I’m not sure why it would. Almost every state requires some manner of concealed carry permit, and it’s not uncommon for there to be some manner of registration for some weapons, as long as the permitting and registration processes are “reasonable” and not designed to infringe on your rights.
The problem is Hawaii is not shall-issue as the vast majority of states are. One can be denied such merely because the official feels like it, despite fully qualifying and jumping every hoop.
There’s Shall Issue and there’s “Shall Issue”. Where I live (Bay area) it’s 18 months wait and about $2,000 in fees including a state appointed psychiatrist who asks questions all of which have obvious correct answers. I think you need a coworker (specifically a coworker) to write a reference letter too. Also there’s a separate law saying you cannot carry in most places, basically rendering the permit useless.
I’m not sure what Hawaii was doing but basically all the blue states have some flavor of this, where in the past your kids just had to go to the same school at the sheriff’s or you had to be an executive at a company or a celebrity and you got to carry anywhere you liked. At least now the same rules apply to everyone?
So you’re not sure what Hawaii’s rules on carry permits are, but you’re sure they’re bad, and that excuses not registering a weapon purchased out of state.
For the record, a cursory search says it’s pretty straightforward to get a permit. Like, take a safety course, fill out a form and provide copies of a photo of yourself and get fingerprinted.
And yeah, they do have restrictions on where you can carry, which sounds like a protection of the rights of the rest of the people to me. If people don’t want to be around guns, they should be able to say you can’t bring one into their home or store without explicit permission, at the least.
What I never get is how people who don’t want to be around guns are generally perfectly fine being around people on a payroll to carry guns (not just cops, i mean bodyguards, armored trucks, etc). It takes shockingly little to get that qualification. It’s everything you listed where I live, without any technicalities or weird hoops, much easier than a carry permit, you don’t even need to have a formal personal protection or cash transport business. I know a bunch of people who got guard cards for the hell of it. The fact is the people who jump through all the hoops to get a permit are never the issue.
For one, I’m not sure what that has to do with this conversation. Generally speaking, the sort of person who carries a gun for work isn’t the same sort of person who thinks they need a gun to buy milk.
Second, bold of you to assume that people who don’t want to be around guns are entirely okay with them in the situations you mentioned. Most of them would rather not be around armed police, they would just prefer a police officer to a rando, because again, the cop didn’t get up and think “I better make sure I’m ready to kill people in case it comes up at the grocery store”.
“I better make sure I’m ready to kill people in case it comes up at the grocery store”.
Funnily enough that is exactly what the cop said. If he gets a call to a grocery store about some violent dickhead, he may be right, too.
Not to mention the cops have a reputation of shooting unarmed black people, are actually statistically worse shots than CCW holders, and statistically commit less crimes than CCW holders.
So the difference there is that someone called the cops to the grocery store, as opposed to a rando taking their gun to buy milk.
Do you really not see the difference between a job where people pay you to carry a gun, and some random person deciding that they want to carry a gun just in case?
One has the job of “person we decided responds to violent situations, while they’re are work doing what we asked them to do”, and the other is "I have no idea who this person is, they’re wearing a dirty T-shirt, holding a cartoon of milk and wearing a pistol at the checkout line of this 7-11”.
With a cop, you have a known quantity and you know why they have the gun. With rando, you just know they have a gun, with no clue why.
Finally, you’re totally correct. That’s why a lot of people don’t exactly like being around armed police either.
Is it so hard to imagine that some people are made to feel less safe being around people with guns, and would like to avoid it where possible?
Saw another post and thought of your response here… I think the difference is those of us who know what it takes absolutely feel more comfortable around people who have something to lose, because they do not conflate their position with expertise granting blanket immunity from consequences for their mistakes.
You seem to keep coming back to some belief that I hold cops in some esteem. I don’t.
For all the warts of the profession, they’re still a known quantity. You know why the cop has the gun. You know they completed their minimum of one semester of training and bare minimum psychological evaluation. You know they have a high school diploma.
Anyone else, you know that they could … Afford a gun. If it’s concealed, you know that they took an eight hour course in safety. You know rather little about their stability or anything else. You don’t know why they brought the gun.
In both cases, you also know that they likely exceed those minimums by a fair margin.
As mentioned, cpl holders tend to be enthusiastic and proficient, law abiding citizens. Where I live cops tends to have four year degrees on top of a full year of dedicated police training and supplementary medical training and continuing education requirements.
Again, don’t particularly want to have either around me, but one has less question marks.
Also, linking to idiots with guns isn’t a great way to testify to the responsibility of gun owners.
I don’t feel like I need a fire extinguisher in my kitchen to make some pancakes. Is it a good idea? Sure. The chances are really small that I’ll need it, but I’ll be very happy to have it in case the worst case scenario comes up.
I don’t carry a gun to the grocery store because I’m afraid I’ll need it, I carry because I acknowledge that violent crime happens randomly to normal people like me and I’d rather be prepared for it than not. Modern guns retained in concealed holsters are actually very safe. They don’t just “go off” on their own, and the only reason someone would draw theirs is if their life or a loved one’s was in immediate danger.
I don’t get up in the morning thinking “I better make sure I’m ready to kill people in case it comes up at the grocery store.” That’s way too reductive and gung ho.
Do you take your fire extinguisher with you to the store also?
When you drive there, do you make sure to buckle your five point harness and put on your full visor helmet?
Do you carry you basic EMS kit with you at all times?
What about a couple doses of narcan? EpiPen?
My point is, the gun is a big piece of equipment for a very niche contingency. There are significantly more likely threats that you can take care of with less burden to your daily life than even the modest inconvenience of carrying a weapon.
Don’t pretend that you need to carry a gun to the grocery store.
You want to carry a gun, for whatever reason.
No one thinks the gun is just gonna magic itself out of the holster and shoot someone.
The point is the gun doesn’t make anyone else feel more safe. No one thinks to themselves “oh good, a stranger with a gun has arrived. That’s just what this Baskin Robbins needed”.
On June 23, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the landmark case New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen that “The Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home”, thereby striking down New York’s may-issue law and making New York, California, Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, and Massachusetts de jure shall-issue jurisdictions. However, there remain inconsistencies in how much certain state and local governments are complying with the Supreme Court ruling and whether ordinary citizens can de facto obtain permits in previously may-issue jurisdictions.
So more like “they’re supposed to be shall issue now but who knows if that’s happening”.
In Hawaii you need the same permit for open or concealed carry.
Since the young case got vacated and relitigated they’re jumping on the chance to go ahead and update the law in light of their now dejure shall issue status.
Basically the state got told it can’t have a defacto no issue concealed carry policy and they were relying on that to keep people from open carrying either. Now they gotta outlaw open carry explicitly.
I quoted the relevant section to make it easier to explain that while a recent sc ruling had overturned the states may issue law, that law was not only still on the books, there were weird inconsistencies now to iron out and (and I didn’t talk about this one, shame on me for assuming it would be assumed) there are possibly onerous requirements on permit holders.
The requirement that springs to mind for Hawaii is that permits are not honored outside their issuing county (!), which is absurd for people living in the contiguous states and Alaska but in Hawaii presents a whole bunch of other weird problems because just going from my fifth grade memory the counties all use islands as their borders, so there’s maui with a couple of sizable landmasses in it but kuai and the others are their own counties.
Anyway, actually having state law that reflects the law of the land oftentimes takes a backseat to figuring out real problems (like how Hawaii can restrict open carry when the way they were doing it before was declared unconstitutional!) and not only are there real concrete ways that states made an end run around that particular Supreme Court ruling, it’s in pretty bad faith to leave out the very vague statements to that effect in the link I pasted at the beginning of this comment to say “your link describes Hawaii as a shall-issue state per a previous supreme Court ruling.”
Not trying to start a pedantic back and forth, just wanted to be clear about what the source says and why that’s important.
I’m not sure why it would. Almost every state requires some manner of concealed carry permit, and it’s not uncommon for there to be some manner of registration for some weapons, as long as the permitting and registration processes are “reasonable” and not designed to infringe on your rights.
The problem is Hawaii is not shall-issue as the vast majority of states are. One can be denied such merely because the official feels like it, despite fully qualifying and jumping every hoop.
Is the issue that he was denied needlessly, or that he didn’t even try to register or get a carry license?
Also, your link describes Hawaii as a shall-issue state per a previous supreme Court ruling.
There’s Shall Issue and there’s “Shall Issue”. Where I live (Bay area) it’s 18 months wait and about $2,000 in fees including a state appointed psychiatrist who asks questions all of which have obvious correct answers. I think you need a coworker (specifically a coworker) to write a reference letter too. Also there’s a separate law saying you cannot carry in most places, basically rendering the permit useless.
I’m not sure what Hawaii was doing but basically all the blue states have some flavor of this, where in the past your kids just had to go to the same school at the sheriff’s or you had to be an executive at a company or a celebrity and you got to carry anywhere you liked. At least now the same rules apply to everyone?
Okay?
So you’re not sure what Hawaii’s rules on carry permits are, but you’re sure they’re bad, and that excuses not registering a weapon purchased out of state.
For the record, a cursory search says it’s pretty straightforward to get a permit. Like, take a safety course, fill out a form and provide copies of a photo of yourself and get fingerprinted.
And yeah, they do have restrictions on where you can carry, which sounds like a protection of the rights of the rest of the people to me. If people don’t want to be around guns, they should be able to say you can’t bring one into their home or store without explicit permission, at the least.
What I never get is how people who don’t want to be around guns are generally perfectly fine being around people on a payroll to carry guns (not just cops, i mean bodyguards, armored trucks, etc). It takes shockingly little to get that qualification. It’s everything you listed where I live, without any technicalities or weird hoops, much easier than a carry permit, you don’t even need to have a formal personal protection or cash transport business. I know a bunch of people who got guard cards for the hell of it. The fact is the people who jump through all the hoops to get a permit are never the issue.
For one, I’m not sure what that has to do with this conversation. Generally speaking, the sort of person who carries a gun for work isn’t the same sort of person who thinks they need a gun to buy milk.
Second, bold of you to assume that people who don’t want to be around guns are entirely okay with them in the situations you mentioned. Most of them would rather not be around armed police, they would just prefer a police officer to a rando, because again, the cop didn’t get up and think “I better make sure I’m ready to kill people in case it comes up at the grocery store”.
Funnily enough that is exactly what the cop said. If he gets a call to a grocery store about some violent dickhead, he may be right, too.
Not to mention the cops have a reputation of shooting unarmed black people, are actually statistically worse shots than CCW holders, and statistically commit less crimes than CCW holders.
So the difference there is that someone called the cops to the grocery store, as opposed to a rando taking their gun to buy milk.
Do you really not see the difference between a job where people pay you to carry a gun, and some random person deciding that they want to carry a gun just in case?
One has the job of “person we decided responds to violent situations, while they’re are work doing what we asked them to do”, and the other is "I have no idea who this person is, they’re wearing a dirty T-shirt, holding a cartoon of milk and wearing a pistol at the checkout line of this 7-11”.
With a cop, you have a known quantity and you know why they have the gun. With rando, you just know they have a gun, with no clue why.
Finally, you’re totally correct. That’s why a lot of people don’t exactly like being around armed police either.
Is it so hard to imagine that some people are made to feel less safe being around people with guns, and would like to avoid it where possible?
Saw another post and thought of your response here… I think the difference is those of us who know what it takes absolutely feel more comfortable around people who have something to lose, because they do not conflate their position with expertise granting blanket immunity from consequences for their mistakes.
(cop startled by falling acorn, empties gun into occupied building) https://old.reddit.com/r/Idiotswithguns/comments/1aq4jjr/a_bit_excessive/kqaj4kh/
You seem to keep coming back to some belief that I hold cops in some esteem. I don’t.
For all the warts of the profession, they’re still a known quantity. You know why the cop has the gun. You know they completed their minimum of one semester of training and bare minimum psychological evaluation. You know they have a high school diploma.
Anyone else, you know that they could … Afford a gun. If it’s concealed, you know that they took an eight hour course in safety. You know rather little about their stability or anything else. You don’t know why they brought the gun.
In both cases, you also know that they likely exceed those minimums by a fair margin.
As mentioned, cpl holders tend to be enthusiastic and proficient, law abiding citizens. Where I live cops tends to have four year degrees on top of a full year of dedicated police training and supplementary medical training and continuing education requirements.
Again, don’t particularly want to have either around me, but one has less question marks.
Also, linking to idiots with guns isn’t a great way to testify to the responsibility of gun owners.
Small thing I want to point out.
I don’t feel like I need a fire extinguisher in my kitchen to make some pancakes. Is it a good idea? Sure. The chances are really small that I’ll need it, but I’ll be very happy to have it in case the worst case scenario comes up.
I don’t carry a gun to the grocery store because I’m afraid I’ll need it, I carry because I acknowledge that violent crime happens randomly to normal people like me and I’d rather be prepared for it than not. Modern guns retained in concealed holsters are actually very safe. They don’t just “go off” on their own, and the only reason someone would draw theirs is if their life or a loved one’s was in immediate danger.
I don’t get up in the morning thinking “I better make sure I’m ready to kill people in case it comes up at the grocery store.” That’s way too reductive and gung ho.
Do you take your fire extinguisher with you to the store also?
When you drive there, do you make sure to buckle your five point harness and put on your full visor helmet?
Do you carry you basic EMS kit with you at all times? What about a couple doses of narcan? EpiPen?
My point is, the gun is a big piece of equipment for a very niche contingency. There are significantly more likely threats that you can take care of with less burden to your daily life than even the modest inconvenience of carrying a weapon.
Don’t pretend that you need to carry a gun to the grocery store.
You want to carry a gun, for whatever reason.
No one thinks the gun is just gonna magic itself out of the holster and shoot someone.
The point is the gun doesn’t make anyone else feel more safe. No one thinks to themselves “oh good, a stranger with a gun has arrived. That’s just what this Baskin Robbins needed”.
Its shall issue. Just because you do all that, you can still be denied.
It doesn’t really describe it that way.
So more like “they’re supposed to be shall issue now but who knows if that’s happening”.
In Hawaii you need the same permit for open or concealed carry.
Since the young case got vacated and relitigated they’re jumping on the chance to go ahead and update the law in light of their now dejure shall issue status.
Basically the state got told it can’t have a defacto no issue concealed carry policy and they were relying on that to keep people from open carrying either. Now they gotta outlaw open carry explicitly.
https://apnews.com/article/hawaii-gun-control-law-concealed-carry-permit-72e5ebe107fdea85319a4552dcb23b97
It’s pretty explicit what the state of the law is.
I’d say it’s description is clear that they’re “shall issue” with a history of different laws.
I was replying to your comment saying that the other persons link to “https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_concealed_carry_in_the_United_States” said Hawaii was shall issue.
I quoted the relevant section to make it easier to explain that while a recent sc ruling had overturned the states may issue law, that law was not only still on the books, there were weird inconsistencies now to iron out and (and I didn’t talk about this one, shame on me for assuming it would be assumed) there are possibly onerous requirements on permit holders.
The requirement that springs to mind for Hawaii is that permits are not honored outside their issuing county (!), which is absurd for people living in the contiguous states and Alaska but in Hawaii presents a whole bunch of other weird problems because just going from my fifth grade memory the counties all use islands as their borders, so there’s maui with a couple of sizable landmasses in it but kuai and the others are their own counties.
Anyway, actually having state law that reflects the law of the land oftentimes takes a backseat to figuring out real problems (like how Hawaii can restrict open carry when the way they were doing it before was declared unconstitutional!) and not only are there real concrete ways that states made an end run around that particular Supreme Court ruling, it’s in pretty bad faith to leave out the very vague statements to that effect in the link I pasted at the beginning of this comment to say “your link describes Hawaii as a shall-issue state per a previous supreme Court ruling.”
Not trying to start a pedantic back and forth, just wanted to be clear about what the source says and why that’s important.
Are you intentionally untruthful or just ignorant?
Is your definition of “almost every” LESS THAN HALF?
These are facts which are easy to look up and here you are spreading misinformation.
Your information is out of date. 27 states now have “constitutional carry”, where there is no need for a permit.