hawaii gun control laws

[mdd7000]

My prior gun safe was not only bolted in, it was set into concrete right up to the bottom edge of the door and was in a corner of a walk-in closet with the studs placed every six inches, on center. I never had any worries about theft of the safe. I did have a couple of strategically placed and well-hidden guns in the house, just in case, since we lived far out in middle-of-nowhere. Wife and boys knew what to do and safety was always stressed.

On a side note, I have a brother-in-law that is alive today because he had a readily available gun. He and his girlfriend were at home when it was broken into. The 2 perps beat him and pistol-whipped him trying to get him to tell where his money, etc. was. He was recovering from recent back surgery. They made the mistake of shoving him into a recliner chair. He kept his loaded .44 Magnum in the semi-hidden side pocket. He shot and killed one of the perps near his front door (inside the apartment) and then shot the other one in the back and leg while he was running down the second story stairs to escape. The Grand Prairie, Texas prosecutor declined to prosecute him for any offenses as it was deemed justified. Many local people have treated him as a hero.
He also had to have an additional surgery to fix what these a$$holes did to him. I am sad that the second one lived.

[Bob Orts]

quote:

---

Originally posted by oink

Actually, I thought their ruling was very narrow and left most 2nd Amendment questions unanswered, save the one big one about whether it's an individual right or not.

---

They answered that question. As it currently stands, it's an individual right limited to your home.

It's unconstitutional to have laws that essentially prevent a person from owning a gun in their home unless disqualified. It's also unconstitutional to restrict certain typical classes of weapons, such as DC's, or the case in Illinois where handguns are prohibited. It's unconstitutional to place restrictions on guns in a home to the degree it renders that gun unusable for self defense. This is aimed at laws that mandate certain physical steps such as being dismantled, etc.

There were several items left unanswered, but these are more about the specific of legal restrictions and no so much the question of the constitutional right to own the gun.

They didn't provide enough guidance of disqualification of a person. These will have to be addressed as felons, child molesters, gang bangers, mentally ill, wife beaters, etc challenge a disqualification.

They left partially unanswered what type of firearms is prohibited. They did say such a-typical weapons like assault rifles, automatic weapons, bazookas, or sawed off shotguns are excluded. But, using the reference to military style didn't really answer the question. Again, these will be answered when somebody challenges a denial to keep a 20 mm Vulcan machine gun under their pillow.

They didn't answer the question of reasonable rules on licensing, registration, training, etc. I suspect that the reasonable test will be akin to Hawaii's procedures.

The last issue is a bit more complex. They never answered the question as to what rights, if any, and individual has when off their property. They weren’t asked to answer that, so they didn't. But based on their hesitation to even mention any expanding of that right off private property, it’s a toss up on this issue. When asked, they may decide its not a constitutional issue and public carry or CCW's is not covered under the constitution, or they may decide a state can't have a law that basically prevents any option for public carry.

One thing they did rule on and it's kinda lost in all the other issues, is that this right is an individual rights. This means in exercising your right to possess, you can't impose it on a person who chooses not to exercise the rights. So, in your home, or on your private property you can have a firearm if you like, but everyone else can ban firearms if they want on the property they own because that's their rights.

[mdd7000]

quote:

---

...It's unconstitutional to have laws that essentially prevent a person from owning a gun in their home unless disqualified. It's also unconstitutional to restrict certain typical classes of weapons, such as DC's, or the case in Illinois where handguns are prohibited. It's unconstitutional to place restrictions on guns in a home to the degree it renders that gun unusable for self defense. ...

---

That law was only in the City of Chicago. The rest of the state is a different story.

[Bob Orts]

quote:

---

Originally posted by DickWilson

And Hawaii is still does not have a castle doctrine and wants one to run away from scum in your own home.

---

True, Hawaii does not have an explicit Castle Doctrine. It does have a specific self-defense justification. Case law spells out a clear picture. If you read the actual cases, your see the issue of retreat is proportionate to the threat and self defense. Based on reading some cases, if you exercise force to neutralize a threat and that threat was a perpetrator standing 100 feet away just holding a knife, retreat will be a factor. If that person was 40 feet away coming at you with a knife, retreat will be questionable. If that person were 10 feet away lunging at you with a knife, retreat wouldn't even be a factor. In the cases I read, in each scenario where the threat was immediate and retreat AND escape wasn't a viable option, Hawaii’s self defense provisions prevailed.