's a completely different matter.

I'm not sure where you get 134-9 doesn't apply to armed guards.  134-9 in part, specifically, applies to guards as one cannot be "engaged in the protection of life and property" without being duly licensed as such.
Loomis guards carry a permit, I have stopped them on the military base and required them to show me a permit to carry openly. They have them.  The application still runs through 134-9, we have the forms required to be filed from Hawaii county on file.   On the permit I physically held and reviewed it was signed by the CoP and possessed the following restrictions: "on duty, in uniform - only."

Form required to be filed by Guards for their permit:
http://hawaiiccw.com/hawaii-gun-firearm-laws/hawaii-county-application-license-carry-firearms-weapons/


Additionally, place of business is not synonymous with place of of employment.  As a licensed process server my  place of business was my vehicle and I was still prohibited from carrying, storing, or possessing a loaded firearm.

In fact, to delve a little deeper, confine does not mean carry or possess. See Heller v. D.C. (Heller could confine his gun to the home, but could not carry it).  You can also review STATE V. RABAGO, 67 HAW. 332, 686 P.2D 824 (1984) where a guy got off on the "carry permit" requirement, which was great and all, but then the legislators went an fixed the way he got off by adding section (b) to the 134-23 - 26, which deems carrying or possession of the guns is a felony.

This is very intriguing; I did not know there was a small following of people who wanted to peruse CCW in Hawaii.  Has there been any head way to the possibility of this coming true or has the movement slowed down.  Thoughts?

This is very intriguing; I did not know there was a small following of people who wanted to peruse CCW in Hawaii.  Has there been any head way to the possibility of this coming true or has the movement slowed down.  Thoughts?

IMHO the most serious pursuit of CCW in Hawaii aside from the current movement was made by a gentleman on the Big Island.  If I remember correctly his litigation is being refused to be heard by the State judicial system.  Unfortunately it seems without serious $$$ he was not able to follow up on the litigation.

The current pursuit seems to be growing large in the last year or so.  My problem with adding my voice is that if you do apply for a CCW and they ask if you've been turned down before, then it could kill any potential for getting a permit in the future.  Yes it is selfish, but it seems that pursuit through the HRA (Hawaii Rifle Association), NRA, and local clubs would bring more pressure on the Counties/State without putting individual future rights in danger.

It has always been the State/County line to deny CCW for all but the most connected of people.  It doesn't matter who the chief LEO's were or who the mayors were, it has always been the case and Hawaii is very slow to change.