The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post

Jim March · November 29, 2012, 01:26 AM

We're forgetting about Hawaii, aren't we? The panel will also be confronting that situation where carry is just as completely banned (in practice if not in law) as in Illinois!

So, let's say the court says "there has to be SOME carry" (overturning Hawaii's practices) but supporting shall-issue as most or all California counties do it in line with Kachalski.

Well that would be interesting in once sense...and would benefit me personally. Because as an AZ resident I cannot get a Cali CCW at all - totally barred.

So a ruling in favor of California's state government but against Hawaii might well be usable by people like me in Cali. Weird.

THAT aside, having to confront the Hawaii situation means they MUST addresses situations where carry is completely banned. They cannot ignore that particular case as the Kachalski panel could.

November 29, 2012, 01:26 AM	#6
Jim March Senior Member Join Date: February 14, 1999 Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA Posts: 7,417	We're forgetting about Hawaii, aren't we? The panel will also be confronting that situation where carry is just as completely banned (in practice if not in law) as in Illinois! So, let's say the court says "there has to be SOME carry" (overturning Hawaii's practices) but supporting shall-issue as most or all California counties do it in line with Kachalski. Well that would be interesting in once sense...and would benefit me personally. Because as an AZ resident I cannot get a Cali CCW at all - totally barred. So a ruling in favor of California's state government but against Hawaii might well be usable by people like me in Cali. Weird. THAT aside, having to confront the Hawaii situation means they MUST addresses situations where carry is completely banned. They cannot ignore that particular case as the Kachalski panel could. __________________ Jim March