Hawaii Sensitive Places

Hawaii has a law banning guns in certain "sensitive locations."  The law reads (emphasis added):

[§134-9.5]  

(a)  A person carrying a firearm pursuant to a license issued under section 134-9 shall not intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly enter or remain on private property of another person while carrying a loaded or unloaded firearm, whether the firearm is operable or not, and whether the firearm is concealed or unconcealed, unless the person has been given express authorization to carry a firearm on the property…

(b)  For purposes of this section, express authorization to carry or possess a firearm on private property shall be signified by:

                          (1)  Unambiguous written or verbal authorization; or

(2)  The posting of clear and conspicuous signage at the entrance of the building or on the premises…indicating that carrying or possessing a firearm is authorized.

Sounds a lot like New York State’s misnamed Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA).

The law was initially blocked by a district court judge.

A 3-judge panel of the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (the most far-left, most reversed circuit court in the United States) reversed the judge and upheld the law, in 2024. In his dissent, Judge Lawrence VanDyke said the law "effectively nullified the Second Amendment rights of millions of Hawaiians." 

The Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has agreed to hear a court case challenging the private property part of this; Wolford v. Lopez.  (Lopez is Hawaii’s Attorney General and will defend the law.)  No date has been set for oral arguments.

Wolford et al and the Hawaii Firearms Coalition say that the case violates the 2022 SCOTUS decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which states that firearm restrictions need to be consistent with the nation’s “history and tradition.”

…the Ninth Circuit erred in holding, in direct conflict with the Second Circuit, that Hawaii may presumptively prohibit the carry of handguns by licensed concealed carry permit holders on private property open to the public unless the property owner affirmatively gives express permission to the handgun carrier, and that

the Ninth Circuit erred in solely relying on post-Reconstruction Era and later laws in applying Bruen’s text, history and tradition test* in direct conflict with the holdings of the Third, Fifth, Eighth and Eleventh Circuits.

The Trump administration’s Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in a court filing:

"From the earliest days of the republic, individuals have been free to carry firearms on private property unless the property owner directs otherwise…Because most property owners do not post signs either allowing or forbidding guns, Hawaii’s default rule functions as a near-complete ban on public carry. A person carrying a handgun for self-defense commits a crime by entering a mall, a gas station, a convenience store, a supermarket, a restaurant, a coffee shop, or even a parking lot."

"The structure and operation of Hawaii’s law reveal that the law serves no legitimate purpose and instead seeks only to inhibit the exercise of the right to bear arms."

Hawaii argued in a brief that the Second Amendment does not override a property owner’s right:

“The rule can be upheld for the independent reason that it represents a valid governmental effort to vindicate property owners’ fundamental right to exclude by enacting a default rule that comports with the community’s reasonable expectations…there is no right to engage in speech or carry firearms on someone else’s property without her consent."

* Under Bruen’s text, history and tradition test:

The first step is to look at the original text and meaning of the Second Amendment. The courts have held that “the people” are at least Americans who have reached the age of majority, which in the United States is 18 years of age. Handguns are bearable arms, so the Second Amendment covers the plaintiffs’ conduct.

The second step puts the burden on the state. It must show that a law is consistent with the nation’s history and tradition of firearms regulation by using historical analogues.

The question that is argued is whether historical analogues must come from founding era, which most consider to be the ratification date of the Second Amendment in 1791. Others argue it is the ratification date of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, which, they hope, allows them to try and use ‘Jim Crow Era’ laws restricting gun ownership of blacks.’

In Israel, south of Jerusalem, an Israeli Defense Force reservist (IDFer) was driving when he heard the sound of a crash behind him.  He looked in the mirror and saw a vehicle had driven into a bus stop.  He stopped his car and quickly exited and saw wounded people with blood on them. Then, he saw a man get out of the offending vehicle but he did not know if this was an attacker or an accident victim.  When someone shouted, ‘He has a knife,’ the IDFer drew his concealed pistol, chambered a round, held it in two hands at eye-level, and confronted the terrorist.  The IDFer shouted for the attacker to stop, in Arabic.  Instead, the attacker began what was described by the IDFer as “a frenzied run toward me.” The IDFer fired two shots at the attacker’s legs and the IDFer believes at least one of them hit.  But the attacker kept running so, while backpedaling, the IDFer shot him in the center of mass, and the attacker fell.

The IDFer added, “In my opinion, he was drugged. I shouted at him, and he continued advancing toward me. I shot him, and he fell. The word 'neutralized' is a euphemism; it has no place in this context. Terrorists must be killed.”

Perhaps the IDFer was initially following Joe Biden’s advice to shoot assailants, “in the leg instead of the heart.”  Or, at one time, Israelis were instructed to “shoot at the feet first.” Whichever the case, the IDFer was unwisely adhering to bad advice.

When one’s life is directly and imminently threatened, one needs to stop the threatening individual as quickly as possible. Most would agree that the best way to stop an individual is to inflict lethal wounds, preferably multiple lethal wounds!  And the best way to do that is shooting ‘center mass.’

A favorite feature of old westerns was for the ‘good guy’ to shoot the gun out of the hand of the ‘bad guy’, usually without wounding the ‘bad guy,’ just disarming him.  Unless you have a death wish, don’t try that in real life.

And even more menacing to your continued good health is to “shoot to wound.”  Attempting to use your pistol to inflict wounds intended to be “non-fatal” endangers your own life and needlessly prolongs the incident.

When someone gets a gun for protection, they need to realize that stopping a threatening individual almost always involves inflicting grievous wounds that will likely end the attacker’s life.  An unpleasant but necessary fact, to be considered. Before an incident happens, gun owners need to think about when to use lethal force.  It should be used as a last resort. 

DOJ vs LA Sheriff

SCOPE had previously reported that Attorney General Pam Bondi had announced the formation of a Department of Justice (DOJ) “Second Amendment Enforcement Task Force.” Bondi noted, “For too long, the Second Amendment, which establishes the fundamental individual right of Americans to keep and bear arms, has been treated like a second-class right. No more. It is the policy of this Department of Justice to use its full might to protect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.”

In the Task Force’s first high-profile move, the DOJ filed a federal lawsuit against the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, alleging deliberate delaying tactics by the Sheriff’s Department in processing applications for California concealed carry licenses.

The complaint was filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Some quotes from the complaint:

“…Between January 2024 and March 2025, Defendants received 3,982 applications for new concealed carry licenses. Of these, they approved exactly two…This is not bureaucratic inefficiency; it is systematic obstruction of constitutional rights.”

“The mechanics of this obstruction are equally damning. Defendants force applicants to wait an average of 281 days—over nine months—just to begin processing their applications, with some waiting as long as 1,030 days (nearly three years). The median delay is 372 days. These delays far exceed California’s own statutory requirement that licensing authorities provide initial determinations within 90 days, demonstrating Defendants’ flagrant disregard for both state law and constitutional obligations.”

“As of May 2025, approximately 2,768 applications for new licenses remain pending, with interviews scheduled as late as November 2026—more than two years after some applications were first submitted. Numerous applicants simply gave up and withdrew their applications, often after waiting months in Defendants’ deliberately stalled process. These are not abstract statistics; they represent thousands of law-abiding citizens who have been stripped of their constitutional right to self-defense outside their homes.”

“…Defendants have constructed an administrative labyrinth designed to frustrate and ultimately deny this fundamental right to virtually all who seek to exercise it.”

It appears that Bondi’s DOJ is serious in defending 2A rights. 

As SCOPE previously wrote, the significance of this is that citizens will not have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars suing the LA Sheriff’s office but, instead, we have the federal government using its resources to right an obvious wrong about a fundamental right.

Unfortunately, similar practices in Democrat run states make this a huge problem and will require huge resources to counteract these unconstitutional practices.

Lessons From General Marshall

Many 2nd Amendment defenders and SCOPE members are veterans who follow, with considerable interest, the goings-on in the current military service.  On Tuesday, the senior military officers and enlisted were called to a meeting by Secretary of War Hegseth and President Trump.

But first, a little history. 

General George C. Marshall was the highest-ranking Army officer in World War 2; at that time, the Air Force was known as the Air Corps and was also a part of the Army.  Marshall was sworn in on September 1, 1939.  The same day that World War 2 started with the German invasion of Poland.  (What a way to start a new job!)  The U.S.A. did not enter the war until Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941.

In his book, The Generals, Thomas E. Ricks writes that Marshall understood that political and other pressures “had resulted in the appointment to high command in past wars of so many mediocre and even incompetent officers.”  Marshall set about weeding out ‘mediocre and incompetent officers’ before the USA entered the war.  He later said about this subject, “I was accused…of getting rid of all the brains of the army.  I couldn’t reply that I was eliminating considerable arteriosclerosis.”

At Tuesday’s meeting, Secretary of War Hegseth said that the military has promoted too many leaders for the wrong reasons; political pressure based on race, gender quotas and historic firsts.  “The era of politically correct, overly sensitive don’t-hurt-anyone’s-feelings leadership ends right now at every level.”

Sounds straight out of George Marshall’s plan to increase military readiness and effectiveness.

Even before Marshall was appointed Chief of Staff, he was thinking about what would be the necessary traits for the upper ranks when a war broke out.  Two of the qualities he was to demand of his officers were “physically strong” and “display marked energy.*  Marshall had “determined that most of the top generals in the Army were too aged for combat, and just below them were many officers who were also past their prime.”

At Tuesday’s meeting, Hegseth said, “…I’m also directing that war fighters in combat jobs execute their service fitness test at a gender-neutral, age-normed, male-standard, scored above 70%...It all starts with physical fitness and appearance. If the Secretary of War can do regular, hard, PT, so can every member of our joint forces.”

Sounding absolutely Marshal-like.  Hegseth added that the physical fitness standards included generals and admirals.

By the time we entered WW2, two years after he had assumed office, Marshall estimated that he had forced out at least 600 officers.  It will be interesting to see the reaction and results from Hegseth’s imitation of General Marshall.

Hegseth has issues to deal with that Marshall did not.  It would not be only generals and admirals complaining about new physical fitness standards.  Anticipating criticism, Hegseth said it is not about preventing women from serving in combat positions.  “If women can make it, excellent; if not, it is what it is. If that means no women qualify for some combat jobs, so be it," he said. "That is not the intent…”

President Donald Trump summed up the meeting, but he could also have been summing up the purpose of the 2nd Amendment: “The [purpose] of America’s military is not to protect anyone’s feelings. It’s to protect our republic…We will not be politically correct when it comes to defending American freedom. And we will be a fighting and winning machine.”

The Socialism movement in America has a goal of disarming the American citizen and Socialists have made inroads by hiding their ultimate goal behind emotional terms meant to evoke feelings instead of rational thinking.  “Gun violence” and “assault weapon” are a few examples.    

Our military deals with national defense and the 2nd Amendment is intended to work in parallel to our military and deal with local defense; personal protection.  Just as what is now happening in our military, we must cut through the rhetoric, stand firm against every attempt to weaken the 2nd Amendment and roll back the inroads made over the past ninety years.  No wavering when it comes to defending the freedoms protected by our Constitution.     

*The other qualities Marshall wanted were: good common sense; have studied your profession; cheerful and optimistic; extreme loyalty; determined.

Projection  by Tom Reynolds

There is a saying that whatever the Democrats are accusing you of doing, they are already doing, themselves.  I saw a recent article in Ammoland that adds another dimension to that saying and, perhaps, it explains some of the motivation of the Left. 

Sigmund Freud called it “projection.”  People assign their own fears, flaws, and impulses to others as a psychological defense mechanism.  It’s easier to accuse someone else and attach your own toxic personality traits onto others than it is to confront yourself.  For example: If a man feels emasculated and insecure, he labels masculinity itself as “toxic.”

Projection is also political and it might just explain why the anti-gun Left is so determined to disarm law-abiding Americans.

The Democrat leadership will tell you guns are the cause of violence as if an inanimate object can, by itself, initiate violence.  Or are they really projecting their own thoughts that, “If I had a gun, I might lose control.” It’s not our behavior that they’re afraid of, it is their own behavior, projected onto us. 

Lately, there have been several “gun violence” incidents by radical left wingers.  The media and the Democrat leadership quickly blamed guns for the actions of those left-wing radicals and called for more gun control.  Is it deliberate misinformation or political spin or is it the Democrats’ inability to face uncomfortable truths about themselves?  Did the Democrat elite again come face-to-face with their own worst fears about themselves?

Their inability (or refusal) to self-reflect when mixed with their toxic ideology becomes extremely dangerous. (We on the Right are not paranoid, the Left really is out to get us!) 

Everyone can fall into the same trap.  But on the right, there’s a level of moral restraint, (spiritual / religious grounding), that keeps most – but not all - of us from acting out violent fantasies. Many of us live with a belief in higher accountability. But in an atheistic communist society, there is no spiritual higher power.  Those with a conscience tend to use their power responsibly. Those without a conscience, who project their violent impulses on others, can become unpredictable and unstable.

Does the Left oppose civilian gun ownership because they assume that we’ll use a gun the way they imagine themselves using it? That we’ll act on the same immoral impulses they’ve refused to confront in themselves? 

Do they want to be sure we cannot use guns against the Democrat power elite because they see themselves as taking up arms against the Republican power elite?

To SCOPE members and many other Americans, a firearm is a tool for protection, for hunting, for preserving life, and defending the innocent. To others, it’s a tool of power and aggression. That difference lies not in the object, but in the mind of the holder.

Should we worry about the person who views a gun as a last line of defense or the one who sees it as a first strike in an act of violence?

NY City

Two off-duty officers were waiting in plain clothes for the train on a Long Island Rail Road platform when a man attempted to rob them. One of the officers shot the thief and he was hospitalized in stable condition. The officers sustained minor injuries.

 The police identified the thief as Jahmar Stewart, 32, whose last known address is a Brooklyn homeless shelter.

Three - of many - issues here are NY City’s soft on crime policies, the inability of NY City citizens to get a concealed carry permit and "gun-free zones"

According to the New York Post, Stewart has a number of arrests to his name this year. New York City's soft-on-crime policies returned a violent suspect to the streets, even when he was already facing charges from a previous arrest.

Stewart was arrested on August 8th for allegedly attacking another resident at the homeless shelter.  The victim was gathering his belongings when he got into an argument with Stewart, who slugged him multiple times.  The top charge in that case was third-degree assault, which is not bail-eligible, and Stewart was released on his own recognizance.

Stewart was busted on a petit larceny charge July 16th for allegedly stealing fruit juice from a bodega on East New York Avenue.

Stewart was also arrested and charged with menacing in July for allegedly threatening another resident at the homeless shelter with a knife, but was released on his own recognizance.

Stewart was arrested and charged with misdemeanor assault in June, after allegedly hitting another resident in the head with a tree branch. 

If they are going to allow criminals to roam the streets, shouldn’t citizens be able to ‘bear arms’ to protect themselves.  Didn’t the Supreme Court’s heller McDonald and Bruen decisions have something to say about citizens bearing arms to protect themselves?  Apparently, Supreme Court decisions do not apply in NY City.

The NYPD is slow-walking the issuance of concealed carry permits. In fact, the department won't even say how many permits have been issued this year, but there are ongoing lawsuits featuring plaintiffs who have waited a year or more to receive their carry permit.  In other cases, litigants have been awarded their permits only after they've filed suit.  (You have to hire an attorney or threaten a lawsuit to exercise a fundamental civil right in NYC, unless you're willing to wait a year or two before being able to legally bear arms.) 

Since most of NYC is a “gun free zone,” the few New York City residents who've been able to obtain a license to carry are prohibited from lawfully carrying throughout much of the five boroughs, including on public transportation, A 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals panel upheld "gun-free zones", declaring that "prohibiting firearms in quintessentially crowded places" is part of the national tradition of gun ownership.   

There's virtually no chance of legislative relief in New York State dominated by leftist gun grabbers in all three branches of government.  There is litigation but it will take years. In the meantime, American citizens in New York City remain at risk from violent predators and are prohibited from exercising their Second Amendment right to armed self-defense.

This was apparently the third attempted robbery of off-duty police officers in the Big Apple within a week-long span.  Luckily for the police, they can carry a firearm when off duty; something denied to almost all other law-abiding New York City residents.  Why should off-duty law enforcement be the only ones who can protect themselves with a firearm in these dangerous environments? 

Answer.  Because Kathy Hochul says so.  If you don’t like being told what you can’t do, vote  her out in 2026.

Why is the Democrat Party losing voters?

Minnesota state Senator Ron Latz (DFL) said that women, not men, need special training to own a firearm.  “….a firearm owned by a woman for self-defense, the evidence is it is more likely to end up being used against her by the attacker rather than used to successfully defend herself. That’s the data, so maybe that points to the even greater need for training on how to use the firearm and to prevent it from being taken by an attacker and used against her.”

Latz did not provide any substantiation for the “evidence” or “data” to which he alluded.

A male Democrat categorizes women needing more training than men in the use of a tool that does not require any special male gender advantages like size or strength.

So much for sexism being trumpeted as a Republican’ vice.

________________________________________________

And if you think only male Democrats have views in contrast to reality.

 NPR’s Tonya Mosely asked former Vice President Kamala Harris about her gun control platform: “In cities like Philadelphia, handguns are responsible for most homicides and violent crime.  How will you address the issue of the use of handguns because a push for an assault weapons ban only addresses, um, a significant but small part of the problem?”  (Emphasis added.)

The former vice president couldn’t answer why Democrats are going after “Assault Weapons” when hand guns are a much bigger issue.  Harris tried to deflect with the standard Democrat cliché that Modern Sporting Rifles need to be banned and universal background checks must be implemented. 

Mosely interrupted and pressed her further: “Respectfully, we do understand that. But I’m asking specifically about handguns because many of those handguns aren’t purchased at places that run background checks. In many of those instances those handguns aren’t bought lawfully.”  (Emphasis added)

The ex Vice President had no response to the logical reasoning that criminals do not follow the law.  Harris shifted her answer to another gun control cliché – gun shows, when she said: “But the gun show loophole and why we need to close that. Because what ends up happening is that gun shows at flea markets, gun dealers are not, under existing law in the past, required to register their sales.”

Contrary to Harris statement, the facts are:

gun dealers (FFL’s) are required to do background checks not matter where the gun is sold;

the federal government is prohibited, by law, from keeping a gun registry;

And as to the “gun show loophole,” according to the Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics’ study of federal and state inmates who used a gun in commission of a crime, “Inmates, 2016:”

90% did not obtain it from a retail source.

43% obtained it “off the street” or from the “underground market”

7% found it at the scene of the crime

6% stole it

0.8% obtained the firearm at a gun show 

The “gun show loophole” that Harris references is a myth.

_______________________________________

Harris did not have an answer for criminals illegally buying handguns, but Representative Jasmine Crockett, (D-Texas) provided cover; criminals aren’t necessarily criminals. 

Crockett appeared on Jonathan Van Ness’ "Getting Better" podcast, where the host asked her to share one key fact she wishes more people knew about crime in America.

“…just because someone has committed a crime, it doesn’t make them a criminal. That is completely different. Being a criminal is more so about your mindset. Committing a crime can come for a lot of different reasons."

I wonder if crime victims would feel better if they knew they were not criminalized by a criminal?

Nevada

In Point of Contract (POC) states, firearm purchase background checks go through state or local authorities, rather than the FBI’s NICS system.  These states are: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, New Jersey, Oregon, Utah, Tennessee, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Washington, Illinois, Nevada  and New York. 

On August 24, a ransomware attack took down Nevada’s POC system.  Federal Firearm Licensee (FFL) dealers in Nevada were unable to process firearm transfers for most customers until September 14th.  (That’s three weeks.)

Apparently, many of the state’s computer systems are integrated as this also impacted the DMV, Medicaid, SNAP, and WIC benefits. 

When the state’s system went offline, so did the ability to run POC background checks. Without clearance, most firearm sales could not legally be completed.  Nevadans with a valid Concealed Carry Permit (CCP) could take possession of purchased firearms; a CCP serves as an alternative form of clearance under Nevada state law.  All other sold guns piled up in gun shops waiting for state background checks.  And how many sales were lost? This has had a serious impact on the financial health of many gun shops.

It has also put people at risk.  Individuals who wanted to purchase a gun for the first time weren’t likely to have a CCP.  If these non CCP people wanted a gun to be protected from abuse, a stalker, gang violence in the neighborhood, etc. well…too bad.

Governor Joe Lombardo was asked to issue an emergency declaration that would allow FFLs to submit their background checks directly to the NICS System.  The governor never replied, which is a polite way of saying, “Forget it!”  (We New Yorkers can anticipate a similar reply from Governor Hochul when this happens in New York State.)

The Nevada Office of Emergency Management admits that: “hackers exfiltrated data” during the attack. What a relief!  The hackers did not steal any data, they only “exfiltrated” the data which means they copied information out of state systems and took it off-site…Oh wait, isn’t that stealing?

Governor Lombardo said that residents’ personal information had not been compromised.  That’s encouraging since we New Yorkers know that governors never lie! 

But just in case, Lombardo also said: “If investigators eventually discover otherwise, we will follow Nevada strict statutes about personal data breaches by notifying any affected individuals promptly and providing resources to help protect them.”

If data was “exfiltrated” and includes firearms-related information, this breach could expose the identities and addresses of law-abiding Nevada gun owners, which would identify households most likely to contain firearms. If Nevada gun owner data is now in the hands of criminals…

Could this happen in New York State since we are also a POC state?

Remember how smoothly establishing the NYS system went?  (Sarcasm intended.) 

NY State has been losing gun shops and a three-week shut down would probably put many more out of business.  Would Kathy Hochul and the NY Legislature feel bad about that?  FFL’s in NY State must be hyperventilating when they think about their businesses’ future being dependent on the quality of security in the NY State computer network.

Legal Updates Highlights

Schuyler County sends out “Legal Updates” every month, which can also be found in its entirety on SCOPE’s website.  Other highlights are in the Firing Lines.  Below are two articles showing growth in gun ownership, even in New York City.

Brooklyn’s newest gun store in 50 years opens with focus on education and safety

A National Rifle Association-certified firearms instructor and trainer has opened Brooklyn’s newest gun store in 50 years.  Owner Michael Bergida has reported a steady stream of phone calls and customers.

Customers are only allowed to enter the highly secure double door entrance by appointment and people must show their gun license.

Bergida was inspired to start the business from the June 2022 Supreme Court decision, New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. v. Bruen. The landmark ruling dramatically relaxed gun laws and expanded the right to bear arms. Bergida got his license a year later and became an instructor. He opened a site to help people get licensed, learn about responsible gun ownership and learn gun safety online.

Bergida wants to educate people about responsible gun ownership through seminars and training. “A lot of people have really bad heads here when it comes to guns in New York City. There’s no gun culture here, and they don’t really understand it,” Bergida said. “My job is to educate.”

(SCOPE note: Bergida is wrong, there is a gun culture in New York City - among criminals.)

Lox & Loaded gun club aims for self-defense for Jewish community amid antisemitism threat

The gun club is aimed at giving Jews and allies the tools to defend themselves with antisemitism at historic levels in the U.S.

"It's never been easy being Jewish, but it's feeling harder and harder," said Lox & Loaded Member Jeffrey Sumber. "I think people that were in liberal households, or weren't accustomed to firearms, are realizing that the police cannot be at every street corner and every event," added gun owner Gayle Pearlstein. "We aren't big Second Amendment gun people, but we love our identity, and we will do anything to preserve it," said Daniel Schwartz, president of the Chicago Jewish Alliance, "and if that means defending it, we will."

The 2025 SCOPE Annual Banquet will be on Saturday, September 27th Tickets are $65 per person at the Palmyra VFW Post 6778 4312 NY-31, Palmyra, NY _________________________________ Email updates will be sent out as we receive speaker confirmations, and updates will also be posted on our website. The Banquet Emcee will be Conservative Radio Talk Show Host: Bob Lonsberry _______________________________________ Michael Henry:   Seeking the GOP nomination to challenge NY Attorney General Letitia James in 2026 Will be speaking _________________________________________ To purchase tickets and pay by check: *Order Form *Must be postmarked by Friday, September 12th To purchase tickets using your credit card: **2025 SCOPE Annual Banquet **Ticket sales will be closed Monday, September 15th We hope to see you there, but if you cannot make it and would like to donate to the banquet, use the red button below and type Banquet in the comment section  Thank you for your support.