I quoted the relevant section to make it easier to explain that while a recent sc ruling had overturned the states may issue law, that law was not only still on the books, there were weird inconsistencies now to iron out and (and I didn’t talk about this one, shame on me for assuming it would be assumed) there are possibly onerous requirements on permit holders.
The requirement that springs to mind for Hawaii is that permits are not honored outside their issuing county (!), which is absurd for people living in the contiguous states and Alaska but in Hawaii presents a whole bunch of other weird problems because just going from my fifth grade memory the counties all use islands as their borders, so there’s maui with a couple of sizable landmasses in it but kuai and the others are their own counties.
Anyway, actually having state law that reflects the law of the land oftentimes takes a backseat to figuring out real problems (like how Hawaii can restrict open carry when the way they were doing it before was declared unconstitutional!) and not only are there real concrete ways that states made an end run around that particular Supreme Court ruling, it’s in pretty bad faith to leave out the very vague statements to that effect in the link I pasted at the beginning of this comment to say “your link describes Hawaii as a shall-issue state per a previous supreme Court ruling.”
Not trying to start a pedantic back and forth, just wanted to be clear about what the source says and why that’s important.
https://apnews.com/article/hawaii-gun-control-law-concealed-carry-permit-72e5ebe107fdea85319a4552dcb23b97
It’s pretty explicit what the state of the law is.
I’d say it’s description is clear that they’re “shall issue” with a history of different laws.
I was replying to your comment saying that the other persons link to “https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_concealed_carry_in_the_United_States” said Hawaii was shall issue.
I quoted the relevant section to make it easier to explain that while a recent sc ruling had overturned the states may issue law, that law was not only still on the books, there were weird inconsistencies now to iron out and (and I didn’t talk about this one, shame on me for assuming it would be assumed) there are possibly onerous requirements on permit holders.
The requirement that springs to mind for Hawaii is that permits are not honored outside their issuing county (!), which is absurd for people living in the contiguous states and Alaska but in Hawaii presents a whole bunch of other weird problems because just going from my fifth grade memory the counties all use islands as their borders, so there’s maui with a couple of sizable landmasses in it but kuai and the others are their own counties.
Anyway, actually having state law that reflects the law of the land oftentimes takes a backseat to figuring out real problems (like how Hawaii can restrict open carry when the way they were doing it before was declared unconstitutional!) and not only are there real concrete ways that states made an end run around that particular Supreme Court ruling, it’s in pretty bad faith to leave out the very vague statements to that effect in the link I pasted at the beginning of this comment to say “your link describes Hawaii as a shall-issue state per a previous supreme Court ruling.”
Not trying to start a pedantic back and forth, just wanted to be clear about what the source says and why that’s important.