3/14/14 SB2938: Passed Second Reading as amended in HD 1 and referred to the committee(s) on JUD with Representative(s) Hanohano voting aye with reservations; none voting no (0) and Representative(s) Creagan, Say, Tokioka, Yamashita excused (4).
14 March 2014, 3:00 am

3/14/14 SB2938: House Status Update

Source: SB2938 Status Feed

Description: SB 2938

Requires the department of the attorney general, in collaboration with the county police departments, to establish a statewide online firearms registration process, to be fully implemented by July 1, 2015.  Appropriates funds for the establishment and implementation of a statewide online firearms registration process.  Effective 7/1/2050.  (SD2)

 EFFECTIVE 7/1/2050!  Really? Why wait 35 years to take effect?  Someone tell me I'm reading this Bill incorrectly or this is a typo.

Description: SB 2938

Requires the department of the attorney general, in collaboration with the county police departments, to establish a statewide online firearms registration process, to be fully implemented by July 1, 2015.  Appropriates funds for the establishment and implementation of a statewide online firearms registration process.  Effective 7/1/2050.  (SD2)

 EFFECTIVE 7/1/2050!  Really? Why wait 35 years to take effect?  Someone tell me I'm reading this Bill incorrectly or this is a typo.

You probably want to read the regular thread on this bill. I made a similar astonished statement when I saw that "effective date" amendment made to the bill. It was explained to me that such an amendment is common when it's likely that other parts of the bill will or may be amended in other committees before getting to a full house or senate vote. Of course, they could amend any of the wording in the bill at all, or leave it the way it was, since any part of it at all is open to amendment until a final vote... but apparently "that's just the way they do it".

FYI, my understanding is that since the bill wasn't heard as of Thursday March 20, as it wasn't scheduled by the chair to have a hearing in the latest committee assigned, that the bill is "deferred" (i.e. "dead"... at least until possibly "carried over" until next year). They didn't even want to have a HEARING on a bill to create a "working group" composed of 83% outright opponents of the bill. Our legislators at work protecting us from... what exactly? The only way I can understand people continuing to vote for these people is that many voters are feeding at the statist trough.

Thanks for the information punaperson. I appreciate your response.

Thanks for the information punaperson. I appreciate your response.

You're welcome. My current perspective is that the arcane and/or technically/legally complex procedures and rules of the legislative process serve to keep the "little people" like ourselves from getting too involved in the workings of "our betters" who will be telling us what laws and rules we must obey in order to be "good citizens". When I ask some legislators for the reasoning and evidence they use to vote for a particular law I get back: nothing. I understand that it would literally be impossible for each legislator to be even moderately informed on the intricacies of all the thousands of bill that come up each year, but at least they could admit "I'm just doing what I'm told by the [party, lobbyist, donor, etc.]. Of course that will never happen. Am I too cynical, or a realist?

Observing the reality of the political process will make you cynical. But we must let our voices be heard because if we get enough voices speaking, saying the same thing, they might listen.