Something I noticed...

This affects use of semi auto rifles for eradication hunting on non-private land. Grandfathered guns could still be used on private lands but nothing allows professional hunters to use them on county/ state land. 

Right, or am I misreading? Can government-owned land be considered "private"?

Isn't that a big deal?

Yup.  If this passes, then I'm going to rally the hunters to rail against the legislators who voted for this.  To  include Tarnas who caused this mess and whos district is on the big island.

We locals GOT SOLD OUT! Our rights were SOLD by this Ca$hMoney Sistah!

You should complain to the Governor.

what about gut and replace aspect? tarnas admited as much on the news. took the text from one bill that already died and inserted into this one.

It's not to the same extent as what the HI supreme Court ruled on a few years ago.

This bill wasn't gutted or replaced, the original 50 cal ban still remains they just added more.  And it still relates to firearms bans.  What Tarnas did was substantially add to it which wasn't heard by the Senate committees and public wasn't allowed to testify in the Senate.

Hawaii Supreme Court would rule against us if lawsuit was filed.  The gut and replace was overruled by a 5 to 4 vote.  Lawsuit like this would cost about $100,000 or more.

Thinking back on a federal lawsuit, maybe we could get a tro or preliminary injunction if we get lucky on the judge.  Since the Duncan ruling was more on the point of magazines aren't protected under the 2a.  Would still be very difficult to get tho.

Aw man.. So say this bill passes, do we get to shoot our semi rifles at the range? I’m getting kinda on the paranoid of buying any firearm related stuff now. How bout bolt action styles rifles with ar style grips (im actually was about to purchase another one with a 10 round mag)? Will those type of firearms be affected too? I mean who knows nowadays with all this infringements here in Hawaii. Just like they like band everything.

You can shoot it at a range.

Main things you can't do with it is hunt on public land, take it to the police station, or take it out of state and bring it back.

This is where it also gets confusing.. Even though this bill is aimed at semi-auto rifles and semi-auto shot guns. There is also bolt action AR style rifles. That has folding stocks, has detachable mags, threaded barrels, threaded muzzle, pistol grips, and thumbholes. Are these type of firearms affected too? What about muzzle brakes? I mean it's like flash hiders/ suppressors (if that what it means). This bill seems like a sneeky backdoor altogether. friggin ban everything already. I mean anything that can become a weapon. Knives, hammer, bats, automobiles, pens, pencils, forks, spoons. Oh wait, all these is utterly useless without a operator.

Bolt actions are not affected.  It has ot meet the criteria of :  "Assault rifle" means a semiautomatic rifle:

The head chair of JHA (Tarnas) said on the news that this isn't a "gut and replace" bill and that it followed it's proper channels and can be successfully defended per the AG's office in court.

The additions are so huge that it didn't get any senate committee hearings or public input on it.  Instead, the senate head chairs, who are anti 2A will get to decide if it's OK (Rhodes and Elefante).  Others may be present, but IDK.  If the vice chair for JDC is present, that's Gabbard and he has been a friend to the 2A.  I'm hoping he would bring up the major concerns if he gets a voice. The senate PSM vice chair is Wakai, who's anti 2A. So Gabbard would still be outnumbered.

What Tarnas did met the letter of the law, but not the spirit of the law.  It wasn't gutted or replaced.  But it had the same intent, adding a lot of stuff that didn't go through the Senate committees.  What he did was bypass the Senate JDC committee cause he knew it wouldn't pass there which is very underhanded

Gabbard can't be on conference committee since he voted no on the bill.  I was hoping Awa would be on the committee since he voted yes for the original bill, but couldn't find anything in the rules requiring a minority party member be on the committee.  So it's Elefante, Chang, Wakai, and Rhoads.  Elefante might vote no.  Chang and Wakai will vote yes.  Rhoads will most likely vote yes, but small chance he could vote no cause it bypassed his JDC committee.

I was looking for a small hammer, then I read the directions.

Thought I previously saw 10,000 licenses, guess that was too good to be true.

I estimated Hawaii's demand would be about 25,000 licenses which would've been half of the national average of 5% (5% is an old figure, likely higher now).  The things limiting it is lack of classes due to ranges, and people don't know the injunction is still in place for the sensitive places, and people don't know the license is good for 4 years now.

4/8/2025   H   Received notice of disagreement (Sen. Com. No. 774).
4/8/2025   S   Senate disagrees with House amendments.
4/8/2025   S   Received from House (Hse. Com. No. 578).


Is the disagreement between Senate and House a normal thing? A positive sign?

Is it possible to see these House Comms and Senate Comms somewhere? They're numbered which makes me assume they must be archived?

Normal, just means they passed different versions of the bill and have to negotiate during conference committee, then revote on it. 

It passed the House today with the third reading vote.  Goes to conference committee where House and Senate negotiate, then vote.