| Author | Post |
|---|
MarlboroLts5150
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Apr 28th, 2009 08:32 am |
|
Here in the State of Hawaii open or concealed carry of a firearm is expressly outlawed unless you can get a permit, which is next to impossible considering we are a "may-issue" state. I've been researching here on OCDO and the rest of the web for almost a month now. I'm looking for court case decisions that stated clearly that the open carry of a firearm in and of it self is not a crime, it is a right afforded us by the 2A, and cannot be restricted, require a permit, be outlawed....you get the point.
Currently there are 2 bills headed to commitee....SB327(concealed carry permit) and SB328(open carry permit) both change the wording from "may-issue" to "Shall-issue". At first I assumed that SB328 would be a good thing, a step forward, considering the laws in this state. But the more research I've done, I realize that this is a huge jump in the WRONG direction. Once it becomes a privledge, it becomes something that, as right now, can be disallowed by law, no longer a right.
The wording in the State Constitution is IDENTICAL to 2A....
"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]".....with the following case note attached...."Right to bear arms may be regulated by the State in a reasonable manner. 82 H. 143, 920 P.2d 357."
I need court case decisions to help in the fight here. I'm new to most of this, never been too political, so I'm on a STEEP learning here. I already have "Nordyke vs. King", "Heller", the AG memo in WI......I'd like more than just these, I don't want to bring "just enough" ammunition to the fight, I want to overwhelm to the point that they say "WE GIVE UP!!!" Any help at all is greatly appreciated. I'm posting this in the Open Carry Brigade Forum as well. Thks.
|
Sonora Rebel
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue May 12th, 2009 09:32 pm |
|
shall not be infringed. [Ren Const Con 1978 and election Nov 7, 1978]".....with the following case note attached...."Right to bear arms may be regulated by the State in a reasonable manner. 82 H. 143, 920 P.2d 357."
The 'regulated' nonsense is in direct contradiction to 'shall not be infringed'. What is the definition of 'reasonable'? Who determines 'reasonable'?
Rights are not granted by government. Rights are recognized, protected or DENIED. No right requires permit or license.
Hawaii does whatever it wants. It's the most foreign place I've lived in the 'States. (I shipped over for orders to 'Nam just t get the hell outta Oahu in early '71.)
|
OC4me
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu May 14th, 2009 04:01 am |
|
Well Hawaii is in the 9th Circuit and it just incorporated the Second Amendment, so you have that going for you! Don't give any ground. Open-carry is a right not a privilege!
|
SAvage410
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Apr 12th, 2009 |
| Location: | Virginia USA |
| Posts: | 36 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 14th, 2009 05:06 am |
|
MarlboroLts5150 wrote: Here in the State of Hawaii open or concealed carry of a firearm is expressly outlawed unless you can get a permit, which is next to impossible considering we are a "may-issue" state. I've been researching here on OCDO and the rest of the web for almost a month now. I'm looking for court case decisions that stated clearly that the open carry of a firearm in and of it self is not a crime, it is a right afforded us by the 2A, and cannot be restricted, require a permit, be outlawed....you get the point.
Currently there are 2 bills headed to commitee....SB327(concealed carry permit) and SB328(open carry permit) both change the wording from "may-issue" to "Shall-issue". At first I assumed that SB328 would be a good thing, a step forward, considering the laws in this state. But the more research I've done, I realize that this is a huge jump in the WRONG direction. Once it becomes a privledge, it becomes something that, as right now, can be disallowed by law, no longer a right.
The wording in the State Constitution is IDENTICAL to 2A....
"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]".....with the following case note attached...."Right to bear arms may be regulated by the State in a reasonable manner. 82 H. 143, 920 P.2d 357."
I need court case decisions to help in the fight here. I'm new to most of this, never been too political, so I'm on a STEEP learning here. I already have "Nordyke vs. King", "Heller", the AG memo in WI......I'd like more than just these, I don't want to bring "just enough" ammunition to the fight, I want to overwhelm to the point that they say "WE GIVE UP!!!" Any help at all is greatly appreciated. I'm posting this in the Open Carry Brigade Forum as well. Thks.
I don't have any court cases to cite, but if you really need to do research, the best place to go is PACER.
|
wrightme
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 19th, 2008 |
| Location: | Fallon, Nevada USA |
| Posts: | 1347 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 14th, 2009 05:36 am |
|
I would cite DC v Heller. Pretty clear.
|
MarlboroLts5150
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu May 14th, 2009 05:42 am |
|
OC4me wrote: Well Hawaii is in the 9th Circuit and it just incorporated the Second Amendment, so you have that going for you! Don't give any ground. Open-carry is a right not a privilege!
True that. Myself as well as a few others here are jumping into a long fight thats been going on for a long time without much success. Got the Nordyke case as well as several others. Just gonna take some time to do this right the first time.
|
MarlboroLts5150
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu May 14th, 2009 05:43 am |
|
SAvage410 wrote: MarlboroLts5150 wrote:
I don't have any court cases to cite, but if you really need to do research, the best place to go is PACER.
Thanks, I'll check it out.
|
MarlboroLts5150
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu May 14th, 2009 05:44 am |
|
wrightme wrote: I would cite DC v Heller. Pretty clear.
Got that one, too.
|
Gray Peterson
State Researcher
|
Posted: Fri May 15th, 2009 06:18 pm |
|
Hey guys,
The Sykes case in California deals with handgun carry licenses there in terms of getting issuance of licenses on a shall-issue basis. If we win on the 9th CIrcuit court of appeal, we'll win the right in Heller.
|
DocWest8404
Regular Member
| Joined: | Thu Apr 23rd, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 14 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon May 18th, 2009 07:03 am |
|
The biggest question I guess would be why haven't the people of Hawaii stood up together before. Oh, wait, I know. everyone here believes in "living with Aloha" Tell that to the servicemembers, and regular citizens that have ended up in the Hospitals because they are not allowed to OC or CC. I love it here........  
|
smn
Regular Member
| Joined: | Fri Apr 18th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 92 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue May 19th, 2009 09:27 pm |
|
I'm not a lawyer, but see Florida v. JL and US v. Ubiles. According to FL v. JL there's no firearms exemption to the 4th Amendment. Without RAS that you are or have committed a crime there's no legal basis for a Terry stop. Basically, carry if you want, but if you break the law and the cop sees it (barring the sight of your weapon) you'll need deep pockets and a good lawyer. Absent RAS for the stop you can easily get the rest thrown out. But it'll cost you money.
A grand jury might easily indict, but if you're ever on a grand jury you can no-bill the charges and (eventually) overturn state law.
|
Current time is 01:00 pm | |
|
