• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

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

HawaiiQuestions

New member
Joined
Apr 5, 2009
Messages
4
Location
, ,
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
 

samaloney2006

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2008
Messages
63
Location
, ,
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 :cuss:
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
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.
 

samaloney2006

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2008
Messages
63
Location
, ,
imported post

:banghead::cuss: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
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
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.
 

MarlboroLts5150

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2009
Messages
407
Location
San Antonio
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.....
 

state v mendoza

New member
Joined
Nov 15, 2009
Messages
1
Location
, ,
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?!
 

MarlboroLts5150

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2009
Messages
407
Location
San Antonio
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?
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
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
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
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.
 

Gray Peterson

Founder's Club Member - Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
2,236
Location
Lynnwood, Washington, USA
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.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
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.
 

N6ATF

Banned
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
1,401
Location
San Diego County, CA, California, USA
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.
 

Gray Peterson

Founder's Club Member - Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
2,236
Location
Lynnwood, Washington, USA
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.
 

MarlboroLts5150

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2009
Messages
407
Location
San Antonio
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/hrscurrent/Vol03_Ch0121-0200D/HRS0134/HRS_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]
 
Top