It is wrong and sometimes dangerous to paint with too broad a brush.
However, we spent our time on Kauai, not on Oahu where Honolulu is. There's 40-60,000 people on the whole island.
Why anyone would travel to Hawaii just to visit Honolulu is beyond me. It's a city, just like any other city, except with better weather than most.
Wake up folks. The republican form of government we were founded on is becoming harder and harder to see every day. Before long, those last few pages too will be completely erased.
Here's the deal: it is not SCOTUS that will necessarily render the correct opinion; It was DC that claimed the 2A was a collective right, and therefore could not be applied in the Parker case. What has caused many constitutional scholars like Levinson to weigh in on this is the disturbing trend amongst the "activist" judges is to water down the "individualistic" portions of the constitution. Once you start chipping away at the individual protections, it gets easier to slide down the slippery slope to oblivion, and I think these constitutional scholars, for all their liberal or conservative views regardless of which side of the issue they fall upon realize this, and are willing to file briefs on behalf of the court and the plaintiffs citing historical evidence and legal precedent to aid the justices in rendering a decision.
let us Hope......
I am sorry if you have a bad experience with an attorney or attorneys, but I am not going to sit by and permit you or any other members to unfairly impugn an entire profession, although I do realize that your view is shared by many, if not most, other members of the Forum, so folks please spare me the +1's on the anti-lawyer posts.
Hawaii is part of the 9th Circuit and the motion to dismiss is based on the caselaw for that circuit. See Silveira v. Lockyer, 312 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 124 S. Ct. 803 (2003).
Let us all remember that the 9th circuit is the most overturned circuit of them all, and I can foresee the motion to dismiss being granted, an appeal filed and the case worming its way up to the Supreme Court.
As to Parker influencing this case, that depends on the decision in Parker.
Its going to be interesting to see what comes of this, but I'm not going to place bets just yet...
I was stationed in Hawaii when I was in the Marines. Getting out of there was the best thing ever for my gun collection.
Here's the way I could see SCOTUS ruling:
As the phrase "keep and bear arms" is an inseparable condition, such as that one cannot reasonably exist without the other, and since "the people" mentioned in many of the Bill of Rights refers to individual citizens, we hold that the District of Columbia's ban on handguns is unconstitutional, and that the citizens of the District of Columbia, as well as all United States citizens, have the inalienable right to keep and bear arms, notwithstanding reasonable denials based on age, mental defect or status as convicted felons.
With such a conclusion, and since there were no laws forbidding concealed carry in colonial days, this should prove that carrying (bearing) a concealed weapon without a permit is constitutional.
But I'm an optimist.
God, don't you just love bottom feeders....Lol..(Just kidding). I do Contract law for a living. So I can cut lawyers all I want.