Just Like the Founders Intended?

So to begin with the law that’s being challenged here was a Hawaii law that applies to individuals who have already been approved … to have concealed carry permits. They’ve already been approved. They’ve gone through the background checks. They’ve gone through the fingerprinting … They’ve gone through the whole process and been approved to conceal carry a handgun in the state of Hawaii. And after they approved to carry a gun in Hawaii, there’s two additional two additional steps that must be taken before they can buy a handgun. The first step is that they have to get a permit to purchase form. And once they get that permit to purchase form in their hands, they only have 30 days to go out and buy the handgun with that permit to purchase form. And if that permit to purchase form goes more than 30 days from the date it’s issued by Hawaii, then that permit to purchase form is void. It is expired and no good, which means you could have to go back and go get another purchase to permit form to acquire a handgun under these various restrictions. The other critical thing that they challenge, the other part of Hawaii law they challenge is once you acquire the handgun with this permit to purchase, now you go out, you buy the gun, you get the gun, you take it in your possession, you then under Hawaii law have five days, that’s right, just five days to take your newly acquired handgun and walk it down to the police department and have them inspect it. [Watch]

It’s not that the majority en banc traitors on the Ninth Circuit who ruled this Constitutional don’t know they’re being evil. They’re just confident that imposing their will against the freedoms of their countrymen will never blow back on them personally.

[Via Jess]

Adventures in Aptronyms

And then Judge Salamey said the dumbest thing you could imagine. From the article:

The judge admonished Long for carrying the gun and told him he has to think before he acts. ‘Fortunately, you weren’t injured, but nonetheless, you had a gun there in the first place, which was poor judgment,’ he said. ‘And what do you need a gun for protection in a mall, in the first place?’ [More]

What’s in a name?

[Via Michael G]

The Spirit of Aloha

Hawai‘i Police Department (HPD) will hold two public hearings in August 2025, one in Hilo and one in Kona, regarding its proposal to repeal “Rules and Regulations of the Hawai’i Police Department Governing the Issuance of Licenses to Carry Concealed and Unconcealed Weapons” adopted October 29, 1997, and to adopt Rule 1 relating to Firearms Permits and Licenses, in its entirety, as well as adopt Rule 2 relating to Contested Cases. [More]

So much for where to go for updates…

C’mon, guys… No one wants to take on the work of updating and growing? If this is the extent of the following and updates, how is anyone going to take you seriously?

BREAKING: Academic Discovers Violent Crime Not Committed by ‘Law-Abiding’!

“If state lawmakers really want to reduce gun violence, the most effective policy they can enact is one that requires permits in order to purchase or possess a gun.” [More]

Don’t bother telling author Michael Siegel that “correlation = causation” is a logical fallacy. He knows.

But that trough won’t fill itself.

Ahistorical, Atextual, and Nontraditional

Gun Owners of America (GOA) and the Gun Owners Foundation today teamed up with the Coalition of New Jersey Firearm Owners to challenge the state’s onerous permitting requirements to purchase handguns as well as New Jersey’s arbitrary “one gun a month” law. [More]

You mean states that signed on to the Constitution might have balked if they saw a list of permissible infringements?

Think of It as Good Old-Fashioned Bench Electioneering

US Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor declined to put on hold a New York City licensing rule requiring prospective gun owners to show good moral character to own a firearm. In rejecting a stay request on Thursday relating to a district court order that’s being appealed, Sotomayor turned away yet another bid to prohibit government officials from enforcing their laws while being challenged in court. [More]

Sounds to me like she’s campaigning to keep her seat.

Related UPDATE

Yes, by all means.

[Via Jess]

We’re the Only Ones Processing Enough

Sometimes shining bright lights and banging pots and pans work.

Intolerable, that it took communicated outrage. And that the “concession” still isn’t good enough. And that “permits” are a thing.

[Via Jess]

To All Intents and Purposes

The Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen found that a central part of New York’s licensing process, requiring a special need to obtain a concealed-carry permit, violated the Second Amendment. Because of this, Rivera reasoned, New York can no longer presume that everyone who possesses an unlicensed firearm intends to use it illegally. [More]

The presumption ought to be that licenses are illegal.

[Via Jess]

A New York State of Mind

NYPD Granting Fewer Gun Permits After Supreme Court Ruled It Had To Grant More, Data Shows [More]

Checking the demographics of issued permits would be instructive. Are minorities “underrepresented”? Are there quotas to address that, and do they violate the Supreme Court’s recent affirmative action ruling?

Oh, and before making him the poster child for Big Apple “gun rights,” how does Dexter Taylor vote?

[Via Andy M]

So… No Poll Taxes?

In a case involving fees for commercial filming in areas under the control of the National Park Service, the DC District Court has ruled that fees charged for exercising constitutional rights of the first order are unconstitutional… ‘This regime is difficult to square with the longstanding rule that the government may not “impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution,” including the First Amendment right to free expression.’ [More]

I see this was written before a historical understanding was ruled the standard.

Still, what’s with “a right granted by the federal constitution“?

[Via Dan Gifford]