By NRA-ILA
FAIRFAX, Va. – The Hawaii Rifle Association (HRA), with the support of the National Rifle Association, today filed a lawsuit challenging Hawaii’s extreme requirement that a concealed carry license can only be issued in “urgent” or “exceptional” instances.
“This law is so extreme that regular, law-abiding Americans cannot obtain concealed carry licenses, and that is a clear violation of their right to keep and bear arms,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director, National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action.
The lawsuit, Livingston v. Ballard, challenges a concealed carry law in Hawaii that requires citizens demonstrate an “urgent” or “exceptional” need for a license. Because of that standard, no ordinary citizens have been issued concealed carry licenses since 2013.
“Law-abiding Americans should not have to demonstrate an extreme need in order to exercise their right to protect themselves and their families. The right to self-defense is protected by the Constitution, and restrictive, anti-gun states cannot strip citizens of their rights,” Cox concluded.
This article originally appeared at nra-ila.org and is reprinted here with permission.
This is why I will never spend time in that state
Now THAT will show them! NOT!
“This is why I will never spend time in that state”
The locals are just fine if the ‘Haoles’ stay home.
They are *proud* of their racism and xenophobia…
Hey, I resemble that remark. What you said is true to some extent thou, but it doesn’t mean we’re ALL idiots.
I’m using a favorite Leftist tactic of using the enemy’s own tactics against them… 😉
Ahh, well played sir. Just refer to me as “the man on the inside” then….God it sucks here.
“Just refer to me as “the man on the inside” then”
I lived there in the late 60s.
Pearl City, up the hill from the harbor.
Aloha…
Im not one two comment on the photo but man, thats one femoral artery shot just begging to happen
…three? dont think i can blame auto correct on that one
it’s a fag state…
Hawaiians should just carry their handguns in openly visible holsters which is the actual Constitutionally guaranteed right. After that sends countless people into a tizzy, local government will graciously update concealed carry to shall-issue status.
Speaking of openly visible handguns in Hawaii, wasn’t there a court ruling about 12 months ago that effectively legalized open carry?
That’s part of what they’re trying to do here. Even open carry is illegal without a license. Can’t get a license as a normie.
“Hawaiians should just carry their handguns in openly visible holsters which is the actual Constitutionally guaranteed right.”
That is one of my 2A fantasies concerning slave states like Hawaii, NY, and Cali and carry rights –
SCOTUS rules carry outside the home is expressly constitutional, ordering states to allow some form of carry, but throwing the states a tiny bone by allowing the states to chose the mode of carry. And then the states do the (well, kinda) democratic thing by letting their citizens vote on open or concealed carry.
I then imagine the Leftists being put in an impossible dilemma – Being forced to choose open carry, where everyone can see who is lawfully armed (after all, it’s their RIGHT to know who has a gun!), or concealed carry, out-of-sight, out-of-mind, so dainty, fragile Leftist ‘snowflakes’ won’t get their undies in a knot by seeing those horrible guns that “just go off” at random times, slaughtering millions of innocent people. Daily. (*cough*).
Can you just imagine the debates they will have? Do people have “THE RIGHT TO KNOW, DAMMIT!” who has an ‘evil’ gun as they go about their daily lives, or is ignorance bliss?
I’ll wager they choose ignorance over their ‘rights’, since Leftists have no spines and prefer fantasy rather than face the cold, hard, reality that the criminals will carry anyway, not giving a shit what they think…
The common sense resolution to the dilemma you pose is to acknowledge the RKBA, adopt permit-less concealed carry (to avoid scaring the libs) but make everyone who carries wear some sort of symbol so everyone will know they are carrying. Perhaps a yellow Star of David?
“Perhaps a yellow Star of David?”
Well, that kinda kills the concept of “out-of-sight, out-of-mind”, doesn’t it?
It wouldn’t surprise me if they demanded a “Mark of Cain” of some sort, but I doubt they would actually go through with it.
After all, ‘stigmatizing’ someone is a *big* Leftist ‘No-no’, don’t-you-know.
This is the beauty of the ‘Sophie’s Choice’ I offered – No mater what they choose, they *lose*. I really hope Thomas & Co. drop a turd like that right onto the Leftist’s laps with the ‘NY Pistol’ ruling… 😉
When encountering antis, I often would ask them which they preferred; people openly carrying so you know who’s armed or people concealing their sidearms so you don’t. I pointed out that many generations of Ohioans carried concealed without a license, relying on a “prudent man defense” if charged and that many of use began open carrying because we didn’t like to take a license to exercise a right. Before licensing, we simply concealed our firearms and went about our business. It stumped most of them. They never realized how many people in this state had been carrying everyday over the generations before licensing.
That’s one of the wonderfully fun things about open carry, Geoff. The choice makes their heads explode.
If they are a smart anti-gunner, they would choose license free concealed carry because out-of-sight out-of-mind can be incredibly damaging to the exercise of the unalienable individual right to keep and bear arms.
In Ohio, it almost killed us until the people pushing for concealed handgun licensing laws used open carry to demonstrate how many were actually carrying and would do so openly if they didn’t get licensing.
Open carry equals ‘free gun zone’ to a couple of punks armed with a bat or a hammer who get behind you and decide to take your firearm away. As my old man is wont to say: ‘You don’t wear your d*ck on your forehead’.
I carry openly all the time, everyday. I have done this for many years. And, without benefit of a uniform, badge, or backup. I live in a literal hood and am surrounded by more hoods; some better, some worse. I am walking the streets far more than I am driving. I have friends around the country that have done the same for a mighty long time. What you are saying simply isn’t true.
In fact, months ago I was talking to some local boys I know who are nowhere near on the “right side of the law.” I told them that I’m getting older and thinking about a Glock or something lighter than a 1911. Their sincere advice to me was to not ditch the stainless 1911 on my side as it is an excellent deterrent. Their suggestion was to upgrade my BUG (if I carried one because they did not and still do not know) to a Glock if I wanted and if it wasn’t already. I was in Kroger a year ago. Some young gentlemen from the next hood over (far worse than mine) asked if I was a cop or a security guard. When I replied no we began talking about different types of handguns. They pulled up the front of their shirts to reveal their plastic-ware in no holsters. I chuckled and used a meme from that summer (No Lackin’!) we laughed and fist bumped. When we were parting ways a little while later, they told me that the sidearm on my side was an excellent deterrent and I shouldn’t walk through some of these areas without it. To this day, if they see me they holler out my name and say hello.
I’ve had many more brushes with criminals while concealing my sidearm than I have ever had while carrying one in the open. For example, I got the back side of my head bashed with a framing hammer from behind while concealing my sidearm. Concealing didn’t cause it but it certainly wasn’t a deterrent.
“‘You don’t wear your d*ck on your forehead’.”
Antis equate firearms to penises too. Isn’t that getting just a little old by now? Who do you honestly think you are going to convince with such a juvenile statement?
Commenter Sam I Am brought up a good point below. I am going to clarify my comment here where I stated,
When I say “actual Constitutionally guaranteed right”, I am referring to the current prevailing sentiment of our courts, which is based on various sources from 200+ years ago. In my opinion the Second Amendment codifies our right to keep and bear arms in any manner that any individual sees fit, which includes both openly visible firearms and concealed firearms. Alas, our courts have not yet declared that the Second Amendment applies to carrying concealed arms.
Thus, to the matter at hand (Hawaii prohibiting both openly visible and concealed firearms), I suggested a clever strategy of carrying openly visible arms, which various courts have declared is a protected right and should therefore be protected in Hawaii at some point, in order to provide incentive (Hawaiians shrieking about visible firearms!) for Hawaii to provide shall-issue licenses for concealed carry of firearms.
There is already a case (Young) at the 9th en banc phase, relating to HI carry, so I am not sure what the point of another is until that one is resolved.
Young addresses open carry.
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/12-17808/12-17808-2018-07-24.html
The carry license in Hi is open or concealed, no distinction. The Court of Appeal was foreclosed from considering the concealed carry portion of the case since the en banc panel in Peruta v. Gore concluded that there is no constitutional right to carry a concealed firearm. AS to the open carry license, for at least 20 years the issuing agencies (chiefs of police of the various counties) had been issuing licenses only to security guards. The Court ruled that all citizens had to be considered, but there is still a “good cause” requirement. A petition for rehearing has been stayed pending the SCOTUS determination of the NYC transport case.
Right, that was my understanding.
So, back to my original question, I dont see the NRA lawsuit’s novel angle here. Seems to me whatever the 9th (and possibly Supreme Court) say in Young will be binding on the NRA plaintiffs (and, defendants as well).
“Seems to me whatever the 9th (and possibly Supreme Court) say in Young will be binding…”
‘NY Pistol’ *could* moot that first.
I’m hoping that rather than a repeat of the drawn-out ‘Heller-McDonald’ decisions, the Court realizes the kinds of ‘games’ the Leftists insist on playing with gun rights will motivate the Court to deal with carry rights nationwide.
Or, I need to quit main-lining heroin…
To Hawaii gun owners:
Good f___ing luck. In the 20 years I lived in the “Aloha” state I knew only one ccw holder. He was a jeweler. Don’t know how he got it but this is the state that Obama was supposedly born in. Enough said.
Conceived in I’ll buy. Frank WAS a resident. “Born in” is still undefined.
“supposedly”…wonder if the truth will ever come out on that….
Hallelujah! It’s about time we get this out in the open, we’ve been battling this for decades. Lets hope it finally gets some where, or at least casts a bright light on what’s really going on here. To answer Uncommon_sense…No, we never got that ruling. It disappeared like they always do
There is no way that the Obamination was born in HI. Stop drinking the Coolaid
Bullshit. The best gun salesman ever was born in HI. Likewise, the least effective anti-gun President ever was also born in HI. Same person, hell of an irony!
Enough with the BIRTHER CRAP already!!!!!!
“Bullshit. The best gun salesman ever was born in HI. Likewise, the least effective anti-gun President ever was also born in HI.”
Never thought of it that way but you’re right. Bought the most guns and ammo during his 2 terms. Also taught my wife to shoot. Thank you Mr. President!
‘Birther crap’? Seems like YOU are the one full of crap in wanting to ignore a Constitutional requirement to be the POTUS.
Beckwith did a hell of a job documenting all of the Obama information. There were things available there before they were anywhere else and remained long after being scrubbed from most everywhere else on the internet. The elderly gentleman started and maintained all of this on his meager retirement until someone helped him setup donation links. The site is now archived by the Library of Congress.
http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20170302192532/http://www.theobamafile.com/ObamaNaturalBorn.htm
Birthers, maybe not the worst case conspiracy nut jobs on the planet, by they do play in that sandbox.
By the way, Obama is supposedly going to exercise his secret plan to name himself President for Life. So how’s that one working out for you loony birds? Have you re-worked that one to account for how it didn’t happen yet?
There are enuf facts on those many pages at the link provided to give a thinking man pause. Dumb-asses, however, remain both regardless.
“Hawaiians should just carry their handguns in openly visible holsters which is the actual Constitutionally guaranteed right. ”
Not being well-versed in the use of the English language, I am constantly baffled that the simple words of the Second Amendment (which did not establish any new right of the people) only apply to open carry. It is evident, however, that court rulings, and some contemporary musings of political pundits make that case.
The 2a makes no distinction as to how you carry your cannon. Open, concealed doesn’t matter.
“The 2a makes no distinction as to how you carry your cannon. Open, concealed doesn’t matter.”
Indeed.
Yup. I would proffer that a liberal mixture of both is a very healthy thing for a free society.
Sam I Am,
Oh, I agree that the Second Amendment should apply equally to visible and concealed arms (e.g. weapons). However, the courts almost universally do not agree. They like to site 200+ year old sources which claim that the right espoused in the Second Amendment only applies to open carry.
“However, the courts almost universally …cite 200+ year old sources …”
Yes, that is true. But the original comment was that open carry was the only right protected by the Second Amendment. Not being able to find those words in the text of the amendment, such a claim remains baffling.
Sam I Am,
My original comment was a statement of how the courts view the Second Amendment at this time — even though I did not mention that important although subtle detail.
“My original comment was a statement of how the courts view the Second Amendment at this time — even though I did not mention that important although subtle detail.”
Understand. But note….there are staunch 2A supporters who are arguing open carry only. One such case has been deferred and deferred in Californication. The basis for the argument is not the text of 2A, but interpretation of 2A by courts, and inference from theories about what was thought proper, and what was thought sinister.
Sometimes we can use shorthand among ourselves, but even then we must be careful not to misspeak. (unless we do so unintentional to ridicule the gun grabber mafia)
Sam I Am,
Agree on all counts.
Doh! Misspelled word: should be “cite”, not “site”.
I’d really like an LC9s, but can only legally buy an LC380. I’m tempted to go for the latter, but why f around with .380?
I liked my 9s pro when I had it, good price for a decent gun. If .380 is all you can legally own then go for it, better than nothing. Unless your good at throwing rocks….
Tommy Jay,
An LC380 is far better than nothing.
The real trick with handguns chambered in .380 ACP is ammunition selection. On the rare occasions that my only carry handgun is a Ruger LCP (the predecessor to Ruger’s LC380), I load it with BuffaloBore 100 grain hardcast lead bullets. Those are virtually guaranteed to pass through an attacker and still make a modest size permanent wound channel. Two holes (entry wound and exit wound) are better than one when hollowpoint bullets are guaranteed to underpenetrate.
Note: while that hardcast bullet passing through an attacker sounds like a significant risk to bystanders beyond your attacker, the bullet’s velocity on the exit side will be low enough that it poses minimal risk to said bystanders beyond your attacker.
When you can define when the need is urgent and exceptional, you can likewise determine when that need is hass passed.
open-carry just upsets a lot of people…and cc doesn’t…’nuff said?….