You should also be aware that the issue of CCW protected under the Ohio constitution was decided by that state's supreme court in Klein v. Leis, 99 Ohio St.3d 537, 2003. The Ohio constitutional arms clause is more obviously personal-rights oriented and is hence a good legal model for the HI clause as understood in Heller:
The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.
The court in Klein found no state constitutional protection for concealed carry of personal defense weapons, with or without a permit process. That court did however find protection for open carry, noting almost in passing that the concealed carry ban could be supported because the open carry alternative was available:
{¶24} Under intermediate scrutiny, a regulation will be upheld only if the
regulation is narrowly tailored to serve an important government interest and
leaves open other means of exercising the right. Id. The state argues that the
carrying of concealed weapons must be banned to protect public safety. Ensuring
public safety is an important government interest that would satisfy the first prong
of the test, if the statute were narrowly tailored. Further, the state correctly asserts
that the statute leaves open the ability to bear arms by openly carrying a firearm,
satisfying the third prong of the test.
This was actually a surprise to police departments in Toledo, Cleveland and many other cities which had long been arresting people for "disturbing the peace" or similar. With that practice ended, the practical effect in Klein was to create open carry legallity where it had been questionable (or certainly "questioned" by law enforcement) before. That led to proponents of personal defense gleefully engaging in open carry protest marches (in which zero violence was ever recorded) and within a year, annoyed legislators drafting a concealed carry license system that all could live with, based on objective standards (training and background check).
If your office supports legal open carry but leaves the concealed carry permit process in it's current state, a repeat of Ohio seems very likely.
This wouldn't insulate your state from costly litigation. Unlike Ohio which had no permit issuance at all at the time the Klein decision was penned, HI does have a carry permit program marked by statutory discretion by law enforcement in issuance. While it seems constitutional to have a concealed carry permit program, any discrimination, favoritism or corruption in that process would come under severe scrutiny.
Discretionary permit processes are found in a few other states, including New York and California. Sheriff Carona of Orange County California is currently facing charges for, among other problems, issuing carry permits to politically connected friends with criminal histories. In New York City, a member of the brass in charge of gun permit issuance was found to have issued permits to two members of the band "Aerosmith" while at the same time having backstage passes, shared limo rides with the band and other unusual amenities.
Are you absolutely sure behavior of this sort won't turn up in Hawaii once lawsuits and discovery begin?
Even without finding this sort of idiocy, a system of assigned access to a constitutional right via the personal discretion of unelected bureaucrats seems highly vulnerable to challenge.
At present unlicensed carry of a loaded firearm of any sort, open or concealed, are felonies in your state. This is going to have to change.
As noted, open carry will likely lead (legislatively) to concealed carry. If you scrap the current carry permit process and do open carry only, you'll at least insulate the state from lawsuits while throwing policy decisions on concealed carry back to the legislature.
Another reasonable answer would be to reform the permit process into a "shall issue" (also known as "objective standards") situation. A background check would be involved, and possibly some training standards - but we would caution you that causing the price to rise too high could trigger it's own category of litigation.
Finally, you should consider that while Heller established a personal right to arms for self defense purposes, it didn't go back and wipe out potential "militia purposes" in line with the 1792 concept of a militia. Under the "militia purposes" portion of the 2nd Amendment, it would seem rather odd to completely ban semi-automatic versions of US military personal rifles such as the M16/AR15 family, or functional equivalents. Restrictions on the full-auto versions would be easier to support in court although the matter isn't yet clear cut; the semi-auto versions are useful as "militia weapons" as US v. Miller 307 US 174 termed them via cases like Aymette v. Tennessee. We would argue that the "militia right" encompasses the right to gain skill with arms useful in a serious state or national emergency. Military-pattern rifles (altered to semi-auto for the civilian market or otherwise) have the necessary durability and cheap parts access (plus surplus ammo availability) to facilitate the level of training needed to be part of an effective militia.
In conclusion:
* Think carefully before perpetuating the ban on personal defense outside of the home, and how you want to go about opening it up.
* Be careful in general of pricing civil rights out of reach. Costs of any permit process must be kept as low as practical at a minimum, free where possible.
* Consider carefully before perpetuating total bans on hardware with a clear-cut "old school militia purpose" still present in the the right to arms.
Thank you for your kind attention to these matters, and for your wisdom in reviewing your state's laws in the post-Heller legal environment.
(signed)
-----------
Done. Thoughts?
.
