• 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.

Hawaii CCW made it to the Hawaii Reporter.

C

cloudcroft

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2007
Messages
1,908
Location
El Paso, TX (formerly Colorado Springs, CO)
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:
KBCraig

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,886
Location
Granite State of Mind
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".
 
sudden valley gunner

sudden valley gunner

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

cloudcroft

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2007
Messages
1,908
Location
El Paso, TX (formerly Colorado Springs, CO)
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:
sudden valley gunner

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
cloudcroft said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
NewZealandAmerican

NewZealandAmerican

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Messages
348
Location
Greater Salt Lake City Metro area far south suburb
Funtimes

Funtimes

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2010
Messages
48
Location
Honolulu, Hawaii, United States
NewZealandAmerican said:
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).
Click to expand...

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.
 
NewZealandAmerican

NewZealandAmerican

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Messages
348
Location
Greater Salt Lake City Metro area far south suburb
Scotus

Funtimes said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:
W

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
cloudcroft said:
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.
Click to expand...
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:
E

END_THE_FED

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2010
Messages
925
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
wrightme said:
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. "
Click to expand...


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".
 
W

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
END_THE_FED said:
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".
Click to expand...
And?

My point is that the topic of breaking the law to get there is not one that is accepted on this webforum.
 
Funtimes

Funtimes

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2010
Messages
48
Location
Honolulu, Hawaii, United States
wrightme said:
Really? Which case was that? I did not see any such wording in Heller.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...


In Bryers Dissent
When do registration requirements become severe to the point that they amount to an unconstitutional ban?
Click to expand...
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.
 
W

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
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.
Click to expand...
That ruling did not claim the registration was constitutional, just that the claim was not substantiated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top