2aHawaii
General Topics => Legal and Activism => Topic started by: punaperson on January 17, 2014, 11:53:23 AM
-
SB2353: Shall Issue Concealed Carry, no mental health exam requirement, as introduced by Senator Gabbard. Expect it to be in the State Legislative Updates section shortly.
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=2353 (http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=2353)
PDF of text:
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2014/bills/SB2353_.pdf (http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2014/bills/SB2353_.pdf)
-
Guys, lets get this thing passed! email your senators and council members, and lets voice our support!
-
Guys, lets get this thing passed! email your senators and council members, and lets voice our support!
Ditto. Once this gets assigned to committees I will post (on the State Legislative Updates thread) those and the members email addresses and phone numbers so we can encourage them to hold hearings (where we can submit testimony) and then get it out of committee.
Now listed on the legislative updates thread : https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=13077.0
-
Guys, lets get this thing passed! email your senators and council members, and lets voice our support!
Sounds good. Thanks for the update!
-
.
-
Uh...why is there even mention of a mental health exam to begin with?
Because Senator Slom's previously introduced (yesterday) Shall Issue Concealed Carry bill, SB2168, requires a written report from a state-approved psychiatrist or psychologist as part of the qualifying process.
I should say that I haven't carefully read SB2353, and won't get a chance to until this evening, but I definitely didn't notice any such requirement upon a quick reading. Someone please let me/us know if I missed it.
-
The bill is a good start, but read it carefully as to be acceptable, IMHO, it will have to be modified. The items in the bill that need to be changed are:
The finger print requirement: We already have to pay for fingerprints to purchase a handgun in Hawaii, why should we have to get, and pay for, obtaining and processing (two separate fees) another set?
Cannot carry in a place that serves alcohol: I could argue for not allowing you to drink while carrying, but just because the restaurant serves alcohol, and if you don't partake, carrying shouldn't be disallowed.
Applicant age must be 23
Training for the CCW would be under the auspices of HRS 134-2(g)(2), which states: A firearms safety or training course or class available to the general public offered by a law enforcement agency of the State or of any county
That was one of the original requirements that would have resulted in a defacto handgun ban as the police had never, and probably will never, set up a training course for "us."
And, language needs to be added that would allow a CCW issued in one county to be good within the entire state.
That's what I found on the first, quick read thru....
-
The bill is a good start, but read it carefully as to be acceptable, IMHO, it will have to be modified. The items in the bill that need to be changed are:
The finger print requirement: We already have to pay for fingerprints to purchase a handgun in Hawaii, why should we have to get, and pay for, obtaining and processing (two separate fees) another set?
Cannot carry in a place that serves alcohol: I could argue for not allowing you to drink while carrying, but just because the restaurant serves alcohol, and if you don't partake, carrying shouldn't be disallowed.
Applicant age must be 23
Training for the CCW would be under the auspices of HRS 134-2(g)(2), which states: That was one of the original requirements that would have resulted in a defacto handgun ban as the police had never, and probably will never, set up a training course for "us."
And, language needs to be added that would allow a CCW issued in one county to be good within the entire state.
That's what I found on the first, quick read thru....
If Hawaii treats CCW like many other states, a Carry Permit means you don't have to apply to acquire a handgun. The CCW IS your permit!
It makes sense to me.
-
If Hawaii treats CCW like many other states, a Carry Permit means you don't have to apply to acquire a handgun. The CCW IS your permit!
It makes sense to me.
Never assume anything in politics, especially if it seems to be a good idea.... Re-read the bill. The other, longstanding language of HRS 134 remains. So, if you got your CCW first, under the language of this bill, you would still have to go thru the training to purchase a handgun.
-
.
-
Not all states require training for concealed carry, some states have constitutional carry and you don't need any sort of permit or anything to begin with.
That said, A bill like this has a snowballs chance in hell of passing in this damn state.
-
The CCW would be the training. Every other state requires handgun safety class for CCW, so I don't see why this wouldn't fit the bill.
Again, read the bill....that's not what it says. Hoping and wishing don't make it so....
And the required training, per the proposed language, would never happen because the various police Chiefs will never set up the training program.
-
Not all states require training for concealed carry, some states have constitutional carry and you don't need any sort of permit or anything to begin with.
That said, A bill like this has a snowballs chance in hell of passing in this damn state.
True, but those states, with the exception of Vermont, had pretty good CCW laws to begin with....and yes, getting this passed will be difficult, and the odds aren't great, but you never know.....
-
Not all states require training for concealed carry, some states have constitutional carry and you don't need any sort of permit or anything to begin with.
That said, A bill like this has a snowballs chance in hell of passing in this damn state.
Got a Penn permit with only $25, no training nothing
-
The bill is a good start, but read it carefully as to be acceptable, IMHO, it will have to be modified. The items in the bill that need to be changed are:
The finger print requirement: We already have to pay for fingerprints to purchase a handgun in Hawaii, why should we have to get, and pay for, obtaining and processing (two separate fees) another set?
I found the language a bit vague. It doesn't seem to state a fee for the "processing of fingerprints", but that the fee shall be borne by the applicant. It also says "The county police department shall provide fingerprinting service, if requested by the applicant, and may charge a fee not to exceed $5 for this service." Personally, I'd be willing to pay for another fingerprinting and processing to obtain CCW. No law is going to be perfectly acceptable to all of us, and I see this as a minor cost and inconvenience compared to what is available now (aka nothing), or undergoing a state-approved psychiatric examination.
Cannot carry in a place that serves alcohol: I could argue for not allowing you to drink while carrying, but just because the restaurant serves alcohol, and if you don't partake, carrying shouldn't be disallowed.
I concur. Not sure what the basis of this exemption is other than alcohol consumption can stimulate aggression so there could be some greater likelihood for congrontation, even if the person with the CCW isn't drinking or becoming agressive. Illinois's new court mandated CCW law has 23 confusing, vague and ambiguous exemptions, so we'd be getting off relatively easy.
Applicant age must be 23
Missouri just lowered their minimum age to 19, from 21. Not sure there will be any rational basis or evidence to argue soundly for one number or another other than that we trust 18-year-olds to carry fully automatic weapons, rocket launchers, etc. in the military... then they get off duty and can't carry for self-defense of themselves and their family?
Training for the CCW would be under the auspices of HRS 134-2(g)(2), which states: That was one of the original requirements that would have resulted in a defacto handgun ban as the police had never, and probably will never, set up a training course for "us."
It says "certified instructor OR" government blah blah blah... so there would have to be some kind of (NRA?) course with certified instructors, just like the handgun course at present for handgun permit eligibility. I know such courses exist in other states, so it shouldn't be a problem here.
And, language needs to be added that would allow a CCW issued in one county to be good within the entire state.
Yeah, nothing about that at all. Seems like it needs to be added. I'm sure the bill will be open to amendments if it ever gets that far in the process.
That's what I found on the first, quick read thru....
-
Never assume anything in politics, especially if it seems to be a good idea.... Re-read the bill. The other, longstanding language of HRS 134 remains. So, if you got your CCW first, under the language of this bill, you would still have to go thru the training to purchase a handgun.
Yeah, nothing that I see about the CCW substituting for the training required for permit to purchase itself, but there is language that exempts the CCW license holder from the waiting period, or at least that's how I read it... see 134-2 (e)...[I think...] Somebody help me out here!
-
That said, A bill like this has a snowballs chance in hell of passing in this damn state.
I doubt it has THAT good a chance! :geekdanc: BUT, as far as I'm concerned, at this point, I'm willing to spend a little bit of time and energy asking legislators (when it gets assigned to committee(s)) to further the bill by holding hearings and taking testimony. I have had no luck in the past getting legislators to explain their reasoning, arguments and evidence as to why they vote for or against a bill, I guess that is asking too much of them... I got one to finally say "We just disagree!". Yeah (Duh!), but that's not what I asked. I asked "Why? Reasons and evidence?" So even if/when this bill is defeated via whatever means it will likely die of ideological dogma (aka "Guns are bad, and regular people having guns in public to defend themselves is extra special bad, just because."), rather than someone presenting (false) evidence that CCW increases crime, though that is exactly what the state argues. The fact that CCW holders (through many years of experience with millions of CCW holders in other states) commit fewer crimes than law enforcement officers isn't what these bureaucrats and statists want to acknowledge as reality. That or the fact that we have an inalienable natural/god-given right to defend ourselves and our families in whatever way gives us the best chance in a critical situation. The Constitution merely affirms this and clearly states that the government may NOT infringe on this inalienable natural right. I find this infuriating, but that seems to by how the "system" works.
-
Read through it a bit. I didn't see anything permitting you to keep your CCW firearm secured in your vehicle if you were going into a place which firearms are not allowed.
i.e school, federal building, airport. To my understanding the old methods of how and where you can transport a firearm were not altered in the bill. But I may have misread it. :shaka:
-
Read through it a bit. I didn't see anything permitting you to keep your CCW firearm secured in your vehicle if you were going into a place which firearms are not allowed.
i.e school, federal building, airport. To my understanding the old methods of how and where you can transport a firearm were not altered in the bill. But I may have misread it. :shaka:
My reading of it (as if I can decipher legalese) only seems to exempt one from the current limitations of WHERE (police station, range, home, place of business/sojourn, etc) one can possess, and HOW (exemption from unloaded, closed container requirement). I didn't see anything about the legality of leaving the firearm in a vehicle when needing to enter a prohibited-carry location. I did notice that you can't enter even the parking lot of a university or college campus (maybe any school campus... but I can't wade through that stuff any more tonight). :crazy:
Perhaps we should make a list of all these questions and suggestions and forward them to Senator Gabbard when lots of people have had a chance to look at the bill and offer their suggestions. Hopefully before the snowball melts. :shaka:
-
I have only one problem with this:
Page 3, line 13 references ANY offense under partIV Chapter 712.
If this is interperted to the letter it means that a DUI, even some 30 or 40 years ago
would be a disqualifier.
How many of us are that clean? ???
Great stuff otherwise, I am all for it!
-
.
-
It may be helpful if we add certain security guards and humane society officers to the CCW list. As well as parker ranch security and security for other ranches. Being armed IS a requirement if someone gets rowdy or a vicious animal is out of control. Just an idea. Add more people into the 2@ fold. Any thoughts on this guys and gals ???
-
.
-
What pisses me off is that I have 4 years of LEO experience, trained people to use the 9mm pistol, have (2) CCW certs and HPD still wouldn't not only let me have a waiver for handgun training (which was understandable with regards to instruction of state laws), but wont also issue a CCW.
That's why I'm digging this, because if they pass this and I still can't get a CCW, I'm suing the shit out of them. $10 million! :rofl:
I read about a guy in Illinois, with their new CCW law having just gone into effect this month, who had 40 (forty) YEARS of firearm experience, including many years as a firearms instructor and trainer for military and law enforcement. He was still required to take the 16 hour CCW class. They ain't gonna make it easy, for anyone. Irrational? Illogical? Absurd? No problem, do it anyway.
-
Please use select all, copy and paste the legislator list below, as-is, into the "To:" field and email them expressing support for Gabbard's Bill SB2353.
Please also paste the list into the body of another email and send it to everyone 2a friendly you know and ask them to send emails as well.
I know these bills have been introduced before but let's try to creat such a firestorm of relentless support, that the media won't even ignore it.
Just imagine if tens of thousands of 2a supporters send emails every day saying they will spread the word that senator or representative so and so does not want the vulnerable - like women and elderly citizens - to be able to protect themselves from rapists, murderers and domestic assaults; or the helpless, vulnerable homeless to be able to protect themselves from being savagely beaten, shot, or stabbed to death.
Even the lefty legislators would be afraid to oppose the bill, for fear of losing reelection, if they thought the public viewed their opposition as a sign of elitist indifference to the dangers our citizens face every day, especially the vulnerable. Hey, this rhetoric that exploits recent violence reported on TV works wonders for the Democrats, so why don't we use it?
Post your emails here to help others get ideas!
-
"senespero@capitol.hawaii.gov" <senespero@capitol.hawaii.gov>, "sengaluteria@capitol.hawaii.gov" <sengaluteria@capitol.hawaii.gov>, "sengreen@capitol.hawaii.gov" <sengreen@capitol.hawaii.gov>, "senbaker@capitol.hawaii.gov" <senbaker@capitol.hawaii.gov>, "senchunoakland@capitol.hawaii.gov" <senchunoakland@capitol.hawaii.gov>, "sendelacruz@capitol.hawaii.gov" <sendelacruz@capitol.hawaii.gov>, "sendige@capitol.hawaii.gov" <sendige@capitol.hawaii.gov>, "senenglish@capitol.hawaii.gov" <senenglish@capitol.hawaii.gov>, "sengabbard@capitol.hawaii.gov" <sengabbard@capitol.hawaii.gov>, "senhee@capitol.hawaii.gov" <senhee@capitol.hawaii.gov>, "senihara@capitol.hawaii.gov" <senihara@capitol.hawaii.gov>, "senkahele@capitol.hawaii.gov" <senkahele@capitol.hawaii.gov>, "senkeithagaran@capitol.hawaii.gov" <senkeithagaran@capitol.hawaii.gov>, "senkidani@capitol.hawaii.gov" <senkidani@capitol.hawaii.gov>, "senkim@Capitol.hawaii.gov" <senkim@Capitol.hawaii.gov>, "senkouchi@Capitol.hawaii.gov" <senkouchi@Capitol.hawaii.gov>, "sennishihara@capitol.hawaii.gov" <sennishihara@capitol.hawaii.gov>, "senruderman@capitol.hawaii.gov" <senruderman@capitol.hawaii.gov>, "senshimabukuro@capitol.hawaii.gov" <senshimabukuro@capitol.hawaii.gov>, "senslom@capitol.hawaii.gov" <senslom@capitol.hawaii.gov>, "sensolomon@capitol.hawaii.gov" <sensolomon@capitol.hawaii.gov>, "sentaniguchi@capitol.hawaii.gov" <sentaniguchi@capitol.hawaii.gov>, "senthielen@capitol.hawaii.gov" <senthielen@capitol.hawaii.gov>, "sentokuda@capitol.hawaii.gov" <sentokuda@capitol.hawaii.gov>, "senwakai@capitol.hawaii.gov" <senwakai@capitol.hawaii.gov>, "repaquino@capitol.hawaii.gov" <repaquino@capitol.hawaii.gov>, "repawana@capitol.hawaii.gov" <repawana@capitol.hawaii.gov>, "repbelatti@capitol.hawaii.gov" <repbelatti@capitol.hawaii.gov>, "repbrower@capitol.hawaii.gov" <repbrower@capitol.hawaii.gov>, "repcabanilla@capitol.hawaii.gov" <repcabanilla@capitol.hawaii.gov>, "repcachola@capitol.hawaii.gov" <repcachola@capitol.hawaii.gov>, "repcarroll@capitol.hawaii.gov" <repcarroll@capitol.hawaii.gov>, "repcheape@capitol.hawaii.gov" <repcheape@capitol.hawaii.gov>, "repchoy@capitol.hawaii.gov" <repchoy@capitol.hawaii.gov>, "repcoffman@capitol.hawaii.gov" <repcoffman@capitol.hawaii.gov>, "repcullen@capitol.hawaii.gov" <repcullen@capitol.hawaii.gov>, "repevans@capitol.hawaii.gov" <repevans@capitol.hawaii.gov>, "repfale@capitol.hawaii.gov" <repfale@capitol.hawaii.gov>, "repfukumoto@capitol.hawaii.gov" <repfukumoto@capitol.hawaii.gov>, "rephanohano@capitol.hawaii.gov" <rephanohano@capitol.hawaii.gov>, "rephashem@capitol.hawaii.gov" <rephashem@capitol.hawaii.gov>, "rephar@capitol.hawaii.gov" <rephar@capitol.hawaii.gov>, "repichiyama@capitol.hawaii.gov" <repichiyama@capitol.hawaii.gov>, "reping@capitol.hawaii.gov" <reping@capitol.hawaii.gov>, "repito@capitol.hawaii.gov" <repito@capitol.hawaii.gov>, "repjohanson@capitol.hawaii.gov" <repjohanson@capitol.hawaii.gov>, "repjordan@capitol.hawaii.gov" <repjordan@capitol.hawaii.gov>, "repkawakami@capitol.hawaii.gov" <repkawakami@capitol.hawaii.gov>, "repkobayashi@capitol.hawaii.gov" <repkobayashi@capitol.hawaii.gov>, "replowen@capitol.hawaii.gov" <replowen@capitol.hawaii.gov>, "repluke@capitol.hawaii.gov" <repluke@capitol.hawaii.gov>, "repmcdermott@capitol.hawaii.gov" <repmcdermott@capitol.hawaii.gov>, "repmckelvey@capitol.hawaii.gov" <repmckelvey@capitol.hawaii.gov>, "repmizuno@capitol.hawaii.gov" <repmizuno@capitol.hawaii.gov>, "repmorikawa@capitol.hawaii.gov" <repmorikawa@capitol.hawaii.gov>, "repmoshiro@capitol.hawaii.gov" <repmoshiro@capitol.hawaii.gov>, "repnakashima@capitol.hawaii.gov" <repnakashima@capitol.hawaii.gov>, "repnishimoto@capitol.hawaii.gov" <repnishimoto@capitol.hawaii.gov>, "repohno@capitol.hawaii.gov" <repohno@capitol.hawaii.gov>, "reponishi@capitol.hawaii.gov" <reponishi@capitol.hawaii.gov>, "reprhoads@capitol.hawaii.gov" <reprhoads@capitol.hawaii.gov>, "repsaiki@capitol.hawaii.gov" <repsaiki@capitol.hawaii.gov>, "repsay@capitol.hawaii.gov" <repsay@capitol.hawaii.gov>, "repsouki@capitol.hawaii.gov" <repsouki@capitol.hawaii.gov>, "reptakai@capitol.hawaii.gov" <reptakai@capitol.hawaii.gov>, "reptakayama@capitol.hawaii.gov" <reptakayama@capitol.hawaii.gov>, "reptakumi@capitol.hawaii.gov" <reptakumi@capitol.hawaii.gov>, "repthielen@capitol.hawaii.gov" <repthielen@capitol.hawaii.gov>, "reptsuji@capitol.hawaii.gov" <reptsuji@capitol.hawaii.gov>, "repward@capitol.hawaii.gov" <repward@capitol.hawaii.gov>, "repwoodson@capitol.hawaii.gov" <repwoodson@capitol.hawaii.gov>, "repwooley@capitol.hawaii.gov" <repwooley@capitol.hawaii.gov>, "repyamane@capitol.hawaii.gov" <repyamane@capitol.hawaii.gov>, "repyamashita@capitol.hawaii.gov" <repyamashita@capitol.hawaii.gov>
-
And, language needs to be added that would allow a CCW issued in one county to be good within the entire state.
Re-reading the bill. Page 1, line 7: "These licenses shall be valid statewide..."
-
I'm ok with taking a class and it would make me feel better knowing other people did as well.
-
.
-
Posted this in the other thread, same stuff applies:
Once you get it - you can work on revising it. If people think that you will pass something without a bunch of stupid rules, regulations, and idiotic stuff - welll - they are smoking something!
Baby Steps.
1st step) Get any kind of CCW bill heard. At all. Period.
-
That's why when I thought the state laws issue, I just shut up and took the HDF class, because I figured I'd learn something I didn't know :thumbsup:
But if I already took 2 CCW courses, taught people how to draw OTB for 3 years, and will have another type of certification training this year that requires me to know how to draw from a concealed position, they better not give me some BS about how it doesn't count because it wasn't conducted in the state of Hawaii.
My based-on-nothing-but-a-wild-guess prediction: They will give you some BS about how it doesn't count because it wasn't conducted in the state of Hawaii.
Seriously, there is nothing specific about the training required in there except that "...meeting the training requirements of section 134-2(g) [see below], to include practical training in drawing and replacing a handgun from and to a holster". (I note that it doesn't say "concealed holster"... which is actually "practically" important since the first step is "clear"... maybe the "concealed holster" part is just assumed, but most law language doesn't make assumptions...). So it sounds like it's up to the instructor of the class to determine whether that criteria has been met. As usual with such requirements, there doesn't seem to be any kind of "qualification" exam and/or practical practical test that one could take to demonstrate competence, but rather you are required to take a class, no matter what your level of expertise (see story of Illinois firearm trainer with 40 years of experience above).
Hawaii Revised Statutes, 134-(g)
Effective July 1, 1995, no person shall be issued a permit under this section for the acquisition of a pistol or revolver unless the person, at any time prior to the issuance of the permit, has completed:
(1) An approved hunter education course as authorized under section 183D-28;
(2) A firearms safety or training course or class available to the general public offered by a law enforcement agency of the State or of any county;
(3) A firearms safety or training course offered to law enforcement officers, security guards, investigators, deputy sheriffs, or any division or subdivision of law enforcement or security enforcement by a state or county law enforcement agency; or
(4) A firearms training or safety course or class conducted by a state certified or National Rifle Association certified firearms instructor or a certified military firearms instructor that provides, at a minimum, a total of at least two hours of firing training at a firing range and a total of at least four hours of classroom instruction, which may include a video, that focuses on:
(A) The safe use, handling, and storage of firearms and firearm safety in the home; and
(B) Education on the firearm laws of the State.
An affidavit signed by the certified firearms instructor who conducted or taught the course, providing the name, address, and phone number of the instructor and attesting to the successful completion of the course by the applicant shall constitute evidence of certified successful completion under this paragraph.
-
Posted this in the other thread, same stuff applies:
Once you get it - you can work on revising it. If people think that you will pass something without a bunch of stupid rules, regulations, and idiotic stuff - welll - they are smoking something!
Baby Steps.
1st step) Get any kind of CCW bill heard. At all. Period.
Yeah, the first baby step would be to get the committees to actually hold hearings on the CCW bills. Without a hearing, absolutely nothing CAN even happen. And even WITH hearings, not sure any bill{s} would make it out of committee. Then there is the full legislature (well over 90% Democrats... not that there's anything wrong with that), and then there's the governor. So, yeah, baby steps! I'm guessing court-ordered mandate is the only realistic hope, and not sure how "realistic" that is. I'm still willing the take the time to send emails and make phone calls to the committee member legislators asking them to at least hold hearings.
-
.
-
Ok...lets read the bill:
(5) Is a citizen of the United States; Has resided in the State for at least six months or is a member of, or spouse of a member of, the military, as defined in section 124A-1, that is stationed in the State, or is a retired law enforcement officer; Is twenty-three years of age or older; Is not ineligible to possess a firearm pursuant to section 134-7; Has demonstrated competence with a firearm by meeting the training requirements of section 134-2(g), to include practical training in drawing and replacing a handgun from and to a holster.
HRS 134-2, Section G:
(g) Effective July 1, 1995, no person shall be issued a permit under this section for the acquisition of a pistol or revolver unless the person, at any time prior to the issuance of the permit, has completed:
(1) An approved hunter education course as authorized under section 183D-28;
(2) A firearms safety or training course or class available to the general public offered by a law enforcement agency of the State or of any county;
(3) A firearms safety or training course offered to law enforcement officers, security guards, investigators, deputy sheriffs, or any division or subdivision of law enforcement or security enforcement by a state or county law enforcement agency; or
(4) A firearms training or safety course or class conducted by a state certified or National Rifle Association certified firearms instructor or a certified military firearms instructor that provides, at a minimum, a total of at least two hours of firing training at a firing range and a total of at least four hours of classroom instruction, which may include a video, that focuses on:
(A) The safe use, handling, and storage of firearms and firearm safety in the home; and
(B) Education on the firearm laws of the State.
OK....so what does HDF, OGC and LIFE teach again? HANDGUN SAFETY AND STATE LAWS. Who do you think is going to teach local CCW classes? THE SAME DAMN PEOPLE. And being that I have taken a CCW classes in 2 states, the classes I did attend address state laws in the state they are taught in and somewhat the laws in which such CCW licenses are recognized.
That's not hopeful/wishful thinking; that is called common sense and reading between the lines.
My apologies. I misread the section on the training (In my defense, I said It was a quick read through...) and you are correct about the required training. I thought it said "134(g)(2)" which would have limited to a program administered by the police, which is what I said in my original post. So, again, you are correct that the current training would suffice, EXCEPT for the part about teaching about drawing from the holster. Since that is a new requirement, none of the "old" training would qualify. I suspect this would create a similar problem as when they changed the training requirement from 3 to 4 hours of classroom time. Because there was no grandfather clause, the older certificates stating students received only 3 hours of training, were not being accepted by HPD.
Good find about the statewide acceptance. And Chris is right, we should take what we can get, but if we can make changes now, all the better.
-
.
-
In case interested people aren't following on the legislative updates thread (https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=13077.0) Please email or call and ask them to hold a hearing in their committee:
SB2353 (Gabbard concealed carry bill) referred to same committees as SB2168 (Slom concealed carry bill). I'll post the emails of the committees members, but you can find the full listtings on the thread for SB2168 (https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=13045.0), which includes their phone numbers, districts, etc.
PSM
Senate Committee on
Public Safety, Intergovernmental and Military Affairs
PSMtestimony@capitol.hawaii.gov
808-586-6361
All committee member emails:
senespero@capitol.hawaii.gov,senbaker@capitol.hawaii.gov,sengaluteria@capitol.hawaii.gov,
sengreen@capitol.hawaii.gov,senslom@capitol.hawaii.gov
JDL
Senate Committee on Judiciary and Labor
All committee member emails:
senhee@capitol.hawaii.gov, senshimabukuro@capitol.hawaii.gov, sengabbard@capitol.hawaii.gov,
sengaluteria@capitol.hawaii.gov, senihara@capitol.hawaii.gov, sensolomon@capitol.hawaii.gov,
senslom@capitol.hawaii.gov
WAM
Senate Committee on Ways and Means
All committee member emails:
sendige@capitol.hawaii.gov, senkidani@capitol.hawaii.gov, senchunoakland@capitol.hawaii.gov,
sendelacruz@capitol.hawaii.gov, senenglish@capitol.hawaii.gov, senespero@capitol.hawaii.gov,
senkahele@capitol.hawaii.gov, senkeithagaran@capitol.hawaii.gov, senkouchi@Capitol.hawaii.gov,
senruderman@capitol.hawaii.gov, senthielen@capitol.hawaii.gov, sentokuda@capitol.hawaii.gov,
senslom@capitol.hawaii.gov