Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Honolulu police chief and state of hawaii sued for second amendment violations

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

    Honolulu police chief and state of hawaii sued for second amendment violations

    NEWS RELEASE

    Hawaii Defense Foundation
    P.O. Box #1798  Aiea, Hawaii 96817
    (808) 664-1827  Fax: 808-748-3376
    For Immediate Release: 8/23/2011

    Honolulu, HI – The Hawaii Defense Foundation’s founding director and president, Christopher Baker, has filed a lawsuit against Honolulu Chief of Police Louis Kealoha, the Honolulu Police Department, the City and County of Honolulu, the State of Hawaii, and Governor Neil Abercrombie in connection with civil rights violations of the Second and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.


    The complaint filed in the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii by attorneys Richard Holcomb, Alan Beck, and Kevin O’Grady alleges that Hawaii’s license to carry statute and various other firearm regulations are unconstitutional. State law mandates that citizens may be provided licenses to carry only in “exceptional circumstance” or “where a need or urgency has been sufficiently indicated,” all at the discretion of the county’s Chief of Police. The complaint asserts that this language violates the Second Amendment, which secures the right of all responsible, law-abiding citizens to bear arms for the purpose of self-defense. Additionally, the complaint also addresses the use of non-lethal tools for self-defense such as electric guns, which are banned in in Hawaii.


    “The Second Amendment protects the right to self-defense. Everyday around the islands good people are robbed, assaulted, raped, or in the worst cases murdered. It’s simply a matter of physics, the Police can’t be everywhere to stop criminals from committing violent acts. We must be allowed to carry the tools that give us a chance to protect ourselves from harm,” says Chris Baker. “We want criminals to have to think about the consequences of attacking someone,” he continued, “but right now, nothing serves as a deterrent to them - the odds are in their favor.”

    Hawaii Defense Foundation (www.TheHDF.org) is a domestic not-for-profit corporation based in Honolulu, Hawaii. The Foundation serves the community by providing various services, such as: legal defense of civil rights, educational courses on firearm safety, self-defense training, and life saving techniques – such as first aid and CPR. The Foundation has many supporters and members across the State of Hawaii.

    If you would like to show your support or are looking for additional information please contact the Foundation’s Secretary, Erica Castillo, at (808) 664-1827 or info(at)hawaiidefensefoundation.org.

    ###

    Copy of the complaint can be found:
    http://www.hawaiidefensefoundation.o...513SOM-RLP.pdf

    Copy of the press release:
    http://www.hawaiidefensefoundation.o...ss-Release.pdf

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    El Paso, TX
    Posts
    1,877
    Excellent -- and it's about time...this lawsuit is great news!

    And it seems to be the ONLY way to get things right over there -- FORCE the State of Hawaii to recognize the 2nd Amendment of the US...and it IS a state, whether it likes it or not, even if it often acts like some foreign country. Said 2nd Amendment means citizens can keep (own) and bear (carry) arms, yet in HI all you can do is half of that: Keep (own) arms at home only (and ONLY after they are registered with the police department). As for the OTHER half of the Amendment -- the right to BEAR arms -- the citizens of HI can't do that. Criminals, of course, sure can...just read the Honolulu Star-Advertiser to read about all the criminal attacks -- knifings, beatings and shootings -- every day against unarmed citizens who have NO way legally to protect themselves.

    It'll be tough going over there, however, since HI is staunchly Democrat, and their newspaper -- the Honolulu Star-Advertiser -- likewise since some of my pro-gun posts get censored (apparently) since some of them do not show up after I hit the Submit button.

    Still, HI is one of THE most repressive anti-gun states ever: Besides having to register guns within 3 days of purchase (or within 3 days of moving to Hawaii), they need to dump that MAY-issue CC permit system and move to SHALL-issue. Especially since there is no OC over there (citizens can't carry that way) and the Honolulu Police Chief HARDLY EVER grants CC permit applications (citizens can't carry THAT way, either). Consequently, the 2nd Amendment is null & void in HI...half a right is no right at all.

    So kudos to Christopher Baker! He's doing the only thing that apparently will get things changed over there, since no other ways (if any) to affect change have been effective since statehood. How HI has gotten away with being UNconstitutional since 1959 is amazing.

    WTH is the SCOTUS -- which is, in part, charged with keeping state laws constitutional -- when you need them to stand up for something REALLY important? And where has the ACLU been all these years?

    I hope this lawsuit is successful...too bad, however, that a state has to be FORCED to allow its citizens to exercise their US Constitutional rights...
    Last edited by cloudcroft; 08-25-2011 at 01:29 PM.

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by cloudcroft View Post
    Consequently, the 2nd Amendment is null & void in HI...half a right is no right at all.
    If they refuse to abide by the Constitution of the country to which they applied for and were granted statehood and all the rights and privalages granted thereto, then they'll simply have to suffer without the massive federal dollars spent to maintain many aspects of their infrastructure.

    As in, "Yes, Hawaii - statehood is conditional, and you're failing to abide by the conditions."
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  4. #4
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Wrong thread. Sorry
    Last edited by sudden valley gunner; 10-23-2011 at 09:14 AM.
    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
    Regular Member Funtimes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawaii, United States
    Posts
    48
    Brady Center Urges Court To Throw Out Challenge To Hawaii Gun Law

    Feb 13, 2012

    Washington, DC -- The Brady Center filed a brief today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii urging the court to dismiss a challenge to Hawaii’s strong gun laws restricting the carrying of loaded guns in public.

    “Hawaii’s strong gun laws protect families from the severe danger of loaded guns in public,” said Jonathan Lowy, Director of the Brady Center’s Legal Action Project. “We urge the court to follow more than a dozen other courts around the nation in recognizing that there is no right to carry loaded guns in our streets, parks, and playgrounds.”

    The lawsuit, Baker v. Kealoha, challenges Hawaii gun laws limiting public carrying of loaded guns to “exceptional case[ s ] ” because of the severe risks posed by guns in public. The Brady Center’s brief urges the court to dismiss the lawsuit, citing legal rulings from around the nation that the Second Amendment is limited to a narrow right to possess guns in the home for self-defense and does not grant a right to carry loaded guns in public.

    The Brady Center’s brief cites studies showing that guns in public expose all members of society to great risks, as guns are used far more often to kill and wound innocent victims than to kill and wound criminals, and guns are also used far more often to intimidate and threaten than they are used to thwart crimes.

    The Brady Center’s brief also cites data showing that Hawaii’s strong gun laws have helped Hawaii achieve the lowest gun death rate in the nation, less than a third the national average.

    The Brady Center is being represented by attorneys with the Brady Center’s Legal Action Project; Mark M. Murakami of Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert in Honolulu and; Jonathan Diesenhaus from Hogan Lovells in Washington, D.C.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    747
    Quote Originally Posted by Funtimes View Post
    Brady Center Urges Court To Throw Out Challenge To Hawaii Gun Law

    Feb 13, 2012

    Washington, DC -- The Brady Center filed a brief today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii urging the court to dismiss a challenge to Hawaii’s strong gun laws restricting the carrying of loaded guns in public.

    “Hawaii’s strong gun laws protect families from the severe danger of loaded guns in public,” said Jonathan Lowy, Director of the Brady Center’s Legal Action Project. “We urge the court to follow more than a dozen other courts around the nation in recognizing that there is no right to carry loaded guns in our streets, parks, and playgrounds.”

    The lawsuit, Baker v. Kealoha, challenges Hawaii gun laws limiting public carrying of loaded guns to “exceptional case[ s ] ” because of the severe risks posed by guns in public. The Brady Center’s brief urges the court to dismiss the lawsuit, citing legal rulings from around the nation that the Second Amendment is limited to a narrow right to possess guns in the home for self-defense and does not grant a right to carry loaded guns in public.

    The Brady Center’s brief cites studies showing that guns in public expose all members of society to great risks, as guns are used far more often to kill and wound innocent victims than to kill and wound criminals, and guns are also used far more often to intimidate and threaten than they are used to thwart crimes.

    The Brady Center’s brief also cites data showing that Hawaii’s strong gun laws have helped Hawaii achieve the lowest gun death rate in the nation, less than a third the national average.

    The Brady Center is being represented by attorneys with the Brady Center’s Legal Action Project; Mark M. Murakami of Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert in Honolulu and; Jonathan Diesenhaus from Hogan Lovells in Washington, D.C.
    setting aside the absurd and unsubstantiated claim by the brady center that there is a "severe risk posed by guns in public" (which is simply hogwash), as a former hawaii resident, let me say that in hawaii, the pols are very very very very anti-gun.

    hawaii probably has less permits issued per capita than most if not all other discretionary issue states.

    even in NYC etc. many celebrities etc. famously were allowed to get permits, but in hawaii, i don't care if you are don ho reincarnated - forget it.

    even retired cops couldn't carry in hawaii , when i lived there. it is not at all unusual to talk to LEO's who worked there 20 yrs and have never even SEEN an actual concealed weapons permit

  7. #7
    Regular Member Funtimes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawaii, United States
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by PALO View Post
    setting aside the absurd and unsubstantiated claim by the brady center that there is a "severe risk posed by guns in public" (which is simply hogwash), as a former hawaii resident, let me say that in hawaii, the pols are very very very very anti-gun.

    hawaii probably has less permits issued per capita than most if not all other discretionary issue states.

    even in NYC etc. many celebrities etc. famously were allowed to get permits, but in hawaii, i don't care if you are don ho reincarnated - forget it.

    even retired cops couldn't carry in hawaii , when i lived there. it is not at all unusual to talk to LEO's who worked there 20 yrs and have never even SEEN an actual concealed weapons permit

    There have been zero permits issued in Oahu - ever.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    747
    Quote Originally Posted by Funtimes View Post
    There have been zero permits issued in Oahu - ever.
    when i was in maui, the only ones i was aware of were the civilian investigators with the prosecutor's office (who technically weren't sworn LEO's, but still carried. so they got permits). i think there were 2 or 3 of them. some bigwig assistant to the mayor had one. and there was supposedly some politico who had one, but i never found out his/her name.

    and maui county had like 115k people.

    my understanding was that since police were county, even a maui county cop, couldn't legally carry off duty in another county (e.g. honolulu).

    fwiw, i heard one of the big attractions for japanese tourists who visit honolulu was the gun range. since, it's nigh impossible to even shoot at a gun range in japan (likely costs big $$$ to join if they even have gun ranges there. )

  9. #9
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    I have a friend who is an armored truck driver on Oahu he has one, but there are very very few.

    I lived there for several years and consider it my second home, there are many gun lovers there, but there are many misconceptions about guns that the general population accept as fact too.

    If you don't get to the gun range before they open, you are not getting a spot it is very popular. I wore my empty holster as a protest last time was there, had some favorable comments.



    This is just a small section of the range.
    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)

  10. #10
    Herr Heckler Koch
    Guest
    Writing from Kihei, where I spend two or three weeks a year with my daughter, I notice that the progressive-leftist politic is the only one visible. Their bumperstickers are disgusting. I have to look at that windmill farm sitting on the mountain above six GE gas turbines. All are evidence of the conspiracy of ignorance overwhelming as common sense.

    It may be that the political tourists' ("tourist" is so much less disparaging than haole) influence is so brief as to not overcome kama'aina love of pork literal and figurative.

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Methinks this lawsuit may be a bad idea.

    So far, lower courts (especially state but even Federal) have been unwilling to extend the second amendment outside the home. There are a few cases in a couple of states along these lines, and it's become obvious it's gonna take the SCOTUS to throw any weight behind "bear".

    While I wish the plaintiffs the best of luck, I would be flabbergasted if the first litigation to establish protection for "bearing" arms came out of Hawaii.

    There's a reason none of these suits come out of New York. And Hawaii's just as bad.

  12. #12
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    ....guns are used far more often to kill and wound innocent victims....by criminals, that is....
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  13. #13
    Regular Member DocWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    1,968
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    Methinks this lawsuit may be a bad idea.

    So far, lower courts (especially state but even Federal) have been unwilling to extend the second amendment outside the home. There are a few cases in a couple of states along these lines, and it's become obvious it's gonna take the SCOTUS to throw any weight behind "bear".

    While I wish the plaintiffs the best of luck, I would be flabbergasted if the first litigation to establish protection for "bearing" arms came out of Hawaii.

    There's a reason none of these suits come out of New York. And Hawaii's just as bad.
    1st- You can only practice freedom of religion in your home. You better not wear that cross or star of David out in public.

    4th- You only have the right of illegal search in your home, this means you can be stopped for any reason while walking or driving while not in your home.

    5th- You only have the right to remain silent in your home.


    ect...ect....ect

    Apply the same logic to other rights. This is stupid.

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by DocWalker View Post
    1st- You can only practice freedom of religion in your home. You better not wear that cross or star of David out in public.

    4th- You only have the right of illegal search in your home, this means you can be stopped for any reason while walking or driving while not in your home.

    5th- You only have the right to remain silent in your home.


    ect...ect....ect

    Apply the same logic to other rights. This is stupid.
    Yes, it is stupid. It's stupid that we ever have to litigate for our rights in the first place.

    I wasn't discussing issues of objective right and wrong. I was making an observation/prediction regarding this particular strategy of litigating the right.

  15. #15
    Regular Member .40S&W's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    earth
    Posts
    74
    I hope they're successful. I used to live in Hawaii when I was a youngin'. If these ridiculous regulations or dare I say it, out right ban don't change I wont be going back. I guess they'll just to have rely on Dog to protect everybody.
    Never get complacent. Practice situational awareness. Stay alert stay alive.

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    El Paso, TX
    Posts
    1,877
    I also hope they are successful and will be looking forward to hearing good news (I hope) down the road.

    "I guess they'll just to have rely on Dog to protect everybody." -- .40S&W

    Maybe, but he is so ignorant about guns (so are his kids)...and I think he's afraid even to own one (maybe he can't if he's an ex-con). Still, it seems he may even be anti-gun...not cool.
    Last edited by cloudcroft; 02-14-2012 at 08:45 PM.

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by .40S&W View Post
    I hope they're successful.
    +100

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    747
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    +100
    hawaii is not only incredibly anti-gun, but it's in the 9th circuit.

    i'm not super knowledgeable about the 9th rulings vis a vis RKBA, but IN GENERAL, they are very liberal/statist, and i think there are probably more sympathetic venues to make such a lawsuit

    but i hope they win anyway, and spank the police chief

    fwiw, the chiefs in hawaii iirc are political appointees. if they are, their position vis a vis gun permits is probably (as is usually the case for APPOINTED chiefs) them acting as a proxy lackey for the mayor

    because for appointed chiefs, the mayor OWNS them

    that's been true of every SPD chief. they are ***** lackey worms, and do whatever the mayor wants, which in the case of seattle mayors tends to be - not good things

Posting Permissions

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