In Hawaii
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
March 16th, 2012 at 12:18 pm
Then will come the DC and Chicago bullshit licensing proceedures. Jack.
March 16th, 2012 at 2:05 pm
Which will need to be fought in court as well.
As happened in Maryland. There is no silver bullet for this idiocy, as it’s been on the books for a long time, and will require work to remove.
March 18th, 2012 at 3:43 pm
@Jack,
Chicago and DC started with essentially no process, were forced by the Court to create one, and so created the heaviest they thought they could get away with. Since then they have been loosening them one by one as they’ve been forced to.
In Hawaii, as in MD, they already -have- all the applicable licensing restrictions (time/place/manner), that they claim are necessary for public safety, in place. The only change required (and thus effectively authorized) by a “shall-issue” ruling would be to remove the “need” requirement and issue to anyone who meets the remaining existing requirements under the existing rules.
To drag their feet as you suggest the Legislature would have to publically pass -additional- new restrictions and when inevitably challenged would have to explain to the Court why, if their system was already designed for “public safety” instead of as a “rationing system”, those changes weren’t already in place. That’s essentially defying the Court, and Courts don’t like that.
Actually, Hawaii may not get the chance to drag their feet much at all. They are in the Ninth Circuit, their District Court has to use as precedent rulings from other District Courts in the Circuit as well as from the Ninth Court itself. They are therefore controlled by precedent coming out of California (the rest of the states in the Ninth are all already shall-issue with OC and/or Con Carry, so not much court action to look to but lots of practical examples of shall-issue being no big deal).
The current case on point out of California is the District Court ruling in Peruta that the Constitutionality of California’s “may-issue” discretionary regime need not be addressed specifically because “unloaded OC is a sufficient alternative for self-defense in public.” Well, HI doesn’t allow OC (or a lot of less-than-lethal) at all as an alternative, so the District Court there can’t really duck the case.
Peruta has been appealed to the Ninth Circuit; with unloaded OC now off the table due to Cali’s new law the Ninth itself will have to address the Constitutionality of discretionary “may-issue” in California (particularly with awareness of this new case in HI) in light of their existing rulings and the new decision out of Maryland. In addition, Calguns will be certain to bring up their state-level wins against discretionary may-issue on the county level.
Anyway, as goes Cali will go Hawaii and Calguns already has California, which has existing regulations worse than Hawaii, under attack on multiple fronts. There’s nothing in Ninth Circuit precedent that contradicts the ruling out of Maryland that I am aware of. If they take the Peruta appeal and rule the same way MD did, Hawaii will be shall-issue the same day.
As Calguns takes apart Cali’s other restrictions in the Courts, Hawaii will be barred from creating them.
I tend to be a bit optimistic but this isn’t a Chicago/DC situation on any level, they had more or less absolute bans from the get go. Cali and Hawaii have contradictory freedoms (legality of concealed carry) and restrictions (arbitrary bans on exercise of that legality) already in place to be exploited in the Courts.