Results 1 to 22 of 22

Thread: Hawaii CCW made it to the Hawaii Reporter.

  1. #1
    Regular Member Funtimes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawaii, United States
    Posts
    48

    Hawaii CCW made it to the Hawaii Reporter.

    We are working very hard to restore the right to keep and bear arms here. We will continue to push our agenda until we restore the right to bear arms, openly and concealed.

    http://www.hawaiireporter.com/hawaii...d-carry-option

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    El Paso, TX
    Posts
    1,877
    Good to see a current article on the issue.

    And at least the State of Hawaii Constitution has SOMETHING to say about the RKBA (although nothing in the preamble as some states do):

    "RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS
    Section 17. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. [Ren Const Con 1978 and election Nov 7, 1978]"

    ...of course, as you note, HI STILL doesn't allow its citizens to PRACTICE that right. I mean they can KEEP them (at home) but not BEAR them...even though it says "keep AND bear." Didn't know it was 17 years of denials...I thought it was since Statehood (51 years).

    How about an article in the Star Advertiser?

    Have you done any polling/petitions to see if enough citizens would support CC or OC?

    If so, are Asians on board as a group or not?

    Or are most of the haoles over there liberals (and thus anti-gun)?

    How is your appeal for instances of "people applying for a CC but being denied" going? Has anyone submitted any incidents yet?
    Last edited by cloudcroft; 12-01-2010 at 10:02 PM.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,508
    Nice piece. It probably could have included a note about how Hawaii, like Maryland, is technically a "may issue" state, but in practice is "no issue".

  4. #4
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    The Asians in Hawaii are the ones who are less liberal. Go to the gun range in Koko Head it is large but if you don't go early you won't get a spot. And the majority of folks there are of Asian decent.
    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)

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    El Paso, TX
    Posts
    1,877
    Then maybe most of the haoles living there are anti-gun liberals...and consquently, THEY have been the obstacle all these decades?

    Since no particular ethnic group in HI is a clear majority, I was trying to find out if one of the "major minority" groups was holding CC up, i.e., resisting any change from the status-quo of MAY issue to SHALL issue -- let alone pushing for OC.
    Last edited by cloudcroft; 12-05-2010 at 02:33 AM.

  6. #6
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by cloudcroft View Post
    Then maybe most of the haoles living there are anti-gun liberals...and consquently, THEY have been the obstacle all these decades?

    Since no particular ethnic group in HI is a clear majority, I was trying to find out if one of the "major minority" groups was holding CC up, i.e., resisting any change from the status-quo of MAY issue to SHALL issue -- let alone pushing for OC.
    I think it is less of a ethnic group thing than a government that doesn't want armed citizen thing.

    If anything the Hawaiians are about the only 'minority' that don't have much say anymore in the government, so it could be the non-native rulers wanting to keep the natives disarmed. Something to think about, and reminiscent of how many of our "gun controls" in the U.S. are "race" based.
    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)

  7. #7
    Regular Member NewZealandAmerican's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Greater Salt Lake City Metro area far south suburb of Provo in UTAH
    Posts
    349

    Registration

    Quote Originally Posted by Funtimes View Post
    We are working very hard to restore the right to keep and bear arms here. We will continue to push our agenda until we restore the right to bear arms, openly and concealed.

    http://www.hawaiireporter.com/hawaii...d-carry-option
    I hope that you guys can also get rid of your un-constitutional gun registration along with the ultimate goal of Constitutional Carry (open and concealed).
    (Dion Wood). MY FREEDOM PAGE[/COLOR] with valuable links to ALTERNATIVE MEDIA, Internet Radio shows and other sites to restore our FREEDOM & LIBERTYhttp://www.QRZ.com/db/KB9QFH TELEPHONE: +1(800)808-KIWI that's +1(800)808-5494 Tollfree. "NewZealander By Birth, American By The Grace Of God." See also http://www.facebook.com/NewZealandAmerican & http://RTR.org/NewZealandAmerican “IN MEMORY OF OUR GOD, OUR RELIGION, AND FREEDOM, AND OUR PEACE, OUR WIVES, AND OUR CHILDREN" (The Title Of LIBERTY)

  8. #8
    Regular Member MarlboroLts5150's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    San Antonio
    Posts
    407
    Quote Originally Posted by NewZealandAmerican View Post
    I hope that you guys can also get rid of your un-constitutional gun registration along with the ultimate goal of Constitutional Carry (open and concealed).


    That is the ultimate goal. In this state though....one thing at a time.
    "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

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    El Paso, TX
    Posts
    1,877
    HI will probably get all that done AFTER you leave...and before *I* get there.

    Kind of like here: If TX doesn't get OC this coming legislative session, then it'll have to happen AFTER I leave.
    Last edited by cloudcroft; 12-07-2010 at 06:26 PM.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Funtimes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawaii, United States
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by NewZealandAmerican View Post
    I hope that you guys can also get rid of your un-constitutional gun registration along with the ultimate goal of Constitutional Carry (open and concealed).
    SCOTUS has already held that registration will be legal. It was also conceded from the helller case. I would love to see it go, but I have no idea what legal argument can get it there.

  11. #11
    Regular Member NewZealandAmerican's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Greater Salt Lake City Metro area far south suburb of Provo in UTAH
    Posts
    349

    Scotus

    Quote Originally Posted by Funtimes View Post
    SCOTUS has already held that registration will be legal. It was also conceded from the helller case. I would love to see it go, but I have no idea what legal argument can get it there.
    I know you will probably agree with me on this unfortunately most people are oblivious to this in that we the people are not bound to obey unjust unlawful and unconstitutional court rulings even those done by the highest court in the land SCOTUS! Just because they say something "is or isn't" it does not make it "constitutional" even SCOTUS can rule something that is in violation of the Constitution. I don't care what SCOTUS or anyone says, the Constitution means what it says and it is not left up to SCOTUS to change the meaning of it through so called interpretations! If only more people would stand solid for the Constitution and refuse to obey any court who rules incongruently to the Constitution, Bill of rights and all of our un-alienable rights, for life, liberty and property!!!
    Last edited by NewZealandAmerican; 12-08-2010 at 11:39 PM.
    (Dion Wood). MY FREEDOM PAGE[/COLOR] with valuable links to ALTERNATIVE MEDIA, Internet Radio shows and other sites to restore our FREEDOM & LIBERTYhttp://www.QRZ.com/db/KB9QFH TELEPHONE: +1(800)808-KIWI that's +1(800)808-5494 Tollfree. "NewZealander By Birth, American By The Grace Of God." See also http://www.facebook.com/NewZealandAmerican & http://RTR.org/NewZealandAmerican “IN MEMORY OF OUR GOD, OUR RELIGION, AND FREEDOM, AND OUR PEACE, OUR WIVES, AND OUR CHILDREN" (The Title Of LIBERTY)

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    El Paso, TX
    Posts
    1,877
    DELETED (as per rule 15)
    Last edited by cloudcroft; 12-09-2010 at 10:37 PM.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Funtimes View Post
    SCOTUS has already held that registration will be legal. It was also conceded from the helller case. I would love to see it go, but I have no idea what legal argument can get it there.
    Really? Which case was that? I did not see any such wording in Heller.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  14. #14
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    Really? Which case was that? I did not see any such wording in Heller.
    Let's not forget Heller was for Federal property.

    McDonald is a better case.
    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
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Let's not forget Heller was for Federal property.

    McDonald is a better case.
    Is it your claim that McDonald has such verbiage?

    And yes, I have understood (though others may not hvae) that Heller was for DC, not for the states (at least not directly).
    Last edited by wrightme; 12-09-2010 at 10:46 AM.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by cloudcroft View Post

    And as always, when it comes to RIGHTS, SCOTUS can only affirm them, not infringe upon or deny them.


    ...and that's all I have to say about that. -- Forrest Gump.
    CAUTION! Rule 15.

    "(15) WE ADVOCATE FOR THE 'LAW-ABIDING' ONLY: Posts advocating illegal acts of any kind are NOT welcome here. Even if you feel that a law is unconstitutional we do not break it, we repeal it or defeat it in the courts. "
    Last edited by wrightme; 12-09-2010 at 10:43 PM.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    923
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    CAUTION! Rule 15.

    "(15) WE ADVOCATE FOR THE 'LAW-ABIDING' ONLY: Posts advocating illegal acts of any kind are NOT welcome here. Even if you feel that a law is unconstitutional we do not break it, we repeal it or defeat it in the courts. "

    And if everyone followed that rule, then a lot less things would be ruled unconstitutional.
    Several supreme court cases stemmed from an incident where someone decided they could be a good "test case".
    A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.- Thomas Jefferson March 4 1801

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by END_THE_FED View Post
    And if everyone followed that rule, then a lot less things would be ruled unconstitutional.
    Several supreme court cases stemmed from an incident where someone decided they could be a good "test case".
    And?

    My point is that the topic of breaking the law to get there is not one that is accepted on this webforum.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  19. #19
    Regular Member Funtimes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawaii, United States
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    Really? Which case was that? I did not see any such wording in Heller.
    They conceeded to licensing (a.k.a. permits) in oral arguments. It can also be placed as a requirement prior to sale (that you be permited or licensed to purchase). Which was held in the opinion.

    In McDonald:
    To the extent that petitioners contend the city of Chicago’s registration requirements for firearm possessors also, and separately, violatethe Constitution, that claim borders on the frivolous. Petitioners make no effort to demonstrate that the requirements are unreasonable orthat they impose a severe burden on the underlying right they have asserted.

    In Bryers Dissent
    When do registration requirements become severe to the point that they amount to an unconstitutional ban?
    I read and interpret that as such: Registrations are not unconstitutional, however, there may be certain provisions of a registration that unduly burden the right -- and those provisions may be unconstitutional.

    So if the registration doesnt serverly burden, good luck getting rid of it(based on my reading, but if you counter please do so with legal opinions).

    Future cases may change it since theres some stuff going on right now with the IL FOID cards.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    To the extent that petitioners contend the city of Chicago’s registration requirements for firearm possessors also, and separately, violate the Constitution, that claim borders on the frivolous. Petitioners make no effort to demonstrate that the requirements are unreasonable or that they impose a severe burden on the underlying right they have asserted.
    That ruling did not claim the registration was constitutional, just that the claim was not substantiated.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Funtimes View Post
    They conceeded to licensing (a.k.a. permits) in oral arguments. It can also be placed as a requirement prior to sale (that you be permited or licensed to purchase). Which was held in the opinion.
    So no, they did NOT make such concession.
    Quote Originally Posted by Funtimes
    I read and interpret that as such: Registrations are not unconstitutional, however, there may be certain provisions of a registration that unduly burden the right -- and those provisions may be unconstitutional.
    That is quite different than claiming that "McDonald found registration to be constitutional," which is what you seem to believe.

    Quote Originally Posted by Funtimes
    So if the registration doesnt serverly burden, good luck getting rid of it(based on my reading, but if you counter please do so with legal opinions).
    I have no need to counter that statement.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  22. #22
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    El Paso, TX
    Posts
    1,877
    As per wrightme's reminder, I have deleted my rule-breaking post (above) in accordance with cited Rule 15.
    Last edited by cloudcroft; 12-09-2010 at 10:40 PM.

Posting Permissions

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