| Author | Post |
|---|
MachOne.45ACP
Member
|
Posted: Wed Jul 2nd, 2008 12:22 am |
|
I encourage everyone here to do the same. The following is an email I posted today, with a listing of the Hawaii State Representative email addresses:
To: repwaters@Capitol.hawaii.gov, repboshiro@Capitol.hawaii.gov, repevans@Capitol.hawaii.gov, repgreen@Capitol.hawaii.gov, repluke@Capitol.hawaii.gov, repmckelvey@Capitol.hawaii.gov, repmorita@Capitol.hawaii.gov, repsonson@Capitol.hawaii.gov, repsouki@Capitol.hawaii.gov, reptsuji@Capitol.hawaii.gov, repyamane@Capitol.hawaii.gov, [url=mailto:repyama@#$%a@Capitol.hawaii.gov]repyama@#$%a@Capitol.hawaii.gov[/url], repmarumoto@Capitol.hawaii.gov, repthielen@Capitol.hawaii.gov
, reppine@Capitol.hawaii.gov
In light of the recent precedent setting Supreme Court decision, concerning the banning of handguns in our nation's capital I believe Hawaii needs to take a long hard look at the gun laws here.
From the Bill of Rights
The right of the people to KEEP and BEAR arms shall not be infringed.
<The definition of "bear arms" used here is "Carry weapons">
The current laws of the State of Hawaii contradict the State Constitution, Article 1 (Bill of Rights), 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]."
§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 $10 shall be charged for each license and shall be deposited in the treasury of the county in which the license is granted. [L 1988, c 275, pt of §2; am L 1994, c 204, §8; am L 1997, c 254, §§2, 4; am L 2000, c 96, §1; am L 2002, c 79, §1; am L 2006, c 27, §3 and c 66, §3; am L 2007, c 9, §8]
#1 - The statistics showing a rise in violent crimes is enough to qualify any person to be "an exceptional case, when an applicant shows reason to fear injury to the applicant's person or property"
#2 - Allowing the Chief of Police unilateral power to infringe on the RIGHT of a person who meets all of the requirements to BEAR ARMS (through the use of the words "may grant" violates both the U.S. Bill of Rights and the State of Hawaii Bill of Rights.
Registered to vote in Hawaii,
Active Voter, Me
|
Jared
Member
|
Posted: Wed Jul 2nd, 2008 02:18 am |
|
MachOne.45ACP wrote: I encourage everyone here to do the same. The following is an email I posted today, with a listing of the Hawaii State Representative email addresses:
To: repwaters@Capitol.hawaii.gov, repboshiro@Capitol.hawaii.gov, repevans@Capitol.hawaii.gov, repgreen@Capitol.hawaii.gov, repluke@Capitol.hawaii.gov, repmckelvey@Capitol.hawaii.gov, repmorita@Capitol.hawaii.gov, repsonson@Capitol.hawaii.gov, repsouki@Capitol.hawaii.gov, reptsuji@Capitol.hawaii.gov, repyamane@Capitol.hawaii.gov, [url=mailto:repyama@#$%a@Capitol.hawaii.gov]repyama@#$%a@Capitol.hawaii.gov[/url], repmarumoto@Capitol.hawaii.gov, repthielen@Capitol.hawaii.gov
, reppine@Capitol.hawaii.gov
In light of the recent precedent setting Supreme Court decision, concerning the banning of handguns in our nation's capital I believe Hawaii needs to take a long hard look at the gun laws here.
From the Bill of Rights
The right of the people to KEEP and BEAR arms shall not be infringed.
<The definition of "bear arms" used here is "Carry weapons">
The current laws of the State of Hawaii contradict the State Constitution, Article 1 (Bill of Rights), 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]."
§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]
#1 - The statistics showing a rise in violent crimes is enough to qualify any person to be "an exceptional case, when an applicant shows reason to fear injury to the applicant's person or property"
#2 - Allowing the Chief of Police unilateral power to infringe on the RIGHT of a person who meets all of the requirements to BEAR ARMS (through the use of the words "may grant" violates both the U.S. Bill of Rights and the State of Hawaii Bill of Rights.
Registered to vote in Hawaii,
Active Voter, Me
Not to discourage you, but no one cares about Hawaii. Let me rephrase that, no one in Hawaii cares about Hawaii. You guys have had semi favorable caselaw in State v Mendoza in 1995. No one jumped on it. No gun group ever pushes this stuff in Hawaii.
Hawaii's consitutional provision is IDENTICAL to the federal constitution with the exception of one comma.
There is no way 134-9 can stand. Chiefs have to at least issue an open carry or a concealed carry permit. If they don't then they are completely frustrating your right to bear arms which was actually mentioned in the Heller case.
Also Hawaii's requirement for U.S. Citizenship is unconsitutional (see the Richardson case in SCOTUS in 1972). It violates the 14th amendment, also now that the second amendment was affirmed, the consitution applies to all. Even without incorporation. Hawaii's RKBA mirrors that of the 2nd amendment.
Last edited on Wed Jul 2nd, 2008 02:21 am by Jared
|
MachOne.45ACP
Member
|
Posted: Wed Jul 2nd, 2008 05:36 am |
|
I know historically you are right. I'm just hoping that eventually there will be enough of us here who DO care to make a difference. Part of the problem has been that even though there are a large contingent of pro-gun/pro-carry people, the laws already in place have been very restrictive.
With the clarification of the 2nd amendment by the Supreme Court, we may have a little more behind our voices.
Last edited on Wed Jul 2nd, 2008 05:37 am by MachOne.45ACP
|
ilbob
Activist Member
| Joined: | Tue May 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 647 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 2nd, 2008 01:50 pm |
|
It might be that one guy could start the ball rolling.
|
Thundar
Member
|
Posted: Mon Jul 7th, 2008 06:44 pm |
|
MachOne.45ACP wrote: I know historically you are right. I'm just hoping that eventually there will be enough of us here who DO care to make a difference. Part of the problem has been that even though there are a large contingent of pro-gun/pro-carry people, the laws already in place have been very restrictive.
With the clarification of the 2nd amendment by the Supreme Court, we may have a little more behind our voices.
You are right MachOne.45ACP but,
when I was in Hawaii EVERYTHING seemed to revolve around the tourist industry. The response of the tourist industry is sad, but predictable. Your constitutional rights will take a back seat to tourism profits.
Did I read the permit correctly that concealed permits are only good in the county issued? Seems ripe for a challenge.
|
MachOne.45ACP
Member
|
Posted: Wed Jul 30th, 2008 05:02 am |
|
Thundar wrote:
"You are right MachOne.45ACP but,
when I was in Hawaii EVERYTHING seemed to revolve around the tourist industry."
Yes, everything revolves around the tourist industry - and ya know - Japanese tourists have long been a large part of our tourism - and they go to the gun ranges in droves to shoot real guns here, since it is 100% illegal to have real guns in Japan.
I'll have to read the permit again - I believe you are correct as per the county restriction.
Last edited on Wed Jul 30th, 2008 05:07 am by MachOne.45ACP
|
MachOne.45ACP
Member
|
Posted: Wed Jul 30th, 2008 05:03 am |
|
Here is my latest:
Aloha Cindy,
Thank you for responding to my initial email. And since you are asking, my opinion on our Hawaii (gun control) laws is that they are way too restrictive. I will be relaying any conversations in this thread on the Hawaii forum at http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum19/.
Let me start by saying that I am a law abiding citizen, with no history of mental illness or felony arrests. I am a home owner and a registered voter. I am currently a full time employee of the federal government and have been for the past 27 years, 20 of them enlisted in active duty with the US Navy and the remainder as a Navy Civilian employed at Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard by NAVSEA.
As pointed out in my original email, the Constitution of the State of Hawaii mirrors the Constitution of the United States of America, but the current laws circumvent the rights guaranteed by those Constitutions.
As a private citizen, if I were to fill out the application to legally carry a gun in the State of Hawaii, it would be denied because I am not either an active or retired Law Enforcement Officer (LEO). This is an infringement on my right to keep and bear arms. I can and do legally own a handgun registered with the Honolulu Police Department, which I can keep in my home or transport to/from a gun range but cannot have on my person, in my car or anywhere else without breaking the law.
There are preferences and pros/cons for the two different options when it comes to "bearing arms"; open carry and concealed carry. I do not really have a strong preference for one over the other, but would like to see our laws here shaped to allow one or both - under the right circumstances. I do not agree with the current policy that the Chief of Police has unilateral decision making power when it comes to approval of a carry permit when that permit is required of anyone carrying a weapon either concealed or in the open.
Firstly, following the train of thought that a man is innocent until proven guilty I propose that a man retains the right to keep and bear arms until proven incapable or unreliable with respect to the safety and freedom of the general public (convicted felon in violent crimes, or mental instability, for instance).
As a private citizen in good standing, there are no grounds to deny an application to carry a weapon - whether for open carry or concealed.
Sadly, the Supreme Court decision did not even address the "and bear" portion of the 2nd amendment but that is the next logical step. Even sadder is the lengths the District of Columbia is going to, to continue to circumvent the decision; making it illegal to purchase guns outside of the district and bring them in, yet denying across the board any applications to be a licensed gun dealer in the district. In effect they are saying "it is legal for you to own a gun here in support of the Supreme Court decision" when they are still putting in place legal barriers to make it impossible to obtain one.
--- On Tue, 7/29/08, Rep. Cindy Evans <repevans@capitol.hawaii.gov> wrote:
From: Rep. Cindy Evans <repevans@capitol.hawaii.gov>
Subject: RE: House Bill 2999, Senate Bill 2020, Senate Bill 2076, House Bill 2392 and others
To: xxmachonexx@yahoo.com
Date: Tuesday, July 29, 2008, 6:18 PM
Michael:
What is your opinion on our laws? Do you think they need to be changed? to
what?
Thank you in advance for responding.
Regards,
Rep. Cindy Evans
|
|
Current time is 05:48 am | |
|
|
|