Arguments for "shall issue" versus "may issue"

[crashresidue]

Getting the law changed here is gonna be like shooting yourself in the foot. A lot noise and a lot of pain. Nothing else. The legislators(sp?) here are too anti-gun to pass a law like that.

As I see it the only option is a federal court decision - 9th Circut has the jurisdiction here - and we already know how they think.

The ex-ADA thinks that if another state has a lawsuit filed - like Kali - to overturn the bad laws there, we'd just file as a co-(can't think if the word) so we'd be included in the decision.

That's his "under the radar" approach.

oh, not to jump topics - but please note that BOTH our Senators voted against "English" as the national language. Doesn't THAT make you all warm and cumfy?

cr

 

[HIcarry]

CrashResidue - Nice to see another Hawaii resident as well. Thanks for the suggestions...I have been in Hawaii for 20 years now and have had to deal with the legislators for other reasons in the past, so I know all too well the "local" way politics are played here. I have to schedule a meeting with him in November to discuss some other issues relevant to hunters for the next legislative session, so hopefully I can keep this issue in the spotlight for him, and do so in a manner that will be most productive...i.e., smooze him. Gotta love politics.

ArmedBear - Thanks for the comments....but I don't necessarily think the two (flying under the radar and getting legislation introduced) techniques are mutually exclusive for "our" purposes. Granted once the legislation is introduced flying under the radar is more difficult, but keeping things "quiet" while doing the ground work and gathering support before introducing legislation is (for better or worse) a time honored tradition in local politics.

 

[HIcarry]

Getting the law changed here is gonna be like shooting yourself in the foot. A lot noise and a lot of pain. Nothing else. The legislators(sp?) here are too anti-gun to pass a law like that.

As I see it the only option is a federal court decision - 9th Circut has the jurisdiction here - and we already know how they think.

Yeah, I know the efforts aren't likely to result in any changes in the near-future, and that it will, as you so eloquantly note, likely result in a lot of noise and pain (but you forgot smoke and mirrors, but I think the mirror thing just didn't fit in the analogy ) but I guess I'm just stubborn.

I am actually doing some research on the concealed carry permit based on a couple of court decisions in California (at the Circuit level) whereas even in "May Issue" states, the issuing authority cannot decide to not issue permits (blanket denials) and that the issuing criteria (the "good needs" aspect) must be equitably and fairly applied to all applicants (if one person's "I carry a lot of money" need results in a permit, my "I carry a lot of money" reason, all other things being equal/lawful, should result in my getting a permit as well).

Did you ever actually apply for a permit?

Aloha,

 

[ArmedBear]

Granted once the legislation is introduced flying under the radar is more difficult, but keeping things "quiet" while doing the ground work and gathering support before introducing legislation is (for better or worse) a time honored tradition in local politics.

Depends what you mean by under the RADAR, then.

It may be possible, say, in California or Hawaii, for a person to quietly get a permit himself, with a lot of money, time and hassle. That kind of "under the RADAR" would probably preclude political activism, though.

If you mean that you want to build a political movement very quietly, yes, that kind of "under the RADAR" is a good idea. I agree fully.

WRT the 9th Circus decision, I know how it works here. In California, it's the county sheriff who has arbitrary authority, and like Hawaii, we have no legal standards. It's whatever the sheriff feels like, just like your police chief.

The decision does not change this. From what I can gather, each sheriff still has total, arbitrary discretion. A given sheriff may have to apply the same standards to everyone, but if the sheriff decides that those standards are XYZ (including "nobody but police officers and criminal attorneys" or somesuch), the decision does nothing to change that within the county.

The sheriff in the next county might have entirely different standards; the "fairness" requirement only applies to applicants within a given jurisdiction.

See this map for how it works: http://www.californiaconcealedcarry.com/counties/countiesmap.html

For good information from a state where people are already working on this, go here: http://www.californiaconcealedcarry.com/

Best of luck.

I'm moving to Idaho, myself. No surfing down the street any more, but lots of other cool stuff to do, and much less nanny-statism.

 

[Soybomb]

I agree that "they" should have to prove why a "shall issue" system would not work, but we know that is not the case. Since the law currently is "May Issue" we need to change the law. That unfortunately involves "us" convincing "them" that a "Shall Issue" law is "preferable" or "better" for the myriad of reasons we know to be true. All "they" need to do is prevent passage of any introduced legislation, usually thru legislative tactics intended to stall or prevent voting on the measure.

I assume "them" is the legislators, and if that is the case I think you're wrong and fighting the wrong battle. The "them" you need to convince is other voters. If concealed carry laws depended on swaying legislators on their personal opinions, we'd not see the expansion of ccw that we have in the last 15 years. If you want concealed carry you're going to need more voters demanding it. You might study some of the techniques that really effective grass roots carry organiziations like gco and vcdl use to expand carry rights.

 

[ilbob]

generally courts have found that refusing to exercise discretion (as applied to issuing permits) is no more acceptable than inappropritaely differentiating between like qualified candidates.

however, you have to have someone willing to spend the time and trouble to do something like suing them in federal court after being refused to have any effect.

my guess is the gun people in HI just don't have the moxy for such a fight so do nothing.

you actually have a much better situation in HI than in CA and gun owners in CA are standing tall and fighting the good fight, while those in HI do nothing. That is why nothing is happening for the good in HI.

 

[XDKingslayer]

What arguments support the "shall issue" system?

Shall not be infringed.

Arguement over.

 

[HIcarry]

WRT the 9th Circus decision, I know how it works here. In California, it's the county sheriff who has arbitrary authority, and like Hawaii, we have no legal standards. It's whatever the sheriff feels like, just like your police chief.

The decision does not change this. From what I can gather, each sheriff still has total, arbitrary discretion. A given sheriff may have to apply the same standards to everyone, but if the sheriff decides that those standards are XYZ (including "nobody but police officers and criminal attorneys" or somesuch), the decision does nothing to change that within the county...For good information from a state where people are already working on this, go here: http://www.californiaconcealedcarry.com/

Best of luck.

I'm moving to Idaho, myself. No surfing down the street any more, but lots of other cool stuff to do, and much less nanny-statism.

I agree that the decisions the 9th Circuit made will not be a panacea for the revision of concealed carry, but until those restrictive and arbitrary laws are changed, it may provide a little bit of recourse or those willing to use it to their advantage. If I recall correctly, part of one of the decisions was that the concealed carry applications were in the public domain, and as such, the reasons for requesting a concealed carry permit were easy to see. That availability, while admitedly a double-edged sword with regard to privacy issues, would allow an individual denied a permit to research those granted a permit and see if those arbitrary criteria was being consistently applied.

Thanks for the info...I have used the California Concealed Carry site for some of the research I've already done. Those guys are doing a lot of good stuff. Good luck with the move. It's some beautiful country up there.

Aloha,

 

[General Geoff]

We should be working towards Vermont carry, not "shall issue."

 

[HIcarry]

I assume "them" is the legislators, and if that is the case I think you're wrong and fighting the wrong battle. The "them" you need to convince is other voters. If concealed carry laws depended on swaying legislators on their personal opinions, we'd not see the expansion of ccw that we have in the last 15 years. If you want concealed carry you're going to need more voters demanding it. You might study some of the techniques that really effective grass roots carry organiziations like gco and vcdl use to expand carry rights.

I was referring to the legislators and I understand your comment. The problem with Hawaii (and I'm not being "political" here, just stating demographics...) is that it is mostly Democratic and leans heavily toward the nanny state mentality. And while we have a relatively large number of guns in the state, that does not necessarily translate to a lot of gun owners who are willing to assist with grass roots type of movements. The attitudes of those that do own guns are mixed, and often reflect the diverse cultural influences we have here. Unfortunately many of those cultural mores are influenced by generally non-confrontational, non-activist asian population and getting people "up in arms" (sorry, couldn't resist ) is difficult to say the least. That being said, I will take a look at the sites you mention and see if we might be able to do something different/better.

The other problem we have is the low voter turn out, althought this year with the Obama mania, they are projecting a spike in turnout.

Aloha,

 

[AK103K]

What arguments support the "shall issue" system?

Shall not be infringed.

Arguement over.

Actually, the argument continues, as your still asking permission to do something that is your right. You just dont have to get on your knees with "shall issue" like you do for "may issue". You still need your hat in your hand, and an eyes down, "by your leave" attitude though.

We should be working towards Vermont carry, not "shall issue."

Exactly.

 

[HIcarry]

...however, you have to have someone willing to spend the time and trouble to do something like suing them in federal court after being refused to have any effect.

my guess is the gun people in HI just don't have the moxy for such a fight so do nothing.

you actually have a much better situation in HI than in CA and gun owners in CA are standing tall and fighting the good fight, while those in HI do nothing. That is why nothing is happening for the good in HI.

You are, of course, correct in that once any foundation for legal action has been laid, you must then be able to proceed to press the issue by initiating a suit. However, as was seen in the Chicago suburbs, and to some extent Washington D.C., the threat of legal action can sometimes spur changes as well. As far as gun owners in Hawaii not having the "moxy" to mount such an effort, you again may be partially correct. Much like most of the gun owners in the US as a whole, it is usually the activist minority that gets things done. How many gun owners live in California? How many of those are activly "standing tall" and participating in "the good fight?" I would guess that the numbers are relatively low. Of course I could be wrong, and would be delighted if that were the case. But I do take a bit of umbrage to the allegation that "those in HI do nothing" as there are many of us that actively try to promote the shooting sports in a variety of ways. The Hawaii Rifle Association has been fighting an uphill battle for many years but continues to hang in there. A recent Shooting Sports Fair, sponsored by the HRA and local shooting clubs, had the largest turn out in history; our monthly basic handgun class is usually filled to capacity with ever increasing numbers of women taking the class; we field a cadre of volunteers every legislative session to speak at hearings and meet with legislators. Have we been able to get everything we wanted? No. But we have been able to stave off such things as ammunition serialization, limits on ammunition purchases, the .50 caliber ban, yearly re-registration of already owned firearms, and many other anti-gun legislative efforts.

Aloha,