02-14-2014, 12:17 PM
Oink is right, Hawai'i is part of the 9th District and its rulings will apply here in Hawai'i, if upheld. The appeal now is to the full complement of the 9th judges rather than the three who produced this ruling. If the ruling is upheld HPD will (my guess) be required to hand out concealed weapon permits to anyone wanting one with minimal vetting of the individuals. The possible significant increase of people carrying concealed firearms here in Puna could certainly have very direct effects on the people living here.
This is truly a political decision with people who think guns are dangerous and require relatively strict "well-regulated" access on one side and, on the other side, people who believe firearms should be broadly distributed with relatively little regulation regarding the person possessing the weapon or the type of weapon.
One of the big arguing points between these views is the meaning of "well-regulated militia" in the 2nd Amendment. A good example is Okole Puka's response that "Those words were not scribed under the definition of modern usage. They were scribed under the definition of their meaning at the time." At the SCOTUS level, this is the well known "textualist" approach of tying the meaning of the Constitution to the understanding and experiences of its writers in the mid to late 1700's. This is exemplified by Justice Scalia's claim that the Constitution is a "dead" document, that current events or recent history have no bearing on the interpretation of the meaning of the Constitution. Indeed, Scalia is quoted in this thread as saying that the 2nd Amendment should only be "right[ly]" interpreted based on its historical context. This seems to many people to be an obvious and simple principle.
On the other hand is the "living" approach to the Constitution; that our understanding of the meaning of the Constitution should reflect the changes that have occurred to the nation since the mid to late 1700's, such as the Industrial Revolution, transportation changes, densely populated cities, occupational changes, the Internet and so forth. This also seems to many people to be an obvious and simple principle.
Personally, I'm of the belief that the nation (and the world) has changed significantly since 1787 when the Constitution was ratified. I'm also of the belief that our understanding of nature, people, economies, culture and even politics has enormously and deeply increased since 1787. Therefore our understanding of how firearms should be regulated in America must reflect the 21st century, not the 18th.
There is a long history of firearms in America which should be accommodated (and an even much longer history in other parts of the world, which in the case of the “developed” world generally means strict regulation). But firearms are first and foremost a means of killing people. That's why they were invented and that's the very first justification for loose gun regulation: killing people in self defense. Unfortunately we know very well now that not only can “self defense” can be very loosely defined, firearms are with horrific repetition deadly in many ordinary situations. A well known “GunFAIL” series taken from local reporting across the country regularly shows 40-50 incidents per week of people shooting themselves, their kids or neighbors. Children seem to constitute about 10% of this number every week. People are law abiding gun owners until they’re not.
I believe this is as fundamental a political division as any. At any point in time this question will only be considered “settled” as reflected in the laws in effect at that time. Gun advocates are now attempting to settle the question in unprecedented ways. I think we need practical solutions that check off both clauses in the 2nd Amendment, so here’s mine.
As long as firearms exist we will never reduce firearm killings to zero. However, two forces, regulation and education, could in our current historical context be effective in reducing the destruction. I would hand the common regulation of firearms over to the National Guard with responsibilities for issuance and maintenance of permits and instituting a required continuing education and certification program for all firearm owners. The Guard is the natural successor to the state militias of the 1700’s and, as far as I know, as well regulated a military organization as any we have in this country. And like any military in the U.S. it is nonpolitical and is not an advocate for firearms like the NRA or ideologically against them either. Police agencies would still handle the criminal background checks (including domestic violence, TRO and other disqualifications) and either them or perhaps a health agency would maintain the database of judicially determined incompetency and insanity cases. People would have to recertify their firearm competency and knowledge and attest to their personal competency, much like we do on driver’s licenses now. Additional screening could be required according to the observations of National Guard personnel.
Most of the people in the U.S. don’t live in villages or on farms any more. We don’t live in places where we know most people’s tendencies. We don’t know if someone walking down the street with a firearm is nuts or nice. We need a “well regulated” legal environment to make a serious effort that firearms are accessible only to those who demonstrate they are capable in the eyes of society of owning and carrying a tool whose design purpose is to kill people and a tool that makes it very, very easy, a flick of the finger, to accomplish that killing.
This is truly a political decision with people who think guns are dangerous and require relatively strict "well-regulated" access on one side and, on the other side, people who believe firearms should be broadly distributed with relatively little regulation regarding the person possessing the weapon or the type of weapon.
One of the big arguing points between these views is the meaning of "well-regulated militia" in the 2nd Amendment. A good example is Okole Puka's response that "Those words were not scribed under the definition of modern usage. They were scribed under the definition of their meaning at the time." At the SCOTUS level, this is the well known "textualist" approach of tying the meaning of the Constitution to the understanding and experiences of its writers in the mid to late 1700's. This is exemplified by Justice Scalia's claim that the Constitution is a "dead" document, that current events or recent history have no bearing on the interpretation of the meaning of the Constitution. Indeed, Scalia is quoted in this thread as saying that the 2nd Amendment should only be "right[ly]" interpreted based on its historical context. This seems to many people to be an obvious and simple principle.
On the other hand is the "living" approach to the Constitution; that our understanding of the meaning of the Constitution should reflect the changes that have occurred to the nation since the mid to late 1700's, such as the Industrial Revolution, transportation changes, densely populated cities, occupational changes, the Internet and so forth. This also seems to many people to be an obvious and simple principle.
Personally, I'm of the belief that the nation (and the world) has changed significantly since 1787 when the Constitution was ratified. I'm also of the belief that our understanding of nature, people, economies, culture and even politics has enormously and deeply increased since 1787. Therefore our understanding of how firearms should be regulated in America must reflect the 21st century, not the 18th.
There is a long history of firearms in America which should be accommodated (and an even much longer history in other parts of the world, which in the case of the “developed” world generally means strict regulation). But firearms are first and foremost a means of killing people. That's why they were invented and that's the very first justification for loose gun regulation: killing people in self defense. Unfortunately we know very well now that not only can “self defense” can be very loosely defined, firearms are with horrific repetition deadly in many ordinary situations. A well known “GunFAIL” series taken from local reporting across the country regularly shows 40-50 incidents per week of people shooting themselves, their kids or neighbors. Children seem to constitute about 10% of this number every week. People are law abiding gun owners until they’re not.
I believe this is as fundamental a political division as any. At any point in time this question will only be considered “settled” as reflected in the laws in effect at that time. Gun advocates are now attempting to settle the question in unprecedented ways. I think we need practical solutions that check off both clauses in the 2nd Amendment, so here’s mine.
As long as firearms exist we will never reduce firearm killings to zero. However, two forces, regulation and education, could in our current historical context be effective in reducing the destruction. I would hand the common regulation of firearms over to the National Guard with responsibilities for issuance and maintenance of permits and instituting a required continuing education and certification program for all firearm owners. The Guard is the natural successor to the state militias of the 1700’s and, as far as I know, as well regulated a military organization as any we have in this country. And like any military in the U.S. it is nonpolitical and is not an advocate for firearms like the NRA or ideologically against them either. Police agencies would still handle the criminal background checks (including domestic violence, TRO and other disqualifications) and either them or perhaps a health agency would maintain the database of judicially determined incompetency and insanity cases. People would have to recertify their firearm competency and knowledge and attest to their personal competency, much like we do on driver’s licenses now. Additional screening could be required according to the observations of National Guard personnel.
Most of the people in the U.S. don’t live in villages or on farms any more. We don’t live in places where we know most people’s tendencies. We don’t know if someone walking down the street with a firearm is nuts or nice. We need a “well regulated” legal environment to make a serious effort that firearms are accessible only to those who demonstrate they are capable in the eyes of society of owning and carrying a tool whose design purpose is to kill people and a tool that makes it very, very easy, a flick of the finger, to accomplish that killing.