Hearing is 24 hours later on 3/15.

They're making butterfly knives and switch blades legal to only open carry. Conceal carrying them would be illegal.

The purpose of this is to screw the lawyer over for the lawsuit so he doesn't get paid by the state when he wins.  If the state changes the law, then the lawsuit gets thrown out.  And HI is trying their best to be in compliance with the 2nd amendment, but doing as much as possible to regulate it. Hence the ban on concealed carrying it.

Biggest problem is this bill is focused on CCW.  Anyone possessing a gun and committing a misdemeanor, even if unrelated, gets the charge upgraded to a felony.  For example, playing fireworks.  This is also considered a firearm offense and felony, so  you are now a prohibited person from firearms possession even though the original crime may be relatively minor.

This doesn't affect criminals because they'll be charged felonies for place to keep or prohibited persons, or whatever crime they're doing.

They added in petty misdemenors are excluded.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

What am I supposed to say?

What am I supposed to say?

One Trump supporter, when confronted with the question about how he can tolerate some of the things Trump says.

He said "I don't vote for someone based on what he says.  I vote for someone based on what he does and has done."

With that being said, I constantly wonder why people would vote for the senile, ice-cream eating, puppet we currently have occupying the White House.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/biden-evacuated-bureaucrats-but-left-american-missionaries-to-die-in-haiti/ar-BB1jPkTx?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=82f72a9dbc4b449cb3c50e82eba460e7&ei=74

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/pentagon-sends-elite-squad-of-anti-terror-marines-into-haiti-to-rescue-trapped-americans/ar-BB1jPmAi?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=e20b9fc9df75423db9db16527064b8bf&ei=77

One Trump supporter, when confronted with the question about how he can tolerate some of the things Trump says.

He said "I don't vote for someone based on what he says.  I vote for someone based on what he does and has done."

With that being said, I constantly wonder why people would vote for the senile, ice-cream eating, puppet we currently have occupying the White House.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/biden-evacuated-bureaucrats-but-left-american-missionaries-to-die-in-haiti/ar-BB1jPkTx?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=82f72a9dbc4b449cb3c50e82eba460e7&ei=74

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/pentagon-sends-elite-squad-of-anti-terror-marines-into-haiti-to-rescue-trapped-americans/ar-BB1jPmAi?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=e20b9fc9df75423db9db16527064b8bf&ei=77

The control of information is a very powerful weapon. People don't know what they don't know. Even to the point of arguing against facts.  This will take a generation to fix, if it's tried to be fixed.  Per a KGB agent about how to hurt America from within in a 1980's interview.

The control of information is a very powerful weapon. People don't know what they don't know. Even to the point of arguing against facts.  This will take a generation to fix, if it's tried to be fixed.  Per a KGB agent about how to hurt America from within in a 1980's interview.

True.  Watching a few Tim Pool videos, especially when he has Left Wing ideologues on, you get a glimpse of that.

The guest will say something that's demonstrably false, and Tim will correct him.  The guest will then say what Tim is telling him never happened.  Tim will then show him the video of it happening, and the guest is stunned.  They just learned that what they have been told by the networks and social media was a lie.  The guest is now in the position to ask, "If that was wrong, how much of what else I've been told was wrong?"

There are some who come on after they've been "red pilled,' realizing that so much of what they believed to be facts are nothing but lies and spin, pushed out by anti-Trump, auto-conservative, anti-Christian, and anti-gun sources.

One example (not a guest) who's been on a public tirade against Trump suddenly learned what he thought was the truth about Charlottesville just wasn't so.  And he went on believing that lie for years.

Michael was a hardcore anti Trumper. Recent months he's been changing his tune.

Maybe the Hollywood gig's he was promised didn't pan out?

Michael was a hardcore anti Trumper. Recent months he's been changing his tune.

Maybe the Hollywood gig's he was promised didn't pan out?

I think it's a character trait.  People like those on The View will never admit when they are wrong.  I mean, look at all the non-apology apologies from Whoopie in the time she's been there.  "I'm sorry if i offended anyone" is not an admission of being wrong.

Michael at least has the integrity to admit he was wrong, and it appears that maybe he's open to the possibility that he's been wrong about a lot of other things he just took on face value because he trusted the sources.

i'm reminded of a scene in Animal House.

Flounder, you can't spend your whole life worrying about your mistakes! You fucked up. You trusted us! Hey, make the best of it!

Let's try this again...

I'm guessing I should OPPOSE this legislation because it doesn't allow for concealed carry?

Let's try this again...

I'm guessing I should OPPOSE this legislation because it doesn't allow for concealed carry?

Yup

Does anybody have a good list of the types of "misdemeanors" but not "petty misdemeanors" that could land somebody a Class C felony under this law?

Does anybody have a good list of the types of "misdemeanors" but not "petty misdemeanors" that could land somebody a Class C felony under this law?

Certain assaults, minor drugs, DUI, illegal firework usage/posession.

If you get a DUI, call Kevin Ogrady, he's a DUI lawyer and files 2A lawsuits. He is often a co-atty along Alan Beck for the lawsuits.  IIRC, he's co-atty on the sensitive places lawsuit and others.

This bill has no law enforcement exception, right? So any cop who commits a misdemeanor is a felon?

Do they have another carve-out somewhere else in the law that would make this law not apply to them?

How's this?
~~~

Philosophically speaking, humans have a right to self-defense, with whatever tool may be available. If somebody is on top of you beating you to death, and there is a rock, stick or knife on the ground next to you, you have every right to pick up that weapon and use it against your attacker.

Yet bills like this continue to attempt to dissuade somebody from maintaining access to useful weapons as a contingency in case they're needed. It's not as if we have a right to speak or assemble only during a demonstrably dire situation; why is the right to self-defense treated so differently?

Offensive use or threatening display of weapons is already highly illegal, and rightfully so. Possession and transport of weapons is already highly regulated. Is our justice system so distorted, that the only way to deter dangerous people, is to to pass ever-increasingly draconian laws, to ensure that prosecutors maintain the power to coerce the accused into ever-harsher plea deals?


Practically speaking, this bill is confusing, and would put another layer onto what's already a messy legal ecosystem.

Under this bill, a person with a firearm who commits a misdemeanor, other than a petty misdemeanor, is now a felon. Even if the firearm was legally possessed, being transported in a legal manner, and was not used in or related to the misdemeanor.

I am a hunter and a target shooter, so I routinely transport legal firearms in legal ways for legal purposes. I can't help but feel this bill goes out of its way to hang a sword of Damocles over my head, and the head of every other gun owner, for having the gall to possess a firearm. (Which is a right legally enumerated in Section 17 of the Hawaii Bill of Rights, as well as elsewhere.)


This bill would also make it illegal to concealed carry a switchblade or butterfly knife, or to even carry such a knife in a "bag or other container".

There are many situations where it is legal to carry even a gun in a container. What logic is there in having more restrictive laws regarding knife transport than firearms transport? Under this law, would the only legal way to transport a switchblade be to keep it in the open?


Also, it's not as if there are clear definitions of switchblades or butterfly knifes. Hardware stores sell utility knives that are rather switchbladey. Gerber makes a folding machete that is rather butterfly-knifey. Even more ambiguous is the line between "dagger" and "dive knife" or "Bowie knife", or between "blackjack" and "billy".

The law and justice system should focus on the illegal use of weapons, rather than spilling so much ink trying to define weapons, and rather than trying to perniciously discourage people from practicing their right to self-defense. 


The bill would make it a misdemeanor to concealed carry a dirk, dagger, blackjack, metal knuckles, but not a billy. Anybody who uses, possesses, or threatens to use any weapon, including a billy, but excluding a firearm, while committing a separate felony or misdemeanor, including a petty misdemeanor, is committing a felony.

So if you're committing a petty misdemeanor with a firearm in your pocket, it's not a felony, but with brass knuckles in your pocket, it is a felony?


So much of the language here is nonsensically byzantine. Let people be prosecuted for the crimes they actually commit. Please craft and pass better, sensible legislation. 

YOu have a lot of good questions.

I'll try to answer them, LMK if I missed any.

A dagger via google is a blade that's sharp on both edges. Which is common for diving knives, which is why it's excluded. IIRC , there was a lawsuit about it like 30 years ago cause someone had one and the court found a diving knife isn't a dagger. See case noted below the HRS134.

HI lawmakers like to over complicate things. The OG bill to make electric guns legal (tasers/stun) was 50 pages. Then thanks to HIFICO, got it down to about 15. Still BS, because all they had to do was delete 1 section of the HRS. But the reason why they changed the law is because of a lawsuit by the founder of HIFICO Andrew Roberts which was filed in like 2016.  By them changing the law, they dont have to pay much in lawyer fees from the plaintiff. IIRC, like $300 was awarded instead of $140,000.  This is why not many sue HI, cause unless you're dropping cash up front, the lawyers won't make much. So the deck is stacked. See below also as another example.

The above also goes for butterfly and swtich blades. Instead of the state losing in court and having to pay for the plaintiffs lawyer fees, they are changing the law. But now restricting them to open carry only, instead of just making them legal. It's HI's last F/U to everyone. Also, since it will pass as all the politicians know why this is being presented, lets add some other BS in the bill as well, instead of just focusing on the knives. Again, another F-U to everyone.  The lawsuits are Tetter (Butterfly) and Roa, etal (switchblades). Roa is part of Hawaii Tactical Division. So support them if  you can. HTD also shows up to many of the hearings in person.

The batons are part of Yukutake lawsuit, a former HIFICO director.  The state lost this and had to pay like $60,000 in fees.  So now they're changing the law. THey didn't have to as the judges ruling stands, but I guess to clean up the law. Yukutake also had another lawsuit which allows online registration if you buy from a local FFL and open on wednesdays till 6:30pm.  THe co-plantiff is Kikukawa, who owns Danger Close Tactical. So, support his store if you can.  This lawsuit had other parts in it as well that are pending. Like the 2 week wait for permits to acquire.


In the end, most of HI's laws just are reasons to make a law abiding person into a criminal and take away their 2a right.  If our anti 2A lawmakers support making a weapon/tool legal, then you have to ask yourself why would they do so?

If you can, support HIFICO by being a member and buying their merch online.  Lawsuits aren't cheap.

YOu have a lot of good questions.

I'll try to answer them, LMK if I missed any.

A dagger via google is a blade that's sharp on both edges. Which is common for diving knives, which is why it's excluded. IIRC , there was a lawsuit about it like 30 years ago cause someone had one and the court found a diving knife isn't a dagger. See case noted below the HRS134.

HI lawmakers like to over complicate things. The OG bill to make electric guns legal (tasers/stun) was 50 pages. Then thanks to HIFICO, got it down to about 15. Still BS, because all they had to do was delete 1 section of the HRS. But the reason why they changed the law is because of a lawsuit by the founder of HIFICO Andrew Roberts which was filed in like 2016.  By them changing the law, they dont have to pay much in lawyer fees from the plaintiff. IIRC, like $300 was awarded instead of $140,000.  This is why not many sue HI, cause unless you're dropping cash up front, the lawyers won't make much. So the deck is stacked. See below also as another example.

The above also goes for butterfly and swtich blades. Instead of the state losing in court and having to pay for the plaintiffs lawyer fees, they are changing the law. But now restricting them to open carry only, instead of just making them legal. It's HI's last F/U to everyone. Also, since it will pass as all the politicians know why this is being presented, lets add some other BS in the bill as well, instead of just focusing on the knives. Again, another F-U to everyone.  The lawsuits are Tetter (Butterfly) and Roa, etal (switchblades). Roa is part of Hawaii Tactical Division. So support them if  you can. HTD also shows up to many of the hearings in person.

The batons are part of Yukutake lawsuit, a former HIFICO director.  The state lost this and had to pay like $60,000 in fees.  So now they're changing the law. THey didn't have to as the judges ruling stands, but I guess to clean up the law. Yukutake also had another lawsuit which allows online registration if you buy from a local FFL and open on wednesdays till 6:30pm.  THe co-plantiff is Kikukawa, who owns Danger Close Tactical. So, support his store if you can.  This lawsuit had other parts in it as well that are pending. Like the 2 week wait for permits to acquire.


In the end, most of HI's laws just are reasons to make a law abiding person into a criminal and take away their 2a right.  If our anti 2A lawmakers support making a weapon/tool legal, then you have to ask yourself why would they do so?

If you can, support HIFICO by being a member and buying their merch online.  Lawsuits aren't cheap.

Thank you, it is fascinating stuff and thank you guys for doing this for so long.
I should've been clearer, my post above is copy and paste of my testimony, so they're my rhetorical questions. I'd always like a critique on the best sort of way to write these things, not that they really matter in most cases.

I signed up as a lifetime member for HIFICO a couple weeks ago.

I do find it interesting there isn't a LEO exception for this bill. Is there already a law that says a LEO who commits a misdemeanor is a felon? Or do they have some sort of blanket protection from this, beyond the unofficial "no cop is going to get charged with a bullshit misdemeanor" doctrine?

Thank you, it is fascinating stuff and thank you guys for doing this for so long.
I should've been clearer, my post above is copy and paste of my testimony, so they're my rhetorical questions. I'd always like a critique on the best sort of way to write these things, not that they really matter in most cases.

I signed up as a lifetime member for HIFICO a couple weeks ago.

I do find it interesting there isn't a LEO exception for this bill. Is there already a law that says a LEO who commits a misdemeanor is a felon? Or do they have some sort of blanket protection from this, beyond the unofficial "no cop is going to get charged with a bullshit misdemeanor" doctrine?

The AG wrote pointing out the LEO flaw.

Sometimes, its' good not to point out your enemies mistakes until no changes can be made.  Don't correct your enemy when they're making a mistake ~Sun Tzu.

Bill passed the committee.

Note for future reference:

At 1:03:30 AG answers question if the felony charge would apply if carrying the firearm is unrelated to the misdemeanor crime.  AG says there would have to be a nexus between the two and it would have to be related.  Wakai says that line is ambiguous, but doesn't press further.

https://www.youtube.com/live/LH_WNlNWRW4