Editorial: Strict guardrails for guns in public

Oahu police and the population they serve are about to adapt to a new ruling governing access to guns, and it is an uncomfortable transition. There are sure to be fireworks today when, in a hearing to be livestreamed at honolulucitycouncil.org, the Honolulu City Council considers a bill for strict guardrails on carrying firearms in public.

But in the context of heinous mass shootings in Colorado and Virginia in recent weeks, there is every reason for striking a balance between gun rights and public safety. The legislation, Bill 57, sets some needed boundaries to restrict guns in sensitive public zones, and it deserves serious consideration.

Hawaii’s four counties were tasked to craft rules for how police departments will issue permits to carry guns, ever since the U.S. Supreme Court in June handed down what’s called the Bruen decision: The U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to carry a licensed weapon outside the home.

Law enforcement authorities in Hawaii, as in New York, had restricted virtually all gun-carrying permits. The high court identified Hawaii as one of six states, plus the District of Columbia, that similarly used discretion in deciding who does and does not get licensed to carry a gun.

Now such jurisdictions, where gun-toting generally has not been embraced as part of the local culture, must chart a new course.

For the Honolulu Police Department, this started with the adoption of amendments to Chapter 15 of the Rules of the Chief of Police, authorizing permits to carry guns.

The revised chapter sets out some properly stringent requirements, including a background check, proof of training and other rules for acquisition and registration of a firearm, as well as to get a license to carry a concealed weapon.

The Supreme Court, according to Hawaii’s attorney general, still allows police to apply the same level of discretion as they did before Bruen in issuing permits for unconcealed weapons. Concealed-carry permits, however, needed to be eased, due to the Bruen decision.

Testimony offered on the HPD amendments showed some resistance from gun owners who said the rules were hurdles that ordinary citizens shouldn’t have to overcome. But in announcing the final rule, Police Chief Joe Logan rightly said he seeks the middle ground between Second Amendment protections for the right to bear arms with the public’s right to safety.

The City Council now is trying to firm up that middle ground even further. In a concurring opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Chief Justice John Roberts noted that the Second Amendment allows gun regulations, including “laws forbidding the carrying of guns in sensitive areas such as schools and government buildings.”

The decision did not strictly define “sensitive places,” which surely will leave attempts to do so, by the Council or any other government body, open to legal challenge. But that prospect should not deter Honolulu’s leadership from staking out areas where the public should have an expectation of safety.

According to Bill 57, this long list of where guns would be banned include most city owned or controlled buildings and properties, plus at schools, child-care facilities and places frequented by children, such as parks and shelters serving children; voter service centers and ballot drop boxes, and on public transportation.

Further, licensed guns could be brought into private businesses only if the establishments expressly allow it.

Will these issues be contentious? Definitely. But as Logan pointed out, Hawaii’s culture has limited public gun-carrying for more than a century. Honolulu’s citizens have a right to preserve as much of their own culture, and that assurance of safety, as the law and the courts will allow.