Post by: kptheplatypus on July 25, 2021, 01:18:24 PM
Post by: kptheplatypus on July 25, 2021, 01:20:03 PM
According to a very reputable source, Hawai’i has passed a bill that allows tasers and stun guns to be legally purchased and owned by residents of Hawai’i starting 1 January 2022. Look it up for yourself but this is a massive win and is a small step in the right direction for we firearm owners. Aloha and best of luck to all
Apparently it wasn't technically voted on and passed by everyone including the governor, but he did not take action to veto the bill and it has passed and been enacted into law starting January 2022
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on July 25, 2021, 01:42:52 PM
Hawaii government tried to get ahead of being sued to simply strike down the ban by creating a whole new "process" and set of restrictions to discourage buyers.
They know they needed to pass something to maintain some level of control over the people, but they still hated having to allow tasers in the first place.
It's like watching children throw a tantrum even after it's obvious they will not get their way.
Post by: macsak on July 25, 2021, 01:50:55 PM
The legislature and governor reluctantly created that bill and let it become law because the banning of tasers in another state was recently decided on by the courts to be unconstitutional. It was only a matter of time before Hawaii's law was overturned, too.
Hawaii government tried to get ahead of being sued to simply strike down the ban by creating a whole new "process" and set of restrictions to discourage buyers.
They know they needed to pass something to maintain some level of control over the people, but they still hated having to allow tasers in the first place.
It's like watching children throw a tantrum even after it's obvious they will not get their way.
hawaii already being sued
bill is in response to the suit...
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on July 25, 2021, 02:02:53 PM
hawaii already being sued
bill is in response to the suit...
Good to know.
I'm "still not wrong", just behind current events. :geekdanc:
Post by: macsak on July 25, 2021, 02:22:19 PM
Good to know.
I'm "still not wrong", just behind current events. :geekdanc:
you miswrote "tried to get ahead of" instead of "is"
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on July 25, 2021, 03:18:42 PM
you miswrote "tried to get ahead of" instead of "is"
That's what I get for Googling ....
Post by: changemyoil66 on July 26, 2021, 09:57:39 AM
But expect the law to be amended and registration added in later by our good buddy forehead boy.
There is also nothing in the bill that prevents you from buying tasers out of state and bringing it back with you. They messed up on that part.
Post by: omnigun on July 26, 2021, 11:37:11 AM
Post by: changemyoil66 on July 26, 2021, 01:10:49 PM
The real question is if you can legally carry that "stun gun". If it constitutes as a deadly weapon. Which many deadlier "weapons" don't like pocket knives, pepper spray, sporting equipment.
Why is "stun gun" in quotations? Are you referring to something else that is not a stun gun? Or did you have premature ejacquotation?
Can you explain what you mean by " Which many deadlier "weapons" don't like pocket knives, pepper spray, sporting equipment."
We are working on if a taser/stungun is considered a dangerous weapon under HRS134-51. The assistant AG stated in the zoom hearing that it isn't. But this was verbal and recorded which is available on Youtube. HIFICO is working on getting something in writing.
A pocket knife could be considered deadly or dangerous, depending on how you use it. If it's used for other than its intended purpose, then it falls under the HRS134-51. So if you stab someone with it. Or even bash someone over the head with a stapler, both items intended usage is not to do that. So then what about tasers? It's intended purpose is to transmit an electric current. So now we fall into the deadly category which means "causes bodily injury". So that is what is being worked on for clarification.
Post by: omnigun on July 26, 2021, 01:20:26 PM
Why is "stun gun" in quotations? Are you referring to something else that is not a stun gun? Or did you have premature ejacquotation?
Can you explain what you mean by " Which many deadlier "weapons" don't like pocket knives, pepper spray, sporting equipment."
We are working on if a taser/stungun is considered a dangerous weapon under HRS134-51. The assistant AG stated in the zoom hearing that it isn't. But this was verbal and recorded which is available on Youtube. HIFICO is working on getting something in writing.
A pocket knife could be considered deadly or dangerous, depending on how you use it. If it's used for other than its intended purpose, then it falls under the HRS134-51. So if you stab someone with it. Or even bash someone over the head with a stapler, both items intended usage is not to do that. So then what about tasers? It's intended purpose is to transmit an electric current. So now we fall into the deadly category which means "causes bodily injury". So that is what is being worked on for clarification.
Doesn't have to be a gun, can be taser etc, there are many electrical based weapons.
By deadlier I mean "weapons" capable of more harm than a electric based one.
Nice, hope they get results.
Thanks for the clarification.
Post by: changemyoil66 on July 26, 2021, 01:59:45 PM
Doesn't have to be a gun, can be taser etc, there are many electrical based weapons.
By deadlier I mean "weapons" capable of more harm than a electric based one.
Nice, hope they get results.
Thanks for the clarification.
For the deadlier weapons, see my reply about dangerous and deadly weapons and a brief definition. The HRS134-51 actually has exemptions listed at the bottom portion for case notes. Like a diving knife is not classified as either, nor are nunchucks or a cane sword. Add to it is "sole purpose is to cause bodily injury" is the correct phrase. So a taser has no other purpose than to cause bodily injury. As in you cannot use it per manufacturers description to say staple paper, clean a sink, etc...Compared to a utility knife. You can use it to cut string, strike a flint to make fire, etc...
To avoid confusion, instead of using "stun gun", you can just use electric gun and not need any quotations. That way even a cattle prod would fall the category. Which leads me to the next issue with the law as written, the electric gun definition is very vague. This was already covered in the electric gun post.
Post by: omnigun on July 26, 2021, 02:51:39 PM
For the deadlier weapons, see my reply about dangerous and deadly weapons and a brief definition. The HRS134-51 actually has exemptions listed at the bottom portion for case notes. Like a diving knife is not classified as either, nor are nunchucks or a cane sword. Add to it is "sole purpose is to cause bodily injury" is the correct phrase. So a taser has no other purpose than to cause bodily injury. As in you cannot use it per manufacturers description to say staple paper, clean a sink, etc...Compared to a utility knife. You can use it to cut string, strike a flint to make fire, etc...
To avoid confusion, instead of using "stun gun", you can just use electric gun and not need any quotations. That way even a cattle prod would fall the category. Which leads me to the next issue with the law as written, the electric gun definition is very vague. This was already covered in the electric gun post.
Alright thanks.
Post by: macsak on July 26, 2021, 03:01:24 PM
Doesn't have to be a gun, can be taser etc, there are many electrical based weapons.
By deadlier I mean "weapons" capable of more harm than a electric based one.
Nice, hope they get results.
Thanks for the clarification.
why is "weapons" in quotations?
Post by: omnigun on July 26, 2021, 03:30:26 PM
why is "weapons" in quotations?
Because I don't consider a electric gun a weapon.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on July 26, 2021, 03:43:57 PM
Because I don't consider a electric gun a weapon.
Your "view?" LOL!
That view would be wrong. Tasers are considered weapons in all 50 states. They are most often called "Less Lethal Weapons" or "Less Than Lethal Weapons."
In all states, if an officer is being threatened by someone pointing a taser at them, the officer is authorized to use deadly force.
People die regularly from tasering -- most recently that I heard of was in Queens, where officers used the weapon against an apparently mentally ill man who menaced them with a sword. George Zapantis, 30, went into cardiac arrest after being tased — and died.
You keep redefining the universe to fit your ignorant "view". The rest of us will exist in reality.
Not a weapon? More like, not supported by independent sources.
Feelings (View) > Facts
Post by: macsak on July 26, 2021, 04:07:50 PM
Your "view?" LOL!
That view would be wrong. Tasers are considered weapons in all 50 states. They are most often called "Less Lethal Weapons" or "Less Than Lethal Weapons."
In all states, if an officer is being threatened by someone pointing a taser at them, the officer is authorized to use deadly force.
People die regularly from tasering -- most recently that I heard of was in Queens, where officers used the weapon against an apparently mentally ill man who menaced them with a sword. George Zapantis, 30, went into cardiac arrest after being tased — and died.
You keep redefining the universe to fit your ignorant "view". The rest of us will exist in reality.
Not a weapon? More like, not supported by independent sources.
Feelings (View) > Facts
it's an omni-centric world...
Post by: macsak on July 26, 2021, 04:08:25 PM
Because I don't consider a electric gun a weapon.
so you are imposing your views on us?
forcing us to believe them?
Post by: QUIETShooter on July 26, 2021, 04:17:02 PM
Post by: omnigun on July 26, 2021, 04:53:03 PM
Your "view?" LOL!
That view would be wrong. Tasers are considered weapons in all 50 states. They are most often called "Less Lethal Weapons" or "Less Than Lethal Weapons."
In all states, if an officer is being threatened by someone pointing a taser at them, the officer is authorized to use deadly force.
People die regularly from tasering -- most recently that I heard of was in Queens, where officers used the weapon against an apparently mentally ill man who menaced them with a sword. George Zapantis, 30, went into cardiac arrest after being tased — and died.
You keep redefining the universe to fit your ignorant "view". The rest of us will exist in reality.
Not a weapon? More like, not supported by independent sources.
Feelings (View) > Facts
Everything in this world is/can be a weapon technically. But I digress.
Post by: omnigun on July 26, 2021, 04:54:07 PM
so you are imposing your views on us?
forcing us to believe them?
Nope. Never said I was. I don't think it fits, but you are free to believe whatever you want. The law will decide.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on July 26, 2021, 05:09:17 PM
Nope. Never said I was. I don't think it fits, but you are free to believe whatever you want. The law will decide.
The law already decided.
You seem to be a Less Lethal Weapon Denier.
Cops have shot assailants pointing or discharging tasers in the Cops' direction. The courts DECIDED that a taser is a "LETHAL WEAPON", and that Cops are authorized to meet that force with deadly force.
You are NOT free to believe whatever you want if you are going to post it online as if it's true.
We are here to inform and discuss, not push #FakeNews.
Post by: omnigun on July 26, 2021, 05:33:34 PM
The law already decided.
You seem to be a Less Lethal Weapon Denier.
Cops have shot assailants pointing or discharging tasers in the Cops' direction. The courts DECIDED that a taser is a "LETHAL WEAPON", and that Cops are authorized to meet that force with deadly force.
You are NOT free to believe whatever you want if you are going to post it online as if it's true.
We are here to inform and discuss, not push #FakeNews.
Do you have court cases proving that? Not used against cops but just being in possession. Cause a bat used as an offensive tool would be a lethal weapon too. If you have proof I will fully admit that a Taser is a lethal weapon.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on July 26, 2021, 05:53:49 PM
Do you have court cases proving that? Not used against cops but just being in possession. Cause a bat used as an offensive tool would be a lethal weapon too. If you have proof I will fully admit that a Taser is a lethal weapon.
I'm not here to do your homework for you. Try Google.
But, since you're too lazy, I know I'm going to have to help you eventually.
This was TEN YEARS AGO. And yet, you still have it wrong in your head.
Quote
Is a stun gun a dangerous weapon capable of inflicting deadly force? That is a question we
have raised here on several occasions and suggested that they should be treated as deadly
weapons.
Yesterday (11-1-11) the N. C. Court of Appeals, in a unanimous decision, agreed with our
reasoning.
In the case of the State v. Riveria the court ruled that a stun gun (an X26 Taser) "is a dangerous
weapon that endangered or threatened Scott's (victim) life." You can read the actual decision
by clicking here:
http://appellate.nccourts.org/opinions/?c=2&pdf=MjAxMS8xMS0yNjgtMS5wZGY=
Briefly, the case resulted at a robbery at a Raleigh Wal-mart. Victim Scott was robbed by two men
who tried to grab a cash box as Scott replenished an ATM machine in the store. When she resisted
one man's attempt to siege the cash box. While she struggled a second man shocked her with a stun
gun. She fell to the floor, and evidence showed she suffered serious injury (requiring surgery for a
dislocated shoulder and other injuries).
The two robbers were apprehended and charged with robbery with a dangerous weapon. At the
end of state's evidence the defendants moved for dismissal of the charge, contending that a stun gun
is not a dangerous weapon. The trial court rejected the motion. The COA upheld that ruling.
....
[t]he use of a dangerous weapon need not result in death, but the instrument itself must merely be
capable of taking life in the manner that it was used. . . . [A]ny instrument capable of causing serious
bodily injury could also cause death depending on its use. In our view, serious bodily injury is synonymous
with endangering or threatening life.
We hold that due to the actual effect of the stun gun in this case -- serious injury -- a permissive
inference existed sufficient to support a jury determination that the stun gun was a dangerous weapon.
Some officers have not considered stun guns to be dangerous weapons. In fact, an expert witness
testified to that effect at trial in this case. The COA disagreed with that conclusion, holding that stun
guns fall at the same end of the continuum of force that firearms do.
Court of Appeals > OmniView
https://beaufortcountynow.com/post/2191/
Post by: macsak on July 26, 2021, 07:16:12 PM
Nope. Never said I was. I don't think it fits, but you are free to believe whatever you want. The law will decide.
yet you claim people are imposing their religious views on you?
what means hypocrisy?
Post by: omnigun on July 27, 2021, 06:21:56 AM
yet you claim people are imposing their religious views on you?
what means hypocrisy?
Nope laws are different. I am expressing opinion. Not forcing laws on you much different.
Post by: omnigun on July 27, 2021, 06:25:50 AM
I'm not here to do your homework for you. Try Google.
But, since you're too lazy, I know I'm going to have to help you eventually.
This was TEN YEARS AGO. And yet, you still have it wrong in your head.
Court of Appeals > OmniView
https://beaufortcountynow.com/post/2191/
Still not what I asked for. I need a case showing possession not use. They used a electric device in a offensive way. A pocket knife that is used in that way would be considered a deadly weapon. But it's not considered to be one when carried.
https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/assault-with-a-deadly-weapon.html
#flappfakenews
#itsoktobewrong
Post by: changemyoil66 on July 27, 2021, 09:13:20 AM
Still not what I asked for. I need a case showing possession not use. They used a electric device in a offensive way. A pocket knife that is used in that way would be considered a deadly weapon. But it's not considered to be one when carried.
https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/assault-with-a-deadly-weapon.html
#flappfakenews
#itsoktobewrong
Read this part:
[t]he use of a dangerous weapon need not result in death, but the instrument itself must merely be
capable of taking life in the manner that it was used. . . . [A]ny instrument capable of causing serious
bodily injury could also cause death depending on its use. In our view, serious bodily injury is synonymous
with endangering or threatening life.
Key word is capable. Which means it doesn't have to cause serious injury at that moment. So even though the stun gun was used in this particular situation, they argued that it in general it;s the same a as a firearm (deadly weapon).
"Some officers have not considered stun guns to be dangerous weapons. In fact, an expert witness testified to that effect at trial in this case. The COA disagreed with that conclusion, holding that stun
guns fall at the same end of the continuum of force that firearms do."
This pretty much answers your question, which Flapp already posted.
Post by: omnigun on July 27, 2021, 09:16:41 AM
Read this part:
[t]he use of a dangerous weapon need not result in death, but the instrument itself must merely be
capable of taking life in the manner that it was used. . . . [A]ny instrument capable of causing serious
bodily injury could also cause death depending on its use. In our view, serious bodily injury is synonymous
with endangering or threatening life.
Key word is capable. Which means it doesn't have to cause serious injury at that moment. So even though the stun gun was used in this particular situation, they argued that it in general it;s the same a as a firearm (deadly weapon).
"Some officers have not considered stun guns to be dangerous weapons. In fact, an expert witness testified to that effect at trial in this case. The COA disagreed with that conclusion, holding that stun
guns fall at the same end of the continuum of force that firearms do."
This pretty much answers your question, which Flapp already posted.
Its all about use. As said in the webpage. A bottle can be used as a deadly weapon. It is capable of causing serious injury at that moment. Are we not able to carry bottles around?
There was a short example list:
Broken bottles;
Dogs;
Power tools;
Gardening tools;
Blunt objects; and
Boats.
All of these are legal to possess and "carry/use". But yet depending on use can be considered a deadly weapon. An electric gun would be the same category.
Electric devices are designed NOT to be lethal and are less lethal than many of the items on that list.
Post by: changemyoil66 on July 27, 2021, 09:21:52 AM
A felon can also possess a bat as long as it's used per manufactures description. But an EG on the other hand, its sole purpose is to cause bodily injury. A felon in HI cannot be in possession of 1.
We want clarification from the AG. The assistant AG stated it wasn't the taser bills intent to fall under HRS134-51 (Deadly or dangerous weapons). But the assistant AG didn't say "no, an EG does not fall under HRS134-51". She just stated intent. So right now it could go either way for HI come Jan 2022. And can the recorded zoom testimony be used in court later? IDK. But speaking to an attorney, their legal opinion was that we are correct and as written, an EG falls under HRS134-51; regardless of what the deputy AG stated. Until it's in writing that states otherwise.
But does Omni really need a court case that defines what an EG is (lethal or not)? If 1 knows how to read, HRS134-51 is pretty clear. IDK about other states EG laws, but I am more familiar with HI's one. But if omni, you feel that an EG is not a lethal weapon just by being in possession, feel free to walk in front a HPD station or the AG's office with 1 and let us know how it goes. I would recommend wearing a bodycam. Then if you are wrong and arrested and charged, keep us posted how your court case is going.
Post by: changemyoil66 on July 27, 2021, 09:26:58 AM
Its all about use. As said in the webpage. A bottle can be used as a deadly weapon. It is capable of causing serious injury at that moment. Are we not able to carry bottles around?
There was a short example list:
Broken bottles;
Dogs;
Power tools;
Gardening tools;
Blunt objects; and
Boats.
All of these are legal to possess and "carry/use". But yet depending on use can be considered a deadly weapon. An electric gun would be the same category.
Electric devices are designed NOT to be lethal and are less lethal than many of the items on that list.
It isn't about EG's not being designed to be lethal. The ruling is based on "causes bodily injury", which an EG is "capable" of. Read the "capable" part. This particular case that Flapp posted answers your question if you read it carefully. But like my last post, IDK how this affects HI's EG law.
*edit, I'm using lethal and deadly as the same. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Post by: omnigun on July 27, 2021, 10:28:06 AM
Can a felon posses an EG? Felons can possess a knife, because I have friends who are cooks and use knives all the time. Depending on the knife, a kitchen knife is not considered a deadly or dangerous weapon if it's used per the manufacturers description.
A felon can also possess a bat as long as it's used per manufactures description. But an EG on the other hand, its sole purpose is to cause bodily injury. A felon in HI cannot be in possession of 1.
We want clarification from the AG. The assistant AG stated it wasn't the taser bills intent to fall under HRS134-51 (Deadly or dangerous weapons). But the assistant AG didn't say "no, an EG does not fall under HRS134-51". She just stated intent. So right now it could go either way for HI come Jan 2022. And can the recorded zoom testimony be used in court later? IDK. But speaking to an attorney, their legal opinion was that we are correct and as written, an EG falls under HRS134-51; regardless of what the deputy AG stated. Until it's in writing that states otherwise.
But does Omni really need a court case that defines what an EG is (lethal or not)? If 1 knows how to read, HRS134-51 is pretty clear. IDK about other states EG laws, but I am more familiar with HI's one. But if omni, you feel that an EG is not a lethal weapon just by being in possession, feel free to walk in front a HPD station or the AG's office with 1 and let us know how it goes. I would recommend wearing a bodycam. Then if you are wrong and arrested and charged, keep us posted how your court case is going.
I wouldn't want to cause issues for no reason. I am one of those police and government supporters. Why make their job harder. But I have to consult some lawyers and I may carry an EG. I support the clarification from the AG.
The problem with HRS134-51 is its beyond vague "or other deadly or dangerous weapon". Technically can cover literally everything and anything...From cars to chefs tools to wrenches. Necklaces, hell even clothes.
Post by: omnigun on July 27, 2021, 10:35:57 AM
It isn't about EG's not being designed to be lethal. The ruling is based on "causes bodily injury", which an EG is "capable" of. Read the "capable" part. This particular case that Flapp posted answers your question if you read it carefully. But like my last post, IDK how this affects HI's EG law.
*edit, I'm using lethal and deadly as the same. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I have searched google and can't find any cases of simple possession of an EG is prohibited, while legalized in the state. I believe the only way would be for the AG to clarify or for the case to be brought to court. I have to research if the self defense insurance would cover this type of case.
Post by: changemyoil66 on July 27, 2021, 10:39:55 AM
I wouldn't want to cause issues for no reason but I have to consult some lawyers and I may carry an EG. I support the clarification from the AG.
The problem with HRS134-51 is its beyond vague "or other deadly or dangerous weapon". Technically can cover literally everything and anything...From cars to chefs tools to wrenches. Necklaces, hell even clothes.
"sole purpose is to cause bodily injury"=EG, karabat knife, TDI K-bar knife. "sole purpose" is the key phrase.
"diverted from it's intended purposes"=use a chef tool to stab someone, wrench used to hit someone on the head, clothes used to strangle someone. Just possessing said items will not all under the dangerous weapon category because you're using them for their intended purpose. So your examples are a bad one.
Post by: changemyoil66 on July 27, 2021, 10:42:26 AM
I have searched google and can't find any cases of simple possession of an EG is prohibited, while legalized in the state. I believe the only way would be for the AG to clarify or for the case to be brought to court. I have to research if the self defense insurance would cover this type of case.
Google felons in possession. Felons are restricted from possessing a lot of things. IDK about other states, but HI's EG law specifically says felons cannot possess.
Alan Beck who is the atty for Roberts v. Ballard (EG case), is working on clarification. The case is still pending.
Post by: omnigun on July 27, 2021, 10:45:49 AM
"sole purpose is to cause bodily injury"=EG, karabat knife, TDI K-bar knife. "sole purpose" is the key phrase.
"diverted from it's intended purposes"=use a chef tool to stab someone, wrench used to hit someone on the head, clothes used to strangle someone. Just possessing said items will not all under the dangerous weapon category because you're using them for their intended purpose. So your examples are a bad one.
So if they manufactured an EG thats sole purpose was not to cause bodily injury it would be fine? Like an cattle prod? Or any company that details the description of the EG that its sole purpose is not to cause injury? For example a EG which sole purpose is to make sounds and flashes of light "aka party trick". Or similar its sole purpose is to make scary sounds to deter an attack.
Post by: omnigun on July 27, 2021, 10:46:36 AM
Google felons in possession. Felons are restricted from possessing a lot of things. IDK about other states, but HI's EG law specifically says felons cannot possess.
Alan Beck who is the atty for Roberts v. Ballard (EG case), is working on clarification. The case is still pending.
Thanks I hope Alan figures it out. Great work.
Post by: changemyoil66 on July 27, 2021, 11:21:20 AM
So if they manufactured an EG thats sole purpose was not to cause bodily injury it would be fine? Like an cattle prod? Or any company that details the description of the EG that its sole purpose is not to cause injury? For example a EG which sole purpose is to make sounds and flashes of light "aka party trick". Or similar its sole purpose is to make scary sounds to deter an attack."
"So if they manufactured an EG thats sole purpose was not to cause bodily injury it would be fine? "-Yes, no longer fits the definition of a deadly weapon. See below
The definition of a EG goes along the of any mobile devise that transmits an electrical current into another person. So the prod is now an EG. . And you're only allowed to use it for specific reasons. Like self defense or protect property. Also under the EG definition for HI falls TENS units used by physical therapist or other medical devices that pass a current form a mobile devise into another person. 1 doctor wrote to his doctors board and showed them the bill. They then sent it off to the AG's office. The reply from the AG was "we highly doubt a doctor would be prosecuted under the EG law". Which isn't a no. And if any patient gets injured from said units, then if they have a smart attorney, they can sue for malpractice and win because the doctor used an EG illegally on them. The law does not state you can use an EG on another for treatment, or even training purposes. Even a muscle stimulator sold at walmart is an EG.
Now you're trying to find a loop hole in the sole purpose. This is a moot point because an EG is now defined. Refer to TENS unit example above. And the moment 1 uses it on someone else, they broke the law if it wasn't for self defense or to protect property.
Post by: changemyoil66 on July 27, 2021, 11:28:00 AM
Or did you not submit any testimony for this bill? If it's due to work reasons, then that's understandable. Because I do read most of the testimonies and look at who submits them. Even the 1100 testimonies for the mag ban.
Post by: omnigun on July 27, 2021, 11:42:07 AM
Since you claim you said you do your part for the 2a, you should really read the testimonies submitted. Especially the ones by HIFICO and like parties because this was all addressed. Also watch the zoom. This way you can submit testimony and bring up said points. The more the merrier. These are the reasons why all but 1 or2 2a supporters opposed this bill in testimony. The ones who did support the bill are the podagees.
Or did you not submit any testimony for this bill? If it's due to work reasons, then that's understandable. Because I do read most of the testimonies and look at who submits them. Even the 1100 testimonies for the mag ban.
I did testify but I didn't not fully do research. I just followed advice posted on this forum.
Post by: omnigun on July 27, 2021, 11:44:42 AM
"
"So if they manufactured an EG thats sole purpose was not to cause bodily injury it would be fine? "-Yes, no longer fits the definition of a deadly weapon. See below
The definition of a EG goes along the of any mobile devise that transmits an electrical current into another person. So the prod is now an EG. . And you're only allowed to use it for specific reasons. Like self defense or protect property. Also under the EG definition for HI falls TENS units used by physical therapist or other medical devices that pass a current form a mobile devise into another person. 1 doctor wrote to his doctors board and showed them the bill. They then sent it off to the AG's office. The reply from the AG was "we highly doubt a doctor would be prosecuted under the EG law". Which isn't a no. And if any patient gets injured from said units, then if they have a smart attorney, they can sue for malpractice and win because the doctor used an EG illegally on them. The law does not state you can use an EG on another for treatment, or even training purposes. Even a muscle stimulator sold at walmart is an EG.
Now you're trying to find a loop hole in the sole purpose. This is a moot point because an EG is now defined. Refer to TENS unit example above. And the moment 1 uses it on someone else, they broke the law if it wasn't for self defense or to protect property.
Would that include a eg that's sole purpose is NOT to be used on people and display only?
And that last sentence wouldn't cover possession? No plans to use an EG other than self defense. Anything electronic is technically capable of transmitting electricity into a human if used improperly.
Post by: changemyoil66 on July 27, 2021, 11:47:15 AM
I did testify but I didn't not fully do research. I just followed advice posted on this forum.
It's important to fully research a new law before you take part in it. And b4 testifying. Because we need to be as perfect as possible due to the bias the 2a community gets.
With regard to carrying/using an EG, to say "I didn't know" is not an excuse for breaking the law. It's a good thing that HRS134-51 pertains to CCWing a EG and not open carrying one.
Post by: omnigun on July 27, 2021, 11:49:48 AM
It's important to fully research a new law before you take part in it. And b4 testifying. Because we need to be as perfect as possible due to the bias the 2a community gets.
With regard to carrying/using an EG, to say "I didn't know" is not an excuse for breaking the law. It's a good thing that HRS134-51 pertains to CCWing a EG and not open carrying one.
True if they come out that it is indeed against the law obviously we are all law abiding citizens. Not everyone is able to fully research. I relied on those who were and just joined in either opposing or supporting. Experts exist for a reason.
Post by: changemyoil66 on July 27, 2021, 11:58:55 AM
Would that include a eg that's sole purpose is NOT to be used on people and display only?
And that last sentence wouldn't cover possession? No plans to use an EG other than self defense. Anything electronic is technically capable of transmitting electricity into a human if used improperly.
You need to get off the sole purpose part about EG's in HI. Because HI law defines what an EG is. And what it's sole purpose in HI is moot. If you're asking about other states, then IDK because I haven't looked up other states laws about EGs.
"And that last sentence wouldn't cover possession?" HI's EG law specifically states possession. Go read it and understand it so you do not break the law.
" Anything electronic is technically capable of transmitting electricity into a human if used improperly. " The key is "mobile". So if you have the fan that's plugged into the wall and cut the wire and shock someone, that doesn't fall under using an EG. But the TENS units are mobile, so are prods, so are muscle stimulators. This is how vague the HI law is and why we opposed it.
" No plans to use an EG other than self defense." Plans fail all the time. And due to the written law, you have to be very careful not to zap another person. Zapping yourself is totally legal. Example: You're showing a family member the stun gun portion and the arch jumps from the unit to them and they require medical assistance. You just broke HI law. Or say you want to take a training class, this would be a non-firing training class. Most LE/MIL classes require the person to be tased themselves. But then the instructor would be breaking the HI law.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on July 27, 2021, 02:34:39 PM
Still not what I asked for. I need a case showing possession not use. They used a electric device in a offensive way. A pocket knife that is used in that way would be considered a deadly weapon. But it's not considered to be one when carried.
https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/assault-with-a-deadly-weapon.html
#flappfakenews
#itsoktobewrong
Goal posts relocated to China ......
You asked for a case not involving Cops. I gave you that. Now ..... something else.
A pocket knife has a PURPOSE OTHER THAN being a weapon. What can you use a Taser for BESIDES as a weapon?
I'm done with you for good. Have a nice Trolling experience -- without me.
Please remember to stop responding to any of my posts. You will not be provided the attention you seek.
Post by: omnigun on July 27, 2021, 03:14:24 PM
Goal posts relocated to China ......
You asked for a case not involving Cops. I gave you that. Now ..... something else.
A pocket knife has a PURPOSE OTHER THAN being a weapon. What can you use a Taser for BESIDES as a weapon?
I'm done with you for good. Have a nice Trolling experience -- without me.
Please remember to stop responding to any of my posts. You will not be provided the attention you seek.
If you can read, I've said many things like a toy. It makes a cool sound and lights. Manufacturers can edit the use case for any item they sell. For example a cattle prod. I've seen electric arc toys. There are electric lighters.
Purchase X electric device today: This device is not designed for use against humans or animals and a display device only.
I will respond to any posts I deem necessary, its up to you if you wish to reply.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on July 27, 2021, 03:43:11 PM
If you can read, I've said many things like a toy. It makes a cool sound and lights. Manufacturers can edit the use case for any item they sell. For example a cattle prod. I've seen electric arc toys. There are electric lighters.
Purchase X electric device today: This device is not designed for use against humans or animals and a display device only.
I will respond to any posts I deem necessary, its up to you if you wish to reply.
Please show where the manufacturer of TASERS says anything close to the BS you posted.
A "toy" that delivers 50,000 volts.
Right.....
This topic is about TASERS and STUN GUNS, not cattle prods and lighters.
This is why I hate you. You can't have an honest discussion. Everything is a debate with you, and you have to be on the opposite side of everything.
Post by: changemyoil66 on July 27, 2021, 03:51:22 PM
Please show where the manufacturer of TASERS says anything close to the BS you posted.Only he would go infront a judge and try to use that argument. Then pout and stomp his feet once the judge says try again. Probably move goalpost too.
A "toy" that delivers 50,000 volts.
Right.....
This topic is about TASERS and STUN GUNS, not cattle prods and lighters.
This is why I hate you. You can't have an honest discussion. Everything is a debate with you, and you have to be on the opposite side of everything.
I stated that the intended purpose is moot in HI for EGs. So if a "toy" is made is irrelevant. Same goes with prods. Guess he did an omni and not read past the first sentence.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on July 27, 2021, 03:58:31 PM
Only he would go infront a judge and try to use that argument. Then pout and stomp his feet once the judge says try again. Probably move goalpost too.
I stated that the intended purpose is moot in HI for EGs. So if a "toy" is made is irrelevant. Same goes with prods. Guess he did an omni and not read past the first sentence.
In his world, all firearms are toys if the user says they are -- "they make cool lights and sounds."
Post by: omnigun on July 27, 2021, 04:04:57 PM
Please show where the manufacturer of TASERS says anything close to the BS you posted.
A "toy" that delivers 50,000 volts.
Right.....
This topic is about TASERS and STUN GUNS, not cattle prods and lighters.
This is why I hate you. You can't have an honest discussion. Everything is a debate with you, and you have to be on the opposite side of everything.
My entire discussion with oil was not to call them Tasers and Stun guns but electric guns/devices. Oil enlightened me that I was using the incorrect term because the law covers them all.
We live in a capitalist society, if a law passes in a state of 1,000,000 potential customers its only a matter of time before a company comes up with a solution. We have seen this countless times with failed attempts at gun control or other regulations.
Because its designed for use against another human not sure but this would not qualify as intended to harm....its intended to pleasure :rofl:
https://www.aliexpress.com/item/4000577155808.html?spm=a2g0o.productlist.0.0.53403966kAtapg&algo_pvid=0b5d50a5-45fb-4f2f-8a26-e7398f63f09a&algo_exp_id=0b5d50a5-45fb-4f2f-8a26-e7398f63f09a-20
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on July 27, 2021, 04:12:33 PM
My entire discussion with oil was not to call them Tasers and Stun guns but electric guns/devices. Oil enlightened me that I was using the incorrect term because the law covers them all.
We live in a capitalist society, if a law passes in a state of 1,000,000 potential customers its only a matter of time before a company comes up with a solution. We have seen this countless times with failed attempts at gun control or other regulations.
Because its designed for use against another human not sure but this would not qualify as intended to harm....its intended to pleasure :rofl:
https://www.aliexpress.com/item/4000577155808.html?spm=a2g0o.productlist.0.0.53403966kAtapg&algo_pvid=0b5d50a5-45fb-4f2f-8a26-e7398f63f09a&algo_exp_id=0b5d50a5-45fb-4f2f-8a26-e7398f63f09a-20
Your example device uses 50,000 volts? You should experiment if it does.
You're moving the goal posts.
Reality is what it is.
https://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/reforming-police/tasers-no-longer-non-lethal-alternative-law-enforcement
Quote
Since 2001, more than 500 people in the United States have died after law enforcement officers used this weapon against them. A study published this week by the American Heart Association’s Circulation Journal confirms that the misuse of a Taser can cause sudden cardiac arrest and death.
Post by: omnigun on July 27, 2021, 04:59:14 PM
Your example device uses 50,000 volts? You should experiment if it does.
You're moving the goal posts.
Reality is what it is.
https://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/reforming-police/tasers-no-longer-non-lethal-alternative-law-enforcement
There's different voltage and devices. Not all electric guns/devices are the same.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on July 27, 2021, 05:03:20 PM
There's different voltage and devices. Not all electric guns/devices are the same.
Please explain where the threshold is between "weapon" and "non-weapon" for Tasers in terms of volts.
Please post sources to back up your facts.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on July 27, 2021, 05:05:41 PM
Quote
According to my research, the smallest voltage possible to purchase in a taser
while still being effective is 25,000 volts. To see more of the specific differences
in the effects of weak and strong tasers, check out some videos online.
So, how many volts are in a taser? Although there are several different types of
tasers on the market, the average voltage found in many tasers is around 50,000
volts. However, if you are not very comfortable using a taser with that much voltage,
there are several smaller, weaker options available on the market.
https://taserguide.com/how-many-volts-in-a-taser/
Post by: omnigun on July 27, 2021, 05:06:52 PM
Please explain where the threshold is between "weapon" and "non-weapon" for Tasers in terms of volts.
Please post sources to back up your facts.
There is none, hence why this is such a gray area and hard issue...my point exactly. Whos allowed to say what use something is. Is a electric toy at 10000 volts different enough than 50k? You can make guns that are toys, though currently none of them shoot bullets. Oil has pointed out several times why the law is bad cause they don't give specifics. Without specifics we can only guess or take our chances in court. Vague laws tend to be un-enforceable.
Post by: omnigun on July 27, 2021, 05:09:05 PM
Clue:
https://taserguide.com/how-many-volts-in-a-taser/
Still not enough of a definition, is a 24,999 volt gun just a toy? Are there scientific studies showing what is dangerous and what's not? That's part of the qualification for the law. These vague laws serve no purpose other than to waste time and energy.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on July 27, 2021, 05:09:19 PM
There is none, hence why this is such a gray area and hard issue...my point exactly. Whos allowed to say what use something is. Is a electric toy at 10000 volts different enough than 50k? You can make guns that are toys, though currently none of them shoot bullets. Oil has pointed out several times why the law is bad cause they don't give specifics. Without specifics we can only guess or take our chances in court. Vague laws tend to be un-enforceable.
I just posted the FACT. You lied.
25,000 volts is the threshold.
#StopLying
#TrollBoy
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on July 27, 2021, 05:10:25 PM
Still not enough of a definition, is a 24,999 volt gun just a toy? Are there scientific studies showing what is dangerous and what's not? That's part of the qualification for the law.
You have to provide such studies to refute that fact. Just posting a comment challenging its accuracy without any evidence is deflection. Period.
Post by: omnigun on July 27, 2021, 05:10:40 PM
I just posted the FACT. You lied.
25,000 volts is the threshold.
#StopLying
#TrollBoy
I just replied about this....is it a national standard? Who made this fact? What laws back it up? What legal definitions are there on record....keep trying
You have to provide such studies to refute that fact. Just posting a comment challenging its accuracy without any evidence is deflection. Period.
So some article on a webpage is definition of legal advice and restrictions eh...
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on July 27, 2021, 05:19:39 PM
I just replied about this....is it a national standard? Who made this fact? What laws back it up? What legal definitions are there on record....keep trying
So some article on a webpage is definition of legal advice and restrictions eh...
What's the national standard for magazine capacities? None? Then how do manufacturers know what the "standard" capacity is for their firearms?
#Dumbass
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on July 27, 2021, 05:30:52 PM
So some article on a webpage is definition of legal advice and restrictions eh...:geekdanc: :geekdanc: :geekdanc:
This, from the King of Google! LOL!!
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on July 27, 2021, 05:37:07 PM
Amps are more important when it comes to effectiveness. The high voltage arc ensures the device can deliver the charge through a minimum of 2" of clothing.
If you knew anything about the stuff you argue against, maybe it wouldn't be so frustrating. As with this topic, you just want to argue -- and you don't really care if you're right or wrong.
Post by: omnigun on July 27, 2021, 06:23:43 PM
What's the national standard for magazine capacities? None? Then how do manufacturers know what the "standard" capacity is for their firearms?
#Dumbass
Good point. The manufacturers decide what standard capacity is. The government has strict rules in some states that say how many rounds to have. It's not vague.
Post by: omnigun on July 28, 2021, 08:23:20 AM
Post by: changemyoil66 on July 28, 2021, 09:05:06 AM
Good point. The manufacturers decide what standard capacity is. The government has strict rules in some states that say how many rounds to have. It's not vague.
The government has laws about how many rounds a mag can have, not rules. Unless you're referring to a government owned property that has a different round limit which differs from what the law states. But this point would be way off topic. So I'm going to lean toward that you meant laws and not rules.
Laws doesn't equal what a standard capacity is. Example: Standard capacity for an AR mag is 30rds. CA law states 10rds unless grandfathered in. Many AR mag companies use 30 rds as the standard. Are there higher cap AR mags, why of course. But it isn't the industry standard.
The convo could have ended, but you decided to add in the 2nd and 3rd sentence. Omni-tactics
Post by: changemyoil66 on July 28, 2021, 09:19:05 AM
The government has laws about how many rounds a mag can have, not rules. Unless you're referring to a government owned property that has a different round limit which differs from what the law states. But this point would be way off topic. So I'm going to lean toward that you meant laws and not rules.
Laws doesn't equal what a standard capacity is. Example: Standard capacity for an AR mag is 30rds. CA law states 10rds unless grandfathered in. Many AR mag companies use 30 rds as the standard. Are there higher cap AR mags, why of course. But it isn't the industry standard.
The convo could have ended, but you decided to add in the 2nd and 3rd sentence. Omni-tactics
There is no need to reply to this post. So we can get back on topic if there are any further EG questions.
Post by: ren on July 28, 2021, 10:44:41 PM
https://www.paypal-community.com/t5/eBay-and-PayPal-Archive/Firearm-policy/td-p/105446 (https://www.paypal-community.com/t5/eBay-and-PayPal-Archive/Firearm-policy/td-p/105446)
Post by: ren on July 28, 2021, 10:47:51 PM
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on July 28, 2021, 10:54:02 PM
The big question is will Paypal accept transactions that involve EGs? They don't allow firearms and parts in general.
Not sure what this includes (other than knives), but PayPal's Acceptable Use Policy says:
Quote
Prohibited Activities:
You may not use the PayPal service for activities that:
2. relate to transactions involving
(k) certain weapons or knives regulated under applicable law.
What's the "applicable law?" And what does "regulated" entail?
https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/ua/acceptableuse-full
EDIT:
I just went to the Taser site and added an item to my cart. The only payment options were charge cards and a service that allows payment over time. No PayPal option.
While offering PayPal is a decision the company makes, I'd think a company like this would want to use PayPal if they could.
Post by: ren on July 28, 2021, 11:04:20 PM
Not sure what this includes (other than knives), but PayPal's Acceptable Use Policy says:
What's the "applicable law?" And what does "regulated" entail?
https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/ua/acceptableuse-full
so Paypal prohibits all transactions involving firearms...how can that be ???
Post by: RSN172 on July 29, 2021, 07:40:46 AM
And where can we practice EG marksmanship? Do we need to go all the way to Kokohead? I'd be concerned with those EG owners who have never handled or fired an EG before because Kokohead is pretty far...they could hurt themselves or someone else! :oLike my dumbass former son-in-law (he since died, RIP) who wanted to try out this stun gun he ordered. He tried to shock a toad in the rain and ended up shocking himself too. Funny as hell to see him zap the toad and himself at the same time and see the stun gun go flying in the air when he got shocked. ;D
Post by: changemyoil66 on July 29, 2021, 08:50:24 AM
And where can we practice EG marksmanship? Do we need to go all the way to Kokohead? I'd be concerned with those EG owners who have never handled or fired an EG before because Kokohead is pretty far...they could hurt themselves or someone else! :o
You could probably do that inside your home with cardboard. As long as you aren't hitting a person, then you're not breaking the EG portion of usage law. Remember, tasing/stunning someone for training purposes is not legal. But for a taser, I can see this getting expensive due to the cost of the probe refills.
Post by: changemyoil66 on July 29, 2021, 08:51:04 AM
Not sure what this includes (other than knives), but PayPal's Acceptable Use Policy says:
What's the "applicable law?" And what does "regulated" entail?
https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/ua/acceptableuse-full
EDIT:
I just went to the Taser site and added an item to my cart. The only payment options were charge cards and a service that allows payment over time. No PayPal option.
While offering PayPal is a decision the company makes, I'd think a company like this would want to use PayPal if they could.
So PP conciders a EG a "weapon", even though someone else doesnt?
Post by: macsak on July 29, 2021, 09:05:51 AM
So PP conciders a EG a "weapon", even though someone else doesnt?
someone else doesn't understand paypal's policies as a whole...
Post by: omnigun on July 29, 2021, 10:57:06 AM
Post by: macsak on July 29, 2021, 11:13:02 AM
Private companies are free to interpret/many rules on any words and any meaning as long as it doesn't conflict with laws. Its also up to them to decide how to enforce and what penalties there are for breaking rules. Comon boys. Its not hard.
i bet you hear that a lot...
Post by: changemyoil66 on July 29, 2021, 11:51:13 AM
Private companies are free to interpret/many rules on any words and any meaning as long as it doesn't conflict with laws. Its also up to them to decide how to enforce and what penalties there are for breaking rules. Comon boys. Its not hard.
Swwwwooooooosshhhhhhh. I should start a windturbine business and set up a small one above omni's head as to catch all the swooshing. I would be able to afford that 4th F15.
Post by: changemyoil66 on July 29, 2021, 11:52:17 AM
i bet you hear that a lot...
To be fair, "come on boys, it's not hard" is a good thing. As to he's speaking to other guys and not erect. So g2g. But even if he was, I would not judge.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on July 29, 2021, 01:39:18 PM
A Very Clear Reminder That Stun Guns Are Not Good For Self Defense
https://youtu.be/B8KU9IoBD58
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on July 29, 2021, 01:44:43 PM
https://youtu.be/zq70gOe5QSw
Post by: changemyoil66 on July 29, 2021, 01:50:30 PM
Post by: sa594 on August 08, 2021, 10:42:31 AM
Post by: drck1000 on August 08, 2021, 11:33:26 AM
Don't forget the taser didn't work on Myeni which then allowed him to rain blows to the cop.When are we gonna get to test it on you? ;D
Post by: changemyoil66 on August 09, 2021, 09:10:14 AM
When are we gonna get to test it on you? ;D
Illegal to have somone else test it on me. I would have to tase myself. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Post by: drck1000 on August 09, 2021, 09:41:55 AM
Illegal to have somone else test it on me. I would have to tase myself. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:Well, giter done! :rofl:
Post by: aletheuo137 on August 09, 2021, 01:14:43 PM
Well, giter done! :rofl:Maybe ask Mrs CMO to try it on him
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
Post by: drck1000 on August 09, 2021, 01:21:45 PM
Maybe ask Mrs CMO to try it on himIn de face? Or in dem nutz? :rofl:
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
Post by: changemyoil66 on August 09, 2021, 02:00:31 PM
Maybe ask Mrs CMO to try it on him
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
Illegal, focus. :rofl:
I remember reading a joke site about the most badass way to commit suicide. The #1 was choking yourself to death with your bare hands. Cause odds are you will pass out and grip will open. Thus waking up later in shame of failing.
Post by: macsak on August 09, 2021, 02:04:20 PM
In de face? Or in dem nutz? :rofl:
target too small...
Post by: aletheuo137 on August 09, 2021, 02:10:46 PM
target too small...Ooo... hitting below the belt!
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
Post by: drck1000 on August 09, 2021, 02:28:59 PM
target too small...clips
Ooo... hitting below the belt!He shoots low and left (hypothetically). He would miss. . . :rofl:
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
Post by: aletheuo137 on August 09, 2021, 04:20:07 PM
clipsShe might not!
He shoots low and left (hypothetically). He would miss. . . :rofl:
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
Post by: changemyoil66 on November 15, 2021, 02:11:10 PM
"Nothing in Act 183 limits the carrying or possession of electric guns in
specific locations. The primary limitation on the use of electric guns is that they
must be used for self-defense, defense of another person, or protection of property,
which can occur anywhere. Id. § 2 at 3. Act 183 contains no provision that is
Case: 21-15562, 11/15/2021, ID: 12287311, DktEntry: 22, Page 18 of 96
11
equivalent to the “place to keep” requirements for firearms, which limit the
possession of firearms to the person’s place of business, residence, or sojourn, or
travel between these places and other specified locations in an enclosed container.
See Haw. Rev. Stat. §§ 134-23, 134-24, 134-25 (2011). Therefore, Act 183 clearly
permits people to carry or possess electric guns regardless of the location."
Post by: omnigun on November 16, 2021, 08:58:48 AM
Reply from the state, tasers are legal to carry in public. Per act 183
"Nothing in Act 183 limits the carrying or possession of electric guns in
specific locations. The primary limitation on the use of electric guns is that they
must be used for self-defense, defense of another person, or protection of property,
which can occur anywhere. Id. § 2 at 3. Act 183 contains no provision that is
Case: 21-15562, 11/15/2021, ID: 12287311, DktEntry: 22, Page 18 of 96
11
equivalent to the “place to keep” requirements for firearms, which limit the
possession of firearms to the person’s place of business, residence, or sojourn, or
travel between these places and other specified locations in an enclosed container.
See Haw. Rev. Stat. §§ 134-23, 134-24, 134-25 (2011). Therefore, Act 183 clearly
permits people to carry or possess electric guns regardless of the location."
Nice thanks
Post by: drck1000 on November 16, 2021, 09:01:04 AM
Reply from the state, tasers are legal to carry in public. Per act 183So, when are you going to get a taser?
"Nothing in Act 183 limits the carrying or possession of electric guns in
specific locations. The primary limitation on the use of electric guns is that they
must be used for self-defense, defense of another person, or protection of property,
which can occur anywhere. Id. § 2 at 3. Act 183 contains no provision that is
Case: 21-15562, 11/15/2021, ID: 12287311, DktEntry: 22, Page 18 of 96
11
equivalent to the “place to keep” requirements for firearms, which limit the
possession of firearms to the person’s place of business, residence, or sojourn, or
travel between these places and other specified locations in an enclosed container.
See Haw. Rev. Stat. §§ 134-23, 134-24, 134-25 (2011). Therefore, Act 183 clearly
permits people to carry or possess electric guns regardless of the location."
And. . . when are we gonna test it on you? ;D
Post by: DocMercy on November 16, 2021, 10:57:10 AM
So, when are you going to get a taser?
And. . . when are we gonna test it on you? ;D
Answer to both questions:
1. My prediction is that Uncle Joe will be the first gun dealer to stock shock weapons.
2. The guinea pig will be Henry. I understood that he was also the test subject to get shot with a .50 cal CO2 gun pellet. Not sure if it was a ricochet shot.
More important question for which I need an immediate answer. Which gunsmith is now building a robot that can carry 100 stun guns for self defense? I reserve the right to call this robot R2-Z2, where the Z stands for ZAP.
(https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/rPsAAOSwhMZf-wyG/s-l1600.jpg)
The super expensive Tesla version of R2-Z2 will feature a real Taser weapon. Code name: Thou Shall Not Pass
(https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0053/4482/1321/products/39061A_1090x1090.jpg)
Post by: changemyoil66 on November 16, 2021, 12:16:52 PM
Answer to both questions:
1. My prediction is that Uncle Joe will be the first gun dealer to stock shock weapons.
2. The guinea pig will be Henry. I understood that he was also the test subject to get shot with a .50 cal CO2 gun pellet. Not sure if it was a ricochet shot.
More important question for which I need an immediate answer. Which gunsmith is now building a robot that can carry 100 stun guns for self defense? I reserve the right to call this robot R2-Z2, where the Z stands for ZAP.
(https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/rPsAAOSwhMZf-wyG/s-l1600.jpg)
The super expensive Tesla version of R2-Z2 will feature a real Taser weapon. Code name: Thou Shall Not Pass
(https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0053/4482/1321/products/39061A_1090x1090.jpg)
The law makes it illegal for 1 to transfer a current to another person and not for self defense purposes. Which means Henry would have to use it on himself. So even training often has the student themselves get zapped, this too would be breaking the law.
By Uncle Joe, do you mean the federal government (Biden)? For 1 to sell a taser in HI, there are many hoops the seller has to go thru. Like take a class, register with HPD, etc... Which is why Amazon won't be shipping to HI (legally). I don't see someone in Amazon who doesn't live here being the authorized employee and meeting all the requirements. Would other websites do this? No clue.
There is also nothing in the law that states you cannot bring back a taser when traveling to the mainland or ship it to yourself.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on November 16, 2021, 12:30:36 PM
The law makes it illegal for 1 to transfer a current to another person and not for self defense purposes. Which means Henry would have to use it on himself. So even training often has the student themselves get zapped, this too would be breaking the law.
I think if the Cops don't witness it, and if there's no complaining victim, the law is not an issue if you want to volunteer to be a Taser dummy.
It's not like you're discharging a firearm in a residential area.
I think the intent of the law is to limit its use to self defense rather than employ one for criminal activities -- muggings, robberies, etc.
Post by: drck1000 on November 16, 2021, 12:42:39 PM
I think if the Cops don't witness it, and if there's no complaining victim, the law is not an issue if you want to volunteer to be a Taser dummy.He's dodging being a taser test dummy. . . :o O0
It's not like you're discharging a firearm in a residential area.
I think the intent of the law is to limit its use to self defense rather than employ one for criminal activities -- muggings, robberies, etc.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on November 16, 2021, 12:52:24 PM
He's dodging being a taser test dummy. . . :o O0
That's pretty obvious, based on the count of how many times he's posted that zapping him for training purposes would be unlawful!
:rofl: :rofl: :shake:
Post by: changemyoil66 on November 16, 2021, 12:56:43 PM
He's dodging being a taser test dummy. . . :o O0
No one here does anything illegal.
Post by: changemyoil66 on November 16, 2021, 01:03:57 PM
That's pretty obvious, based on the count of how many times he's posted that zapping him for training purposes would be unlawful!
:rofl: :rofl: :shake:
Strap taser to a wood post. Tie string around trigger and I pull. Loop hole activated.
Post by: drck1000 on November 16, 2021, 01:23:39 PM
No one here does anything illegal.Never. . .
But it would be VERY funny to test a taser on you. . . ;D
Post by: drck1000 on November 16, 2021, 01:23:57 PM
Strap taser to a wood post. Tie string around trigger and I pull. Loop hole activated.Bingo!
Post by: yurcarmeean on December 23, 2021, 04:25:06 PM
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on December 23, 2021, 04:52:39 PM
anyone know of any local stores that intend to have stun devices for sale beginning Jan 1, 2022?
You would think HPD would post a list on their website of businesses with trained, certified individuals who are authorized to sell them.
HPD does the certifying, right?
Post by: Direjackalope on December 23, 2021, 06:30:36 PM
Post by: changemyoil66 on December 24, 2021, 07:00:38 AM
anyone know of any local stores that intend to have stun devices for sale beginning Jan 1, 2022?I dont forsee this happening because the stores have many hoops to jump thru. I estimate end of Jan at the earliest which is my opinion.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: yurcarmeean on December 28, 2021, 02:29:22 PM
I dont forsee this happening because the stores have many hoops to jump thru. I estimate end of Jan at the earliest which is my opinion.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Thanks, I'd be interested to see how soon Amazon and other online retailers will change the policy to ship to Hawaii
Post by: changemyoil66 on December 28, 2021, 07:06:55 PM
Thanks, I'd be interested to see how soon Amazon and other online retailers will change the policy to ship to HawaiiIts not changing their policy, its about meeting the seller requirements/law made by HI.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: RSN172 on December 30, 2021, 10:17:59 AM
Post by: Nostayhome on December 30, 2021, 12:41:38 PM
For those who plan to buy a Taser, taking a short 1 minute quiz on Taser's website will get you a coupon for 20% off. That will bring down the cost of a Pulse from $399 to $320.
Thanks RSN172
I tried looking but couldn’t find the survey on the website.
Would you happen to have a link?
Post by: RSN172 on December 30, 2021, 01:34:12 PM
Thanks RSN172Can't find it either, but you may have to enter your email for it to pop up. This is the email I got back after I took the quiz.
I tried looking but couldn’t find the survey on the website.
Would you happen to have a link?
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on December 30, 2021, 02:26:57 PM
Quote
As of January 1st, 2022, TASER devices are legal for personal ownership in Hawaii!https://taser.com/pages/hawaii
And we are celebrating!
Our master instructor will [be in] Honolulu with the prizes and giveaways to ring in the New Year!
Jan 1st 9am - 5pm
1287 Kalani Street #102
Honolulu HI 96817
That link shows names and addresses of people already trained, and I ASSUME who are in the process of being licensed to sell here.
Also, Taser is obviously wanting to ship direct to customers here, but can't yet.
(https://i.imgur.com/hnXytnC.png)
I signed up in Nov for their marketing emails. That got me a code for 10% off.
When I put something in my cart (to check if free shipping applied to Hawaii -- it didn't because they didn't ship here yet!), I later got an email "Did you forget something in your cart?" with a 20% off code. So, try doing that if you can't get a 20% discount code otherwise.
Just thought I'd share what I'd seen so far. The Jan 1st kick-off event will probably include more discounts if you attend.
:shaka:
Post by: Nostayhome on December 30, 2021, 03:43:26 PM
I did enter my email address so hopefully they will send me a quiz.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on December 30, 2021, 04:15:41 PM
Thanks RSN and Flapp
I did enter my email address so hopefully they will send me a quiz.
Make sure to turn off any pop-up blockers on your browser, too. They like to use pop-ups when you go to their site.
Post by: RSN172 on December 30, 2021, 04:24:15 PM
Post by: changemyoil66 on December 30, 2021, 05:18:15 PM
I personally not going buy one Taser so try use the code they sent me and see what happens.I too will own no taser, stungun, taser battery, or taser cartriages.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: changemyoil66 on December 31, 2021, 05:31:18 PM
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: changemyoil66 on January 01, 2022, 01:03:53 PM
And theyre saying a 6 hr class must be done. Again, law has no time limit.
Day 1 of tasers being legal and already they messing up.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on January 01, 2022, 03:42:57 PM
Hpd making stuff up again. They are telling vendors that hpd must do the background check. Which is not what the law says.Based on the way the law is written, the state is trying to create a "choke point" at the retail side so the buyers have almost no options for acquiring Tasers. This is also obvious in the part that prohibits transferring a Taser you own to anyone else unless you, too, are a licensee.
And theyre saying a 6 hr class must be done. Again, law has no time limit.
Day 1 of tasers being legal and already they messing up.
The legislature put as many hurdles as they could into the bill so the citizen wanting to get one will have a hard time finding a licensee who carries the product they want.
It'll be interesting to see how the Taser makers fare with being able to sell and ship to Hawaii buyers.
Post by: changemyoil66 on January 01, 2022, 04:42:51 PM
Based on the way the law is written, the state is trying to create a "choke point" at the retail side so the buyers have almost no options for acquiring Tasers. This is also obvious in the part that prohibits transferring a Taser you own to anyone else unless you, too, are a licensee.In this case the state is wrong. The law specifically states the seller must do the check.
The legislature put as many hurdles as they could into the bill so the citizen wanting to get one will have a hard time finding a licensee who carries the product they want.
It'll be interesting to see how the Taser makers fare with being able to sell and ship to Hawaii buyers.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on January 01, 2022, 05:33:25 PM
In this case the state is wrong. The law specifically states the seller must do the check.
And with every new requirement the state makes the seller handle, it represents a cost in record keeping, in-house training, and labor -- time needed to comply with the law.
Taking the process of doing BG checks from HPD and giving it to the retailers is a "workaround", because the police department told the people working on the bill they didn't have the resources necessary to add Tazers to the list of requirements they already do for firearms.
Maybe if the retailers get the process down to an art, we can then push to have them do ALL background checks. Hmmmm. Go the the gun shop, buy a handgun, the FFL does all the paperwork, submits the background check, and approves the application in-store. No running back and forth between the store and HPD.
Now, if the waiting period could be abolished, we'd be getting somewhere!
I think at some point, HPD is going to realize the Tazer law as written is unable to be implemented effectively.
Post by: RSN172 on January 01, 2022, 06:10:43 PM
Post by: macsak on January 01, 2022, 07:29:06 PM
Post by: changemyoil66 on January 01, 2022, 08:57:42 PM
So much wrong info in this article.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: RSN172 on January 03, 2022, 07:11:00 AM
Post by: ren on January 03, 2022, 08:00:43 AM
Post by: QUIETShooter on January 03, 2022, 08:20:30 AM
I don't plan to buy one.
I'm watching if current gun laws will be altered or re-written for the worse since we "now" have another alternative to defending ourselves.
Will our beloved Hawaii "leaders" take a stance that since Tasers are legal, there is no need for firearms?
Will they "crucify" a firearm owner if he uses a firearm in a self defense situation? Will they question why he didn't use a Taser? Will they require all firearm owners to purchase Tasers and make laws that state a firearm used in Liew of a Taser will be considered a felony?
Some might say these ideas are paranoid and far fetched in a civil and logical society.
But they fail to see that we are in Hawaii. I haven't seen much of that coming out of the state capitol lately.
Post by: Rocky on January 03, 2022, 09:55:29 AM
https://www.kitv.com/news/local/tasers-and-stun-guns-now-legal-in-hawaii-by-permit/article_27f630ae-6b86-11ec-8fcd-27cb7f11788d.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook_KITV4When you use the taser "There will still be consequences" :wacko:
So much wrong info in this article.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: changemyoil66 on January 03, 2022, 10:08:37 AM
When you use the taser "There will still be consequences" :wacko:
I expect to get sued by someone when you use any kind of force to protect yourself.
Post by: QUIETShooter on January 03, 2022, 10:36:20 AM
They always seem to be in the corner of the criminals. Bleeding hearts. They deserve second chances. They are victims of the economy and hard times. Minority bias. And countless other bullshit crap.
When they allow repeat offenders to go free or fail to charge them for their crimes, they are essentially telling the law abiding citizens "f**k you". But don't forget to pay your taxes.......
Sort of off-topic. Sorry.
Post by: RSN172 on January 03, 2022, 10:41:47 AM
https://wattozz.com/wattozz-the-worlds-best-non-lethal-weapon/
Post by: changemyoil66 on January 03, 2022, 11:39:19 AM
When will Hawaii be in the corner of the law-abiding citizens.
They always seem to be in the corner of the criminals. Bleeding hearts. They deserve second chances. They are victims of the economy and hard times. Minority bias. And countless other bullshit crap.
When they allow repeat offenders to go free or fail to charge them for their crimes, they are essentially telling the law abiding citizens "f**k you". But don't forget to pay your taxes.......
Sort of off-topic. Sorry.
Bill to allow schedule 1 narcotics to be legal (meth) like 1 page. OG taser bill for law abiding citizens, 50 pages.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on January 03, 2022, 11:48:24 AM
When you use the taser "There will still be consequences" :wacko:
I've yet to see these swamp critters say, "If you break the law and attempt to inflict violence on innocent people, there will be consequences."
Post by: drck1000 on January 03, 2022, 12:02:10 PM
I dont forsee this happening because the stores have many hoops to jump thru. I estimate end of Jan at the earliest which is my opinion.So CMO is going to get stunned early-mid Feb then. :geekdanc:
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: changemyoil66 on January 03, 2022, 01:12:45 PM
So CMO is going to get stunned early-mid Feb then. :geekdanc:
Cannot, per the law. Shucks. :rofl:
Post by: QUIETShooter on January 03, 2022, 01:37:50 PM
So CMO is going to get stunned early-mid Feb then. :geekdanc:
Cannot, per the law. Shucks. :rofl:
:rofl: :rofl: You guys crack me up!! :shaka:
Post by: changemyoil66 on January 03, 2022, 04:01:37 PM
CYSbt2QFLcy/?utm_medium=copy_link
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: drck1000 on January 03, 2022, 04:51:49 PM
Cannot, per the law. Shucks. :rofl:We didn't say it has to occur in Hawaii. . . :hmm:
:rofl: :rofl: You guys crack me up!! :shaka:Have you seen Hangover?
:rofl:
A couple of my college buddies were LE in WA State after graduation. One of them volunteered to be the "aggressor" and rush a trainee. He's a stocky, bowling ball shaped guy. Pretty funny if you know him, but kinda scary if you don't know him and hes rushing at you. Anyways, "ahhh" and my buddy goes charging. Pzzzt. . .
Down and faceplant on the blue mat. He said that thing just stopped him in his tracks. Of course, he got a video and thus the start of bets for who would do it. . . so when CMO volunteered 8) :thumbsup: :geekdanc:
Post by: RSN172 on January 03, 2022, 07:29:07 PM
Post by: changemyoil66 on January 21, 2022, 08:56:20 PM
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk