10-07-2009, 02:40 AM
Dick, Hawaii's laws are well within the US Supreme Courts opinion in Heller. Hawaii does not deny a person the right to own and posses a gun in their home. Hawaii does have regulations, but those regulations conform to the three issues: licensing, training, and registration. All three are allowed so long as they are not designed to outright deny a person who otherwise is qualified from owning a gun. Let’s look at the three issues.
Licensing. Hawaii’s licensing is designed to prevent a person who under the Courts opinion is prohibited from owning a gun. Hawaii looks for disqualifying criminal and mental history. If none of those are present, a license is issued. Hawaii approves 98.9% of all gun ownership applications. How does that show any denial of gun ownership?
Training. The Court ruled it’s reasonable to require a person to be properly trained. Hawaii’s training requirements are very limited and they accept training from any recognized program. This training does not even have to be conducted in Hawaii. The training requirement conforms to the Courts opinion.
Registration. Again the Courts do not bar registration of firearms. Hawaii's registration process is akin to transferring an automobile from one owner to another and it is not used to bar ownership, just ensure the prior owner's name is removed and the new owner is assigned. It does not impact the question of ownership.
Since nothing in Hawaii's laws are designed to prohibit gun ownership consistent with the US Supreme Courts 2nd Amendment ruling in Heller, there is no basis to say Hawaii is doing anything wrong or unconstitutional. And, even less to say they deny gun ownership. I know there are many that don't like the Supreme Courts ruling and wanted it to be something else, but that’s what the law is and Hawaii is well within the Courts decision.
Maybe I'm missing the point, but I don't understand why the argument persist that there is something wrong with Hawaii’s gun laws when it is well within the US Supreme Courts ruling. The ruling is the ruling and I'm not sure what is being argued over rights when the Hawaii’s laws are constitutional and the people have the right in Hawaii to own guns.
If the real issue is carrying a gun in public, that needs to be made clear in the discussion. It needs to be argued on that issue, not some general Hawaii is anti-gun argument. But restrictions on carrying a weapon in public is constitutional according to the US Supreme Court.
As an FYI, The latest Supreme Court case is not a 2nd Amendment issue; it's a 10th Amendment issue. That’s what the Court will decide.
Licensing. Hawaii’s licensing is designed to prevent a person who under the Courts opinion is prohibited from owning a gun. Hawaii looks for disqualifying criminal and mental history. If none of those are present, a license is issued. Hawaii approves 98.9% of all gun ownership applications. How does that show any denial of gun ownership?
Training. The Court ruled it’s reasonable to require a person to be properly trained. Hawaii’s training requirements are very limited and they accept training from any recognized program. This training does not even have to be conducted in Hawaii. The training requirement conforms to the Courts opinion.
Registration. Again the Courts do not bar registration of firearms. Hawaii's registration process is akin to transferring an automobile from one owner to another and it is not used to bar ownership, just ensure the prior owner's name is removed and the new owner is assigned. It does not impact the question of ownership.
Since nothing in Hawaii's laws are designed to prohibit gun ownership consistent with the US Supreme Courts 2nd Amendment ruling in Heller, there is no basis to say Hawaii is doing anything wrong or unconstitutional. And, even less to say they deny gun ownership. I know there are many that don't like the Supreme Courts ruling and wanted it to be something else, but that’s what the law is and Hawaii is well within the Courts decision.
Maybe I'm missing the point, but I don't understand why the argument persist that there is something wrong with Hawaii’s gun laws when it is well within the US Supreme Courts ruling. The ruling is the ruling and I'm not sure what is being argued over rights when the Hawaii’s laws are constitutional and the people have the right in Hawaii to own guns.
If the real issue is carrying a gun in public, that needs to be made clear in the discussion. It needs to be argued on that issue, not some general Hawaii is anti-gun argument. But restrictions on carrying a weapon in public is constitutional according to the US Supreme Court.
As an FYI, The latest Supreme Court case is not a 2nd Amendment issue; it's a 10th Amendment issue. That’s what the Court will decide.