|
"So it is not clear to me, but may be if I did a lot more research for which I have no desire, that the Hawaii card is sufficient to make a holder a prohibited person. However, it may be enough to provide probable cause for the police to confiscate weapons during an investigation as the card tends to establish that one is a regular user." - dreaming
That is where I have arrived in trying to understanding this. But I believe it can be clarified based upon the legal issues covered so far. I believe the discussion so far points to the card itself as being a prohibited person indicator, or "probable cause" as you said.
I need to quote the Frank Ettin post #17 where: "This sort of thing is not uncommon, especially in civil rights litigation. Lawyers' look for, or arrange, a factually clean situation, without extraneous issues. That way they can expect a focused court decision."
As others have begun to point out, I am not a lawyer either but it seems to me that the Wilson v. Lynch case might have resolved this issue except for this: "Accordingly, we affirm on the ground of lack of standing the district court’s dismissal of Wilson’s claims concerning § 922(g)(3)..."
This takes me back to the second sentence in the above dreaming quote. Is the Hawaii gun confiscation notice being sent to their card holders entirely based upon "probable cause"? If so what is the investigation that is going on ?
Maybe I can ask that question like this: Does the card holder become a felon when they take possession of the card ? (Fighting hard to resist the humor of who might actually own the card.)
|