9th Circuit Ruling

[Guest]

To late oink, looks like a couple punatics might go on a shooting rampage over this news.

[Haaheo okole puka]

Oink... I understand your point. Debate on the issue is pointless.
I see it as an opportunity to secure an instructors cert in carry on the mainland. I would imagine we'll be in short supply of those certified to administer such courses unless the NRA motivates a few such instructor courses locally.

~Proud A-hole

[kalakoa]

quote:

---

I see it as an opportunity to secure an instructors cert in carry on the mainland.

---

State tends to disregard "foreign" certifications and licenses.

Good idea, though.

[Haaheo okole puka]

Kalokoa,
The most widely available certs are through the NRA, what state they are administered in is irrelevant they are all NRA endorsed.
There is a current course through the NRA entitled "NRA Basics of Personal Protection Outside The Home Course" it entails the following: Short Description : Comprehensive and intensive in its approach to equip the defensive shooting candidate with the skills needed to survive serious adversity.



More Details: The course teaches students the knowledge, skills and attitude essential for avoiding dangerous confrontations and for the safe, effective and responsible use of a concealed pistol for self-defense outside the home. Students have the opportunity to attend this course using a quality strong side hip holster that covers the trigger, or a holster purse. From a review of safe firearms handling and proper mindset to presentation from concealment and multiple shooting positions, this course contains the essential skills and techniques needed to prevail in a life-threatening situation.

The NRA Personal Protection Outside the Home is divided into two levels (basic and advanced). Level one is a nine-hour course and offers the essential knowledge and skills that must be mastered in order to carry, store, and use a firearm safely and effectively for personal protection outside the home. Upon completion of level one, students may choose to attend level two, which is an additional five hours of range training and teaches advanced shooting skills. After the classroom portion, students should expect to spend several hours on the range and shoot approximately 100 rounds of ammunition during level one. Level two involves five additional hours on the range and approximately 115 rounds of ammunition. The ammunition requirements are minimum and may be exceeded. Students will receive the NRA Guide to the Basics of Personal Protection Outside The Home handbook, NRA Gun Safety Rules brochure and the appropriate course completion certificates(s), NRA Basic Personal Protection Outside The Home (identifies strong-side hip holster or purse use) certificate, and NRA Advanced Personal Protection Outside The Home certificate.(Lesson Plan 2006, revised 4-09)

The NRA Basics of Personal Protection Outside The Home is for adult individuals who are not disqualified from possessing a firearm as defined by applicable federal, state, or local law and are of good repute and possess defensive pistol skills presented in the NRA Basics of Personal Protection In The Home Course. Participants must also understand the basic legal concepts relating to the use of firearms in self-defense, and must know and observe not only general gun safety rules, but also those safety principles that are specific to defensive situations. Prospective participants can demonstrate that they have the requisite knowledge, skills, and attitudes by producing an NRA Basic Personal Protection In The Home Course Certificate, or by passing the pre-course evaluation.

Note: The Lesson III of the Personal Protection In and Outside The Home courses Firearms and the Law, and Legal Aspects of Self-Defense is conducted by an attorney licensed to practice law within the state in which this course is given and who is familiar with this area of the law, a Law Enforcement Officer (LEO) who possesses an intermediate or higher Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) certificate granted within the state, or an individual currently certified to instruct in this area of the law by the state in which this course is presented.

NRA Certified Instructors may conduct this lesson only if they meet the requirements stated above and then only in their capacity as an attorney, or other state certified individual not in their capacity as an NRA Certified Instructor.

~Proud A-hole

[peteadams]

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.

[oink]

It will be interesting to see if Hawaii embraces resources such as the NRA administered courses or goes out of it's way to make things difficult for the citizens, with the resultant litigation. Once it's clear what path Hawaii and, if applicable, Hawaii County decides to take, it may be profitable to prepare to instruct such courses, if it's something that interests you. I suppose there is some third path they could take. It will be interesting. The anti-gun attitude seems so pervasive, at least as evidenced on this forum, that I suspect there will be a refusal to take advantage of the resources the NRA offers simply because its the NRA. But why reinvent the wheel?

Pua`a
S. FL
Big Islander to be.

[oink]

@peteadams
Thanks for the reasoned opinion, fairly well on topic.

As might be suspected I don't agree with a fair portion of it. "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." I expect there will be a fair amount of vetting and I expect Hawaii to continue to be one of the more difficult States in which to obtain a carry permit.

I won't get into the 2nd amendment question as it's for others to decide (Courts) and will quickly devolve into what would be considered non-Hawaii specific discussion.

I agree that education is important.

Personally, my interpretation, which I think is supported by the ruling, doesn't suggest that the National Guard should be a party to it's administration although being part of the education (proficiency training) would be acceptable. I think its logical and expected for the PD to play a part.

------------------------------
GASOLINE ALERT
------------------------------

Should being a Medical Marijuana Permit holder be automatic disqualification for a carry permit?


Pua`a
S. FL
Big Islander to be.

[rainyjim]

"Should being a Medical Marijuana Permit holder be automatic disqualification for a carry permit? "

Only if the same applied for alcohol, cigarettes, underpants, condoms, textbooks, hair-brushes, and the left leg of pants (right legs are to be exempt)

Edited to add:
On the other hand there are all those angry - gun - wielding life - threatening pot smokers who we should probably keep firearms away from.

Peaceful sweet cuddly kind compassionate alcohol drinkers will each be assigned one gun per pocket.

[Haaheo okole puka]

Hawaii's most widely used hand gun courses are currently though the NRA's hand gun safety course as a requirement for hand gun permit acquisitions. The NRA is actually one of the very sources the States turn to in order to determine legislation outlines when required. There's also NAGR etc. The NRA was founded and guided by the principles of safe firearm handling and have been instrumental in shaping gun legislations for most of this nations existence. The State will no doubt look to the NRA in this matter as to avoid further litigation and to form legislation that is as safety oriented as possible.

~Proud A-hole

[Haaheo okole puka]

As per pot use and alcohol use etc. Proven drug abuse issues already result in permit refusals. If you've been part of drug related or mental related counseling programs in-treatment etc and it's on record... you'll get no firearm permits here. IF you've a TRO against you... no permit and you can lose guns you've already acquired. The laws are very strict here and heavily regulated in that department.

~Proud A-hole