- Messages
- 5,749
- Reactions
- 18,151
- Thread Starter
- #21
In regards to the chart from your prior post, I think I know the guy who prepared it. He used "CCW" to mean the same thing it means in California "Carry Concealable Weapon" (e.g., a handgun). Nearly everyone thinks it means "Carry Concealed Weapon."
California does have handgun Open Carry licenses available to the general public but they are only theoretically available in counties with a population of fewer than 200,000 people and are only valid in the county of issuance. Both are called CCW licenses in California.
The state's attorney you saw in the video clip fumbling his oral argument has been replaced with attorney Neal Kumar Katyal. Do not expect him to make a shambles of his oral argument like his predecessor did.
Neal Katyal - Wikipedia
I suspect that Katyal will stick to his "script" which is to say his en banc petition, notwithstanding questions asked by the panel.
https://michellawyers.com/wp-conten...Hawaii_Petition-for-Rehearing-En-Banc_155.pdf
There are many problems with Katyal's argument but even if we accept that Intermediate Scrutiny applies, as four other Federal circuit court of appeals have held, the states in those other circuits actually issue handgun carry permits to the general public. Hawaii's law, H.R.S. 134-9 allows for a de facto ban on the issuance of carry permits to the general public, and there is no way to square that with Intermediate Scrutiny.
Also, Intermediate Scrutiny requires the state to present evidence in support of the law. The procedural posture of Mr. Young's appeal is that his case was dismissed by the district court judge, on a motion to dismiss, without leave to amend and without the state submitting any evidence.
A similar thing happened in the 7th circuit court of appeals in Moore v. Madigan. That did not turn out very well for the State of Illinois.
Ah! I see they changed the application to include "open/concealed" on the HPD website.
Either way, I would not own a firearm here. I am a physician who does the mental health clearances for firearms here in Hawaii and I do not believe in signing away access to medical records to the state. I've also seen the local police on the Big Island abuse the process and require people to get a mental health clearance who had absolutely nothing in the records to prompt it. It seems the police just do that to people they dont like and until recently there wasnt any physician here who cleared people. I even called the firearm division here to ask what my power was as a physician and they said that I'd just have to call up and they would cancel a persons firearm permit for any reason just on my say. I dont believe in physicians having power over a right like that.