Hawaii Appeals Decision To Allow Guns In Public
BY Herschel Smith
6 years, 1 month ago
As best as I understand the appeals court ruling for Hawaii open carry, they determined that open carry cannot legally be prohibited if concealed carry is also prohibited. Of course, if I had made the ruling, I would have determined that no man can legally or morally dictate to another man how or where he can carry his weapons. But Hawaii is appealing that decision.
The state and Hawaii County filed a petition today asking the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider a three-judge panel’s ruling that Hawaii’s legal requirement for getting a license to carry a firearm in public violates the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment right to bear arms for self-defense.
The three-judge panel of the court handed down a 2-1 opinion in July in the case of a Hilo man’s lawsuit against the state and the Hawaii Police Department. George K. Young Jr. sued in 2012 after then-Hawaii Police Chief Harry Kubojiri twice rejected his application for a license to carry a firearm.
State firearm laws prohibit carrying a firearm in public except to transport it to and from places where it can be purchased and used legally, such as from a gun shop to your home or to the police department for registration. The firearm must be unloaded and in an enclosed container.
The chief of police of each county is responsible for handling firearm registrations and issuing firearm licenses. The law allows for the chief, in exceptional cases, to grant a license to carry a loaded revolver or pistol to an applicant who shows reason to fear injury to himself or his property.
The 2-1 opinion said the exceptional case requirement impinges on the right of a responsible, law-abiding citizen to carry a firearm openly for self-defense outside of his home.
According to the state and county’s joint petition, the panel’s ruling is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of Hawaii law. The panel, it says, invalidated Hawaii’s law on the ground that it limits open-carry license to security guards and other people whose jobs require protecting life and property.
“But that is just wrong,” the filing says. The law makes open-carry license available to any qualified individual who “sufficiently indicates” an “urgency” or “need” to carry a firearm and who is “engaged in the protection of life and property.”
Hawaii Attorney General Russell Suzuki has issued an opinion that clarifies that the law extends to private individuals as well as security officers and that it advises the police chiefs that victims of domestic violence, anyone who faces a credible threat of armed robbery or violent crime may be eligible for open-carry licenses.
But attorneys for Young said today that the reality is that the state rarely issues any open-carry licenses — only four in the last 18 years.
“The bottom line is that the state doesn’t issue permits,” attorney Alan Beck said.
Let’s be clear. Everyone faces a credible threat because of the sinfulness of mankind. Anyone, at any time, in any location, may be the victim of a crime against their person.
They know that and don’t care.
To satisfy these requirements, an applicant must demonstrate, among other things, that he or she has a need for protection that substantially exceeds that held by ordinary law-abiding citizens.
“Substantially.” Not by a little, but substantially. Note that most of the folks who hold this view believe in the protection of various animal life and the environment. Humans aren’t good enough for protection. So says the communists in Hawaii. And no, the police aren’t there to protect you. That’s just a children’s fairy tale.
|
|
On September 16, 2018 at 10:36 pm, Longbow said:
“They know that and don’t care.”
Bingo!
It is about exercising power over the “people” they “serve”.
On September 17, 2018 at 12:32 am, George Pace said:
There are too many errors in that Star-Advertiser to even begin to list them, let alone explain them.
Let’s just say the Attorney General is a liar. The form FROM THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE that must be submitted to the AG monthly by each Hawaii county police chief re firearm permits and carry licenses issued and/or denied in the prior month, the carry licenses are divided into two categories: (hint: NOT “open” (which the AG calls “unconcealed”) and “concealed”), but rather “SECURITY” AND “CITIZEN”. Why for all these years, if “citizens” could get the licenses called “SECURITY” were they called “SECURITY”? I guess the only explanation is that “SECURITY” means “security guards and citizens”, which must mean then that “CITIZEN” means “citizen and security guards”. Yeah, that makes sense. Except they’ve never issued a concealed carry license to a security guard, and they’ve never issued an open carry license to a citizen. Other than that the AG is being truthful.
On September 17, 2018 at 6:05 am, DAN III said:
ALCON,
Guess what ? The decision by the 9th Circuit is FINAL at the 9th Circuit level. Unless these socialist clowns decide to truly appeal the 9th’s ruling. That is, the NEXT step is to take their unhappiness to the SCOTUS. All their hand-wringing and whining is show boating and grandstanding. They can write all they want to the 9th Circuit. Then again, when has the rule of law appeased communists ?
Verify your zero.
Practice.
ERWACHE.
On September 17, 2018 at 9:19 am, jack said:
I haven’t dug into the details of the HI case, but based on your excerpts above, this is identical to Peruta v. California (http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/peruta-v-california/)
At issue: Whether the Second Amendment entitles ordinary, law-abiding citizens to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense in some manner, including concealed carry when open carry is forbidden by state law.
Unfortunately, the 9th Circ. ruled in favor of California, setting 9th Circ. precedent, and Petition for certiorari denied by SCOTUS on June 26, 2017 with Gorsuch and Thomas dissenting.
Thomas & Gorsuch: “For those of us who work in marbled halls, guarded constantly by a vigilant and dedicated police force, the guarantees of the Second Amendment might seem antiquated and superfluous. But the Framers made a clear choice: They reserved to all Americans the right to bear arms for self-defense. I do not think we should stand by idly while a state denies its citizens that right, particularly when their very lives may depend on it.”
On September 17, 2018 at 11:36 am, Henry said:
Keep in mind that the Bill of Rights only protects citizens who are “substantially different” from the average citizen.
On September 17, 2018 at 4:06 pm, scott s. said:
It should be recognized that much of Hawaii’s tradition of firearm regulation is founded in the period of the Republic of Hawaii, where the government feared a counter-revolution and restoration of Queen Liliʻuokalani. Add to that concern about the possibility of uprising by contract-laborers, which was a fundamental feature of Hawaiian sugar plantation culture. By the period of the republic, these laborers were largely imported from Japan. This general attitude was reflected in the immediate declaration of martial law in the Territory in Dec 1941.
My reading is that a contrast is drawn with the Court’s holding in Peruta, in that while concealed carry may be considered as a power held by the state, open carry is encompassed within the notion of “bearing” arms, and thus regulation is subject to something more like strict scrutiny (though Heller is vague as to the actual test required for firearm regulation).
On September 17, 2018 at 4:12 pm, Herschel Smith said:
@scott,
Yes I understand that’s what you’re claiming that Hawaii is arguing. The 9th decision is much simpler. It decides that Hawaii cannot deny both concealed and open carry at the same time. That’s a prima facie violation of 2A.
On September 17, 2018 at 10:54 pm, Longbow said:
Along the lines of my first comment above, this is a piece I wrote several years ago.
http://pluckingtheyew.blogspot.com/2015/12/arguing-with-leftists-is-nonsense.html