Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 34

Thread: State v. Mendoza, 920 P.2d 357 and HI law questions

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    4

    Post imported post

    First, Art. 1 § 17 of the Hawaii state constitution is almost character-for-character identical to the 2A. That's good.

    I am aware that in State v. Mendoza there was some ruling that, indeed, Art. 1 § 17 creates an individual right, but somehow the follow-up questions on CCW or OC have not been pursued.

    I've looked on line and I can't find the text of State v. Mendoza. Does anyone have it?

    Second, what are the penalties for illegal CCW there? I assume it's something which happens with some regularity by people who "need" to CCW (stalker situation etc), and obviously there are no permits there so all CCW in HI is illegal CCW. Which section of HI's law actually defines the penalties for CCW without a permit?

    thanks

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    63

    Post imported post

    :XI do not know about state versus mendoza. The penalties for illegal carry (concealed or openly) is a class "A" felony. Don't do it. Hawaii is a "may issue" state and the present police chief will not issue and I am told the last two would not issue either. Before I forget Hwaii is "not" an open carry state. Google up Hawaii State gun laws, click on the one that shows www.honolulupd.org/info/gunlaws.htm. This is the state gun laws area. Worst state in the union. I have lived here for seven years and if I would have thought I would have looked this info up and never moved here. I will be moving back to Washington!!!!Good luck

  3. #3
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    Maybe we can try to get some letters up suggesting that Hawaii is turned to a shall issue state. I lived there for years and it can be a very violent place, I think one reason is that people know that the likely hood a "regular citizen" has a gun is slim. But of course all the gangbangers and thugs have them since they don't care about the law anyway.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    63

    Post imported post

    Senator Sam Slom (R),(I think my spelling is correct) tries every year to get that "may issue" to "shall issue" and it never passes even with much backing. If my count is correct we have 7 conservative republicans in the senate and any conservative democrats must try to hide because I can't figure out who they are if any. Our senate majority leader is Sen. Colleen Hanabusa, I compare her to Harry Reid and we all know who he is. She used to answer my mail until she became senate majorityleader and now I am "who?". BTW she represents our district here in Waianae. Nice to hear from you. :celebrate

  5. #5
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    If there is any place a law abiding citizen needs a sidearm, Waianae would be one of them. MY brother-in-laws live in Kapolei and they don't let their kids go to public school at great expense to them.

    I am not a current resident of Hawaii, or I would try to write too.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  6. #6
    Regular Member MarlboroLts5150's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    San Antonio
    Posts
    407

    Post imported post

    HawaiiQuestions wrote:
    First, Art. 1 § 17 of the Hawaii state constitution is almost character-for-character identical to the 2A. That's good.

    I am aware that in State v. Mendoza there was some ruling that, indeed, Art. 1 § 17 creates an individual right, but somehow the follow-up questions on CCW or OC have not been pursued.

    I've looked on line and I can't find the text of State v. Mendoza. Does anyone have it?

    Second, what are the penalties for illegal CCW there? I assume it's something which happens with some regularity by people who "need" to CCW (stalker situation etc), and obviously there are no permits there so all CCW in HI is illegal CCW. Which section of HI's law actually defines the penalties for CCW without a permit?

    thanks
    I'm looking for the same thing(State v. Mendoza)....Have you had any luck yet. We are starting to stir up some support for Hawaii. Just a few, but a few lead to a few more, and a few more.....
    "My dedication to my country's flag rests on my ardent belief in this noblest of causes, equality for all. If my future rests under this earth rather than upon it, I fear not."

    -Leopold Karpeles, US Civil War Medal of Honor Recipient

  7. #7
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    Yes definately a growing movement in all the states, I would hate to see Hawaii lag behind in protecting our rights.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1

    Post imported post

    Aloha: I'm the Mendoza in State v Mendoza, now an expatriate in Calfornia.
    I just Googled my case and printed it up, which is how I found this website.
    After my appeal in '94, I began carrying full time. My research by then clearly documented the fact that Hawaii's AG had never created the forms HRS 134 requires him to; I also documented that the police chiefs of Maui and Kauai didn't even have written rules to pretend to abide by. There is only universal denial.
    I was arrested in August '95, genuinely convinced my evidence would overturn the law, but specifically attempting to establish CCW as a substantive right in Hawaii. HRS 134 denies open or concealed carry w/o a license, which is, by itself, a denial of the right. Simple carry w/o intent to commit a crime is a felony.
    During the course of my trial, the Hawaii supremes released their decision in State v Mendoza I. The trial court ignored the documentation, and used State v Mendoza as the excuse. The Hawaii supremes, apparently too tired conjuring up the canards of State v Mendoza I, allowed the Circuit court's ruling to stand and also ignored the evidence. State v Mendoza II just gave the nod to the Circuit court's ruling.
    At the time, I also told the FBI what the AG and MPD were doing; I guess they were too busy to answer or act.
    I made it to the US Supreme Court under habeas corpus by '04. Publicity would have helped.
    The Supremes ducked the question in Feb '05, allowing a domestic tyranny to stand in Hawaii.
    I'm working on a story for national publication. What I really want is help from a serious attorney or CCW organization to A: liberate Hawaii, and B: regain my citizenship from a bogus 'felony'.
    The evidence is there; the law is totally vulnerable to attack.
    Where are the serious players?!

  9. #9
    Regular Member MarlboroLts5150's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    San Antonio
    Posts
    407

    Post imported post

    There are a few of us here. But, with only a few of us, just not enough support right. We're waiting on the McDonald vs C. of Chicago verdict from SCOTUS.



    I'd rather blast with one shot then pepper away for the next few years, know what I mean?
    "My dedication to my country's flag rests on my ardent belief in this noblest of causes, equality for all. If my future rests under this earth rather than upon it, I fear not."

    -Leopold Karpeles, US Civil War Medal of Honor Recipient

  10. #10
    Regular Member MarlboroLts5150's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    San Antonio
    Posts
    407

    Post imported post

    Can you provide a link to your case? I can't seem to find anything? It may be because I'm at work....blocked.
    "My dedication to my country's flag rests on my ardent belief in this noblest of causes, equality for all. If my future rests under this earth rather than upon it, I fear not."

    -Leopold Karpeles, US Civil War Medal of Honor Recipient

  11. #11
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    State vs Mendoza I sent a PM.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  12. #12
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,603

    Post imported post

    sudden valley gunner wrote:
    State vs Mendoza PM sent.
    Why PM it?

    I'm sure that many here would like to read and dissect it for themselves. Cannot a link be provided?

    Yata hey
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  13. #13
    Regular Member MarlboroLts5150's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    San Antonio
    Posts
    407

    Post imported post

    Didn't get the PM SVG. Shoot me an email bro.....

    marlborolts5150@aol.com
    "My dedication to my country's flag rests on my ardent belief in this noblest of causes, equality for all. If my future rests under this earth rather than upon it, I fear not."

    -Leopold Karpeles, US Civil War Medal of Honor Recipient

  14. #14
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    It was no big deal, just mentioned that he might call SAF, or Grey Peterson, they are very knowledgable on what to do. Might help might not. Oh I see my post was worded like I had a link to the case . Sorry. I meant the post to be aimed toward State vs mendoza.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  15. #15
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    http://lcav.org/states/hawaii.asp

    A small mention of the case. Frin anti lawyers. Wow this case can't be found. I tried google and Hawaii supreme court website, I found some links to the case but they just won't open or are expired.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  16. #16
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    Mr. Mendoza,

    I am also curious if you can find us the link to both State v. Mendoza I and State v. Mendoza II. A lot of the spot historians on firearms have been trying to find it for a long time and haven't had much in the way of luck.

    As for Hawaii, the State Courts in Hawaii, just like California, are beyond useless and actually would be quite unhelpful. Sykes v. McGinness is a California federal court case that is currently on hold due to the Nordyke v. King case being heard en banc, which itself is currently on hold for McDonald v. City of Chicago.

    If we win in district court, wouldn't be applicable specifically to Hawaii's district court, it would be persuasive authority (Similar to the US citizens only case of Say v. Kentucky State Police in district court influencing the Washington State AFL case up here). If it gets appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and we win there, it would have an effect on the State of Hawaii, even more so than McDonald, due to the issue of "carry" being delt with specifically in Sykes.

    If we get a good Sykes win, Hawaii would actually be required to issue licenses to carry on a shall-issue basis, and they have a choice: Either issue open carry licenses, or concealed carry licenses, or both.

  17. #17
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    Gray Peterson wrote:
    Mr. Mendoza,

    I am also curious if you can find us the link to both State v. Mendoza I and State v. Mendoza II. A lot of the spot historians on firearms have been trying to find it for a long time and haven't had much in the way of luck.

    As for Hawaii, the State Courts in Hawaii, just like California, are beyond useless and actually would be quite unhelpful. Sykes v. McGinness is a California case that is currently on hold due to the Nordyke v. King case being heard en banc, which itself is currently on hold for McDonald v. City of Chicago.

    If we win in district court, wouldn't be applicable specifically to Hawaii's district court, it would be persuasive authority (Similar to the US citizens only case of Say v. Kentucky State Police in district court influencing the Washington State AFL case up here). If it gets appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and we win there, it would have an effect on the State of Hawaii, even more so than McDonald, due to the issue of "carry" being delt with specifically in Sykes.

    If we get a good Sykes win, Hawaii would actually be required to issue licenses to carry on a shall-issue basis, and they have a choice: Either issue open carry licenses, or concealed carry licenses, or both.
    Is there a limit to what they charge knowing hawaii they will go the New York city style of issuing permits, if we get the good rulings. Which then will make it unaffordable for most folks in Hawaii.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    San Diego County, CA, California, USA
    Posts
    1,402

    Post imported post

    sudden valley gunner wrote:
    Gray Peterson wrote:
    Mr. Mendoza,

    I am also curious if you can find us the link to both State v. Mendoza I and State v. Mendoza II. A lot of the spot historians on firearms have been trying to find it for a long time and haven't had much in the way of luck.

    As for Hawaii, the State Courts in Hawaii, just like California, are beyond useless and actually would be quite unhelpful. Sykes v. McGinness is a California case that is currently on hold due to the Nordyke v. King case being heard en banc, which itself is currently on hold for McDonald v. City of Chicago.

    If we win in district court, wouldn't be applicable specifically to Hawaii's district court, it would be persuasive authority (Similar to the US citizens only case of Say v. Kentucky State Police in district court influencing the Washington State AFL case up here). If it gets appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and we win there, it would have an effect on the State of Hawaii, even more so than McDonald, due to the issue of "carry" being delt with specifically in Sykes.

    If we get a good Sykes win, Hawaii would actually be required to issue licenses to carry on a shall-issue basis, and they have a choice: Either issue open carry licenses, or concealed carry licenses, or both.
    Is there a limit to what they charge knowing hawaii they will go the New York city style of issuing permits, if we get the good rulings. Which then will make it unaffordable for most folks in Hawaii.
    Probably would need to be yet another case against NYC, requiring any tax on the right (illegal) being permanently set to $0.

  19. #19
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    sudden valley gunner wrote:
    Gray Peterson wrote:
    Mr. Mendoza,

    I am also curious if you can find us the link to both State v. Mendoza I and State v. Mendoza II. A lot of the spot historians on firearms have been trying to find it for a long time and haven't had much in the way of luck.

    As for Hawaii, the State Courts in Hawaii, just like California, are beyond useless and actually would be quite unhelpful. Sykes v. McGinness is a California case that is currently on hold due to the Nordyke v. King case being heard en banc, which itself is currently on hold for McDonald v. City of Chicago.

    If we win in district court, wouldn't be applicable specifically to Hawaii's district court, it would be persuasive authority (Similar to the US citizens only case of Say v. Kentucky State Police in district court influencing the Washington State AFL case up here). If it gets appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and we win there, it would have an effect on the State of Hawaii, even more so than McDonald, due to the issue of "carry" being delt with specifically in Sykes.

    If we get a good Sykes win, Hawaii would actually be required to issue licenses to carry on a shall-issue basis, and they have a choice: Either issue open carry licenses, or concealed carry licenses, or both.
    Is there a limit to what they charge knowing hawaii they will go the New York city style of issuing permits, if we get the good rulings. Which then will make it unaffordable for most folks in Hawaii.
    New York's cost to obtain a license to either possess or carry is clearly unconstitutional, and also way out of the mainstream. It does not cost $400 to process a license for real, they only spend that kind of money to come up with ways to deny you and make it stick, or desperately find something to deny you. Since everything is pretty easy to computerize and only requires entry. Also, with electronic fingerprint scan submissions, it only takes a few days for an FBI fingerprint check to complete, rather than the weeks it takes for ink and paper. FBI fingerprint checks cost $19.25.

    I would say that more than $75 for a 5 year license, or more than $100 total, is merely an attempt to dissuade and definitely cross the threshold of being unconstitutional. Then again, Murdock v. PA seems to give the idea that you can't charge for a constitutional right either. Seems to be a question. I would say that definitely there should be absolutely NO charge at all for possession in the home. Then again, I'm not a judge nor am I a lawyer. A lot of this depends on what judicial scrutiny level will be decided in with McDonald, Palmer v. District of Columbia, and Sykes v. McGinness.

    Alan Gura (the lead lawyer who seems to be the lead attorney in terms of the really known and important second amendment litigation in all of the above cases) from what I saw on watching his segment on Glenn Beck's program, that he wants to go after New York City. He could have chosen some county upstate which is only $10 for a lifetime license but he mentioned specifically NYC. With McDonald and Heller he went after ancillary laws like the law forbidding assembly of firearms in the home, or with McDonald specifically, pre-registration requirements and the requirement to renew registration every year. All of those things are in question.

  20. #20
    Regular Member MarlboroLts5150's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    San Antonio
    Posts
    407

    Post imported post

    Gray Peterson wrote:
    Mr. Mendoza,

    I am also curious if you can find us the link to both State v. Mendoza I and State v. Mendoza II. A lot of the spot historians on firearms have been trying to find it for a long time and haven't had much in the way of luck.

    As for Hawaii, the State Courts in Hawaii, just like California, are beyond useless and actually would be quite unhelpful. Sykes v. McGinness is a California federal court case that is currently on hold due to the Nordyke v. King case being heard en banc, which itself is currently on hold for McDonald v. City of Chicago.

    If we win in district court, wouldn't be applicable specifically to Hawaii's district court, it would be persuasive authority (Similar to the US citizens only case of Say v. Kentucky State Police in district court influencing the Washington State AFL case up here). If it gets appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and we win there, it would have an effect on the State of Hawaii, even more so than McDonald, due to the issue of "carry" being delt with specifically in Sykes.

    If we get a good Sykes win, Hawaii would actually be required to issue licenses to carry on a shall-issue basis, and they have a choice: Either issue open carry licenses, or concealed carry licenses, or both.
    Even it caused the law to change here in Hawaii to "Shall Issue", the Entire code still needs to be re-written. Too many loopholes for the permits to be denied. Hawaii has a LONG fight ahead, even if Sykes and Mcdonald win.

    http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscur..._0134-0009.htm

    §134-9 Licenses to carry. (a) In an exceptional case, when an applicant shows reason to fear injury to the applicant's person or property, the chief of police of the appropriate county may grant a license to an applicant who is a citizen of the United States of the age of twenty-one years or more or to a duly accredited official representative of a foreign nation of the age of twenty-one years or more to carry a pistol or revolver and ammunition therefor concealed on the person within the county where the license is granted. Where the urgency or the need has been sufficiently indicated, the respective chief of police may grant to an applicant of good moral character who is a citizen of the United States of the age of twenty-one years or more, is engaged in the protection of life and property, and is not prohibited under section 134-7 from the ownership or possession of a firearm, a license to carry a pistol or revolver and ammunition therefor unconcealed on the person within the county where the license is granted. The chief of police of the appropriate county, or the chief's designated representative, shall perform an inquiry on an applicant by using the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, to include a check of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement databases where the applicant is not a citizen of the United States, before any determination to grant a license is made. Unless renewed, the license shall expire one year from the date of issue.

    (b) The chief of police of each county shall adopt procedures to require that any person granted a license to carry a concealed weapon on the person shall:

    (1) Be qualified to use the firearm in a safe manner;

    (2) Appear to be a suitable person to be so licensed;

    (3) Not be prohibited under section 134-7 from the ownership or possession of a firearm; and

    (4) Not have been adjudged insane or not appear to be mentally deranged.

    (c) No person shall carry concealed or unconcealed on the person a pistol or revolver without being licensed to do so under this section or in compliance with sections 134-5(c) or 134-25.

    (d) A fee of $10 shall be charged for each license and shall be deposited in the treasury of the county in which the license is granted. [L 1988, c 275, pt of §2; am L 1994, c 204, §8; am L 1997, c 254, §§2, 4; am L 2000, c 96, §1; am L 2002, c 79, §1; am L 2006, c 27, §3 and c 66, §3; am L 2007, c 9, §8]
    "My dedication to my country's flag rests on my ardent belief in this noblest of causes, equality for all. If my future rests under this earth rather than upon it, I fear not."

    -Leopold Karpeles, US Civil War Medal of Honor Recipient

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    San Diego County, CA, California, USA
    Posts
    1,402

    Post imported post

    Gray Peterson wrote:
    New York's cost to obtain a license to either possess or carry is clearly unconstitutional, and also way out of the mainstream. It does not cost $400 to process a license for real, they only spend that kind of money to come up with ways to deny you and make it stick, or desperately find something to deny you. Since everything is pretty easy to computerize and only requires entry. Also, with electronic fingerprint scan submissions, it only takes a few days for an FBI fingerprint check to complete, rather than the weeks it takes for ink and paper. FBI fingerprint checks cost $19.25.

    I would say that more than $75 for a 5 year license, or more than $100 total, is merely an attempt to dissuade and definitely cross the threshold of being unconstitutional. Then again, Murdock v. PA seems to give the idea that you can't charge for a constitutional right either. Seems to be a question. I would say that definitely there should be absolutely NO charge at all for possession in the home. Then again, I'm not a judge nor am I a lawyer. A lot of this depends on what judicial scrutiny level will be decided in with McDonald, Palmer v. District of Columbia, and Sykes v. McGinness.
    All these taxes need to go away, federal and state. If the FBI insists on charging for our RKBA background checks, then those need to go away too.

    Back when GMRS licenses were $75 for 5 years, I couldn't afford it. They've been going up in price ever since, and all the while I have been dissuaded from getting one and buying radios for my family.

    Not paying $75/5 for the privilege to communicate over special frequencies, nor the right to protect life.

  22. #22
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    MarlboroLts5150 wrote:
    Gray Peterson wrote:
    Mr. Mendoza,

    I am also curious if you can find us the link to both State v. Mendoza I and State v. Mendoza II.* A lot of the spot historians on firearms have been trying to find it for a long time and haven't had much in the way of luck.

    As for Hawaii, the State Courts in Hawaii, just like California, are beyond useless and actually would be quite unhelpful.* Sykes v. McGinness is a California federal court case that is currently on hold due to the Nordyke v. King case being heard en banc, which itself is currently on hold for McDonald v. City of Chicago.

    If we win in district court, wouldn't be applicable specifically to Hawaii's district court, it would be persuasive authority (Similar to the US citizens only case of Say v. Kentucky State Police in district court influencing the Washington State AFL case up here).* If it gets appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and we win there, it would have an effect on the State of Hawaii, even more so than McDonald, due to the issue of "carry" being delt with specifically in Sykes.

    If we get a good Sykes win, Hawaii would actually be required to issue licenses to carry on a shall-issue basis, and they have a choice: Either issue open carry licenses, or concealed carry licenses, or both.
    Even it caused the law to change here in Hawaii to "Shall Issue", the Entire code still needs to be re-written. Too many loopholes for the permits to be denied. Hawaii has a LONG fight ahead, even if Sykes and Mcdonald win.

    http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscur..._0134-0009.htm

    §134-9* Licenses to carry.* (a)* In an exceptional case, when an applicant shows reason to fear injury to the applicant's person or property, the chief of police of the appropriate county may grant a license to an applicant who is a citizen of the United States of the age of twenty-one years or more or to a duly accredited official representative of a foreign nation of the age of twenty-one years or more to carry a pistol or revolver and ammunition therefor concealed on the person within the county where the license is granted.* Where the urgency or the need has been sufficiently indicated, the respective chief of police may grant to an applicant of good moral character who is a citizen of the United States of the age of twenty-one years or more, is engaged in the protection of life and property, and is not prohibited under section 134-7 from the ownership or possession of a firearm, a license to carry a pistol or revolver and ammunition therefor unconcealed on the person within the county where the license is granted.* The chief of police of the appropriate county, or the chief's designated representative, shall perform an inquiry on an applicant by using the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, to include a check of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement databases where the applicant is not a citizen of the United States, before any determination to grant a license is made.* Unless renewed, the license shall expire one year from the date of issue.

    **** (b)* The chief of police of each county shall adopt procedures to require that any person granted a license to carry a concealed weapon on the person shall:

    **** (1)* Be qualified to use the firearm in a safe manner;

    **** (2)* Appear to be a suitable person to be so licensed;

    **** (3)* Not be prohibited under section 134-7 from the ownership or possession of a firearm; and

    **** (4)* Not have been adjudged insane or not appear to be mentally deranged.

    **** (c)* No person shall carry concealed or unconcealed on the person a pistol or revolver without being licensed to do so under this section or in compliance with sections 134-5(c) or 134-25.

    **** (d)* A fee of $10 shall be charged for each license and shall be deposited in the treasury of the county in which the license is granted. [L 1988, c 275, pt of §2; am L 1994, c 204, §8; am L 1997, c 254, §§2, 4; am L 2000, c 96, §1; am L 2002, c 79, §1; am L 2006, c 27, §3 and c 66, §3; am L 2007, c 9, §8]
    From Sykes' Calguns Foundation Wikipedia Article:

    This suit seeks to do two things.

    1. "Good Cause" shall be interpreted such that "self defense" is more than enough "Good Cause."

    2. "Good moral character" shall be interpreted to mean "not otherwise prohibited from buying or possessing firearms" under the common understanding of that term (felon in possession, no 5150 bar, etc.)

    A third but not explicit item is that may really means shall.

    -Gene Hoffman
    Sykes making it up to the 9th Circuit and scoring us a win will fix Hawaii for the above reasons.

  23. #23
    Regular Member MarlboroLts5150's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    San Antonio
    Posts
    407

    Post imported post

    Kinda like a quote from "Under Siege" with Steven Seagal...."Well, I guess we'll just see what we'll see, won't we?"
    "My dedication to my country's flag rests on my ardent belief in this noblest of causes, equality for all. If my future rests under this earth rather than upon it, I fear not."

    -Leopold Karpeles, US Civil War Medal of Honor Recipient

  24. #24
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    Aloha, Mr. Mendoza,

    I sent you a PM, however I am not sure if you have the ability to receive PM's via this board.

    Please contact me via email, gray.peterson AT verizon.net (remove spaces and substitute AT for @). I may have some solutions, however I need to go over what has been done first.

    -Gray

  25. #25
    Regular Member MarlboroLts5150's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    San Antonio
    Posts
    407

    Post imported post

    Gray Peterson wrote:
    MarlboroLts5150 wrote:
    Gray Peterson wrote:
    snip
    snip
    From Sykes' Calguns Foundation Wikipedia Article:

    This suit seeks to do two things.

    1. "Good Cause" shall be interpreted such that "self defense" is more than enough "Good Cause."

    2. "Good moral character" shall be interpreted to mean "not otherwise prohibited from buying or possessing firearms" under the common understanding of that term (felon in possession, no 5150 bar, etc.)

    A third but not explicit item is that may really means shall.

    -Gene Hoffman
    Sykes making it up to the 9th Circuit and scoring us a win will fix Hawaii for the above reasons.
    No, I'm afraid it won't. It will take the McDonald vs Chicago in SCOTUS to effect any change here. Sykes will help, but it's not enough.

    Here is an article from 2006. The opinions of HPD, the AG, and others haven't changed.

    "In the last 15 years, no law abiding citizen applying for a permit to carry a concealed firearm in Honolulu has been granted one -- not one domestic violence victim, not one person whose life was in danger, not one person working where they may be robbed at gunpoint. And the police chief has no plans to change that under Hawaii’s current law, which says the police department’s highest officer "may issue" a concealed carry permit should he choose to do so.
    That’s according to Honolulu Police Department Captain Raymond Ancheta, who testified at the Senate Intergovernmental Affairs Committee hearing Tuesday, Feb. 14, 2006, in opposition to SB 2531, which changes Hawaii’s law to read "shall issue" and become the nation’s 39th state to allow concealed carry of a firearm.
    The bill and two others that would further the Second Amendment rights of Hawaii citizens, including retired police officers and law abiding citizens in the aftermath of a disaster, were opposed by the Honolulu police, the Honolulu City Prosecutor and the state attorney general.
    Spokespeople for these government agencies said they did not trust the people to aim correctly under a stressful situation where they might use a firearm to protect themselves, potentially endangering others nearby. Lori Nishimura of the City Prosecutors office, said she had a "feeling" and she "believed" that allowing citizens to protect themselves with firearms would not be good for the rest of Hawaii’s citizens, though she could not cite any studies or evidence under questioning to support her statements."

    http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story....c-1ec44f3d267c
    "My dedication to my country's flag rests on my ardent belief in this noblest of causes, equality for all. If my future rests under this earth rather than upon it, I fear not."

    -Leopold Karpeles, US Civil War Medal of Honor Recipient

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •