Post by: PalisadesKid on January 18, 2018, 02:14:22 PM
Straight from the desks of the chairs of the Committee of Public "Safety".
(https://image.ibb.co/gkCwE6/Screen_Shot_2018_01_18_at_2_10_22_PM.png)
FULL TEXT OF THE SENATE BILL 2046:
RELATING TO FIREARMS.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF HAWAII:
SECTION 1. Section 134-8, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is
amended by amending its title and subsections (a) and (b) to
read as follows:
"1134-8 Ownership, etc., of automatic firearms, silencers,
trigger modification devices, etc., prohibited; penalties. (a)
The manufacture, possession, sale, barter, trade, gift,
transfer, or acquisition of any of the following is prohibited:
assault pistols, except as provided by section 134-4(e);
automatic firearms; rifles with barrel lengths less than sixteen
inches; shotguns with barrel lengths less than eighteen inches;
cannons; mufflers, silencers, or devices for deadening or
muffling the sound of discharged firearms; hand grenades,
dynamite, blasting caps, bombs, or bombshells, or other
explosives; a trigger modification device, bump stock or bump
fire device, trigger crank, or any part, combination of parts,
component, device, attachment, or accessory that is designed or
functions to accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic
firearm; or any type of ammunition or any projectile component
thereof coated with teflon or any other similar coating designed
primarily to enhance its capability to penetrate metal or pierce
protective armor; and any type of ammunition or any projectile
component thereof designed or intended to explode or segment
upon impact with its target.
(b) Any person who installs, removes, or alters a firearm
part with the intent to convert the firearm to an automatic
firearm, or to accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic
firearm, shall be deemed to have manufactured an automatic
firearm in violation of subsection (a) .It
SECTION 2. This Act does not affect rights and duties that
matured, penalties that were incurred, and proceedings that were
begun before its effective date.
SECTION 3. New statutory material is underscored.
SECTION 4. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.
2018-0206 SB SMA.doc 2
Report Title:
Firearms; Trigger Modification Devices; Bump Stocks
Description:
Prohibits trigger modification devices, including bump stocks,
that are designed or function to accelerate the rate of fire of
a semiautomatic firearm.
The summary description of legislation appearing on this page is for informational purposes only and is
not legislation or evidence of legislative intent,
Direct Legislature link: https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2018/Bills/SB2046_.PDF
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on January 18, 2018, 02:26:24 PM
Glad he has the background to sign a bill with realistic standards of "rapid-fire device" compared to a .... non-rapid-fire device?
If they ask the KHSC RSO's, rapid fire will be defined as "shooting more than one round in 3 seconds".
Post by: tillamook on January 18, 2018, 02:53:17 PM
Post by: punaperson on January 18, 2018, 02:55:08 PM
I've emailed both of them and ask for the text of the bill or a link to the text of the bill.
Let's see... pants belt loop, stick, rubber band, string, firm bent finger...
Edited at 3:03 PM: Just called both offices. Takayama's office said they are still gathering signatures and the bill won't be introduced until at least tomorrow and has no bill number yet. LoPresti's office said they will try to get me a copy of the bill when they have it finalized.
LoPresti , Matthew S. (D)
Phone 808-586-6080
E-Mail: replopresti@Capitol.hawaii.gov
Takayama , Gregg (D)
Phone 808-586-6340
E-Mail: reptakayama@Capitol.hawaii.gov
Post by: tillamook on January 18, 2018, 03:07:34 PM
I can hardly wait to read a bill written by a philosophy professor that defines a "device that in effect create(s) a rapid fire device"!
I've emailed both of them and ask for the text of the bill or a link to the text of the bill.
Let's see... pants belt loop, stick, rubber band, string, firm bent finger...
Edited at 3:03 PM: Just called both offices. Takayama's office said they are still gathering signatures and the bill won't be introduced until at least tomorrow and has no bill number yet. LoPresti's office said they will try to get me a copy of the bill when they have it finalized.
We pay for the legislature to have lawyers that write the bills for them. They give them the gist and the lawyers write it up. In this case, it is very likely that an out of state anti-gun organization paid for by Bloomberg wrote the bill. Legislators dont actually do work.
They are the experts of nothing.
Post by: punaperson on January 18, 2018, 03:17:34 PM
We pay for the legislature to have lawyers that write the bills for them. They give them the gist and the lawyers write it up. In this case, it is very likely that an out of state anti-gun organization paid for by Bloomberg wrote the bill. Legislators dont actually do work.Okay, how's this?
They are the experts of nothing.
I can hardly wait to read a bill approved and advocated for by a philosophy professor that defines a "device that in effect create(s) a rapid fire device"!
Can a finger be "a device"? Is Jerry Miculek "a device"?
Post by: punaperson on January 18, 2018, 03:35:00 PM
SB2046
"1134-8 Ownership, etc., of automatic firearms, silencers,
trigger modification devices, etc., prohibited; penalties.
; a trigger modification device, bump stock or bump
fire device, trigger crank, or any part, combination of parts,
component, device, attachment, or accessory that is designed or
functions to accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic firearm
(b) Any person who installs, removes, or alters a firearm
part with the intent to convert the firearm to an automatic
firearm, or to accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic
firearm, shall be deemed to have manufactured an automatic
firearm in violation of subsection (a)
* * * *
So would a Dremel buffing wheel that could be used to polish certain surfaces of a trigger group be such a "device"? What about a whole new trigger group or lighter weight springs?
Post by: dwela on January 18, 2018, 04:16:31 PM
Post by: ren on January 18, 2018, 04:32:57 PM
Post by: punaperson on January 18, 2018, 05:14:16 PM
He should sign a law that prevents anyone from thinking about owning a bump stockWaddaya wanna bet every legislator signing onto that bill, and all those that ultimately vote for it (if it gets to a vote) will all solemnly swear to God (as they did with their oath of office) that they "support the Second Amendment, but..."?
Why not just cut to the chase and ban everything but single-shot bolt-action or break-open rifles, shotguns and handguns?
Even then... why not get totally real and just ban all firearms (from anyone other than government agents), which is the real goal.
I guess they know that conniving treasonous lying is the necessary strategy. For the children. Or something.
Post by: rklapp on January 18, 2018, 05:18:58 PM
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on January 18, 2018, 05:51:30 PM
So how do they define accelerate the rate of fire? I guess the ROs will be walking the line with a stop watch to make sure we are not shooting accelerated. Are they gonna include a rate of fire like 600 RPM and above?
Colt lists the AR-15 "Rate of Fire" as "Semi-Auto".
BushMaster says: "Effective rate of fire is 45 rounds per minute."
Colt actually owns the AR-15 design, since they bought it from Armalite. If anyone is going to establish the standard for rate of fire, it ought to be them I would think.
If that standard is defined, only then would LE be able to prove a device increases a rifle's rate beyond what is legal.
To establish a law that makes it illegal to own a device that does something relative to no set specification is madness.
Post by: macsak on January 18, 2018, 05:54:29 PM
Post by: ren on January 18, 2018, 05:58:18 PM
Post by: 2ahavvaii on January 18, 2018, 06:04:57 PM
NRA form to send message opposing the measure.
Post by: punaperson on January 18, 2018, 08:04:13 PM
So how do they define accelerate the rate of fire? I guess the ROs will be walking the line with a stop watch to make sure we are not shooting accelerated. Are they gonna include a rate of fire like 600 RPM and above?"Any person who installs, removes, or alters a firearm part with the intent to convert the firearm to an automatic firearm, to accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic firearm, shall be deemed to have manufactured an automatic firearm in violation of subsection (a)..."
They don''t have to define "rate of fire", only that the rate of fire after the "modification" is "accelerated" on that particular firearm compared to prior to the modification. So if previously you could empty a 30 round mag in 20 seconds, and after applying some high quality lube to certain parts and thus obtained a rate of fire of emptying the 30 round mag in 19.9 seconds, you are, by definition, having "accelerated the rate of fire", guilty of "manufactur[ing] an automatic weapon". That's literally what it says.
The only way they could prove a person guilty of such a crime would be to have every person bring their firearms to some location and have them all fired by state staff using some objective mechanical firing device and record the rate of fire, and then do so again every year (or whatever interval) to check for "acceleration". And just to be sure the firearms aren't returned to de-accelerated "normal" just prior to the scheduled testing and then re-modified back to "accelerated" after the state test, there would have to be a program of random warranted or warrantless searches and seizures of all firearms in order to avoid the possibility of such "tampering". I mean who is going to bring their firearm to the test with the stick or the string or the rubber bands?
These are the lawyers at work.
I still say it'd be easier to just ban all firearms.
Post by: zippz on January 18, 2018, 08:27:54 PM
If you bring up the case where you can simulate a bumpfire stock using a belt loop then they'll say you have no use of a bumpfire stock and won't miss it if it's banned.
Post by: ren on January 18, 2018, 08:31:12 PM
Post by: punaperson on January 18, 2018, 08:36:28 PM
If you bring up the case where you can simulate a bumpfire stock using a belt loop then they'll say you have no use of a bumpfire stock and won't miss it if it's banned.This bill isn't a ban on bump stocks, it is a ban on any modification that accelerates the rate of fire. That's exactly what it literally says. You don't think they'd use vague and/or ambiguous language in any manner that would subjectively and selectively infringe on our rights do you?
Post by: macsak on January 18, 2018, 08:39:24 PM
Also that this bill won't stop criminals from modifying the guns to shoot full auto.
don't reinforce their mistaken thought that it is easy to convert to full auto...
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on January 18, 2018, 08:58:38 PM
"Any person who installs, removes, or alters a firearm part with the intent to convert the firearm to an automatic firearm, to accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic firearm, shall be deemed to have manufactured an automatic firearm in violation of subsection (a)..."
They don''t have to define "rate of fire", only that the rate of fire after the "modification" is "accelerated" on that particular firearm compared to prior to the modification. So if previously you could empty a 30 round mag in 20 seconds, and after applying some high quality lube to certain parts and thus obtained a rate of fire of emptying the 30 round mag in 19.9 seconds, you are, by definition, having "accelerated the rate of fire", guilty of "manufactur[ing] an automatic weapon". That's literally what it says.
The only way they could prove a person guilty of such a crime would be to have every person bring their firearms to some location and have them all fired by state staff using some objective mechanical firing device and record the rate of fire, and then do so again every year (or whatever interval) to check for "acceleration". And just to be sure the firearms aren't returned to de-accelerated "normal" just prior to the scheduled testing and then re-modified back to "accelerated" after the state test, there would have to be a program of random warranted or warrantless searches and seizures of all firearms in order to avoid the possibility of such "tampering". I mean who is going to bring their firearm to the test with the stick or the string or the rubber bands?
These are the lawyers at work.
I still say it'd be easier to just ban all firearms.
"They" won't have any way of know what the previous/current rate of fire is. Unless, of course, HPD requires all firearms registered to be fired onsite and the rate of fire measured and recorded.
This is so unenforceable as written. It will only apply to anyone who gets over 75-100 rounds per minute. It would have to be significant enough to get someone's attention.
Post by: 6716J on January 18, 2018, 09:59:45 PM
https://act.nraila.org/takeaction.aspx?AlertID=1843Already done...
NRA form to send message opposing the measure.
Waiting for the GOA email now
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: 6716J on January 18, 2018, 10:06:31 PM
"They" won't have any way of know what the previous/current rate of fire is. Unless, of course, HPD requires all firearms registered to be fired onsite and the rate of fire measured and recorded.Very enforceable... Is that a stock or aftermarket trigger? Yes, then it's a modification from the factory installed one, therefore in violation of the law.
This is so unenforceable as written. It will only apply to anyone who gets over 75-100 rounds per minute. It would have to be significant enough to get someone's attention.
It makes no difference to them if it changes trigger pull, smoothness, reset or whatever. In their eyes it's not a stock, gritty ass cheese grater trigger.
They could go as far as polishing feed ramps, mag springs, etc. The possibilities are endless. As long as we end up with single shot .22 starter pistols with a 16" barrel. (so we can't put it in our pants to conceal)
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on January 18, 2018, 10:43:59 PM
Very enforceable... Is that a stock or aftermarket trigger? Yes, then it's a modification from the factory installed one, therefore in violation of the law.
It makes no difference to them if it changes trigger pull, smoothness, reset or whatever. In their eyes it's not a stock, gritty ass cheese grater trigger.
They could go as far as polishing feed ramps, mag springs, etc. The possibilities are endless. As long as we end up with single shot .22 starter pistols with a 16" barrel. (so we can't put it in our pants to conceal)
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Can't ignore the "intent" clause ...
"with the intent to convert the firearm to an automatic firearm, to accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic firearm,"
If your intent is to reduce trigger travel, have less pull weight, or smooth out the break, how can anyone argue differently? Unless you do something stupid like post to this forum or FB how your trigger job doubled your effective rate of fire, they can't prove "illegal intent."
Post by: changemyoil66 on January 18, 2018, 10:57:16 PM
To me, "intent" is the key phrase. So what if we let this piss poor bill pass that may never be enforceable? To let the dems think they won and dont rewrite the bill.
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
Post by: bass monkey on January 19, 2018, 04:37:08 AM
So no more rilfes off the shelf. Need to build your own so there is no "factory rate of fire".
To me, "intent" is the key phrase. So what if we let this piss poor bill pass that may never be enforceable? To let the dems think they won and dont rewrite the bill.
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
You should post it up on stolen stuff Hawaii
Post by: z06psi on January 19, 2018, 05:34:50 AM
Post by: dstyles on January 19, 2018, 06:11:35 AM
Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
Post by: punaperson on January 19, 2018, 06:58:05 AM
Can't ignore the "intent" clause ...You ignore the first part (section (a)) that defines criminality for possession, etc. where NO INTENT is required:
"with the intent to convert the firearm to an automatic firearm, to accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic firearm,"
If your intent is to reduce trigger travel, have less pull weight, or smooth out the break, how can anyone argue differently? Unless you do something stupid like post to this forum or FB how your trigger job doubled your effective rate of fire, they can't prove "illegal intent."
The manufacture, possession, sale, barter, trade, gift,
transfer, or acquisition of any of the following is prohibited:
...a trigger modification device, bump stock or bump
fire device, trigger crank, or any part, combination of parts,
component, device, attachment, or accessory that is designed or
functions to accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic firearm.
The "intent" clause only applies in section (b) re being guilty of manufacturing an automatic firearm.
(b) Any person who installs, removes, or alters a firearm
part with the intent to convert the firearm to an automatic
firearm, or to accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic
firearm, shall be deemed to have manufactured an automatic
firearm in violation of subsection (a).
To me, "intent" is the key phrase. So what if we let this piss poor bill pass that may never be enforceable? To let the dems think they won and dont rewrite the bill.Though "intent" only applies to section (b), I concur that it might be best to let them (attempt to) pass the bill as written and then have it get tossed in court (with an unfortunate victim undergoing serious legal and financial trauma due to possibly possessing a stick of a certain length). Unfortunately "they" have probably already read all these criticisms of the bill and may have already re-written it to avoid those legal pitfalls. My only hope is that the stupidity reflected in the language of the original bill is so thick and deep that they leave it as is.
Post by: macsak on January 19, 2018, 07:24:33 AM
So what if we let this piss poor bill pass that may never be enforceable?
because if we don't hit this first bill hard, they will think we don't care, and will use that as justification to pass more bills
Post by: rklapp on January 19, 2018, 07:28:55 AM
I imagine this will include fast triggers along with crank triggers?
(https://cdn.classicfirearms.com/catalog/product/cache/1/image/580x/040ec09b1e35df139433887a97daa66f/a/c/acc-fostech-echo-trigger_2_web_1.jpg)
Post by: punaperson on January 19, 2018, 08:02:12 AM
When is the anticipated comment period to perhaps occur?
Not assigned to committee(s) yet, so no hearing date set.
Sort by Date Status
1/18/2018 S Introduced.
1/18/2018 S Passed First Reading.
I imagine this will include fast triggers along with crank triggers?
If it's a "device" or "modification" that can increase the rate of fire, it's banned. At least that's what it says as written.
Post by: Heavies on January 19, 2018, 08:54:41 AM
Post by: changemyoil66 on January 19, 2018, 10:03:08 AM
I called Takayama's office and spoke to a girl who is a gun owner (also took handgun class) and is familiar with trigger weights and stuff. So was like "wow I never thought about that" and seemed very open. She said he was working till last night to revise the bill so there may be some changes. She said that I was the only one to call. But I'm pretty sure there is more than 1 person answering the phones.
Spoke to Matt's office and the guy didn't know anything about guns and didn't seem to care. Pretty sure he won't even relay my message. I had to educate him on how guns work and stuff like that.
Post by: Heavies on January 19, 2018, 11:30:13 AM
The wording of this bill could very well make you a criminal for using a better trigger on your firearm. Even a trigger job could make you a criminal! How about better grips to fit your hand? Yep, criminal. It doesn't only pertain to AR15s either.. it says "Firearm". Glock trigger? CRIMINAL 1911 grip panel? CRIMINAL. THIS ISN'T ABOUT BUMPSTOCKS, IT'S ABOUT ANTI-GUN CONTROL!
DON'T LET THEM REMOVE YOUR RIGHTS!
Thank you!
Post by: 2ahavvaii on January 19, 2018, 11:35:00 AM
Also that this bill won't stop criminals from modifying the guns to shoot full auto.
shush, lets not distract ourselves from the true targets of the bill, the law abiding citizens.
Post by: punaperson on January 19, 2018, 01:46:59 PM
[At least you won't get arrested for having a stick, as it isn't "attached".... :geekdanc: This bill also doesn't criminalize "modifications" that increase rate of fire. Of course they fail to define "burst"... :crazy:]
H.B. NO.1908
A BILL FOR AN ACT
RELATING TO FIREARMS.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF HAWAII:
SECTION 1. Chapter 134, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is amended by adding a new section to part I to be appropriately designated and to read as follows:
"§134- Multiburst trigger activator; prohibition. (a) Any person in this State who manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the State, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives, lends, or possesses any multiburst trigger activator shall be guilty of a class C felony.
(b) As used in this section, "multiburst trigger activator" means:
(1) A device designed or redesigned to be attached to a semiautomatic firearm, which allows the firearm to discharge two or more shots in a burst by activating the device; or
(2) A manual or power-driven trigger activating device constructed and designed so that when attached to a semiautomatic firearm it increases the rate of fire of that firearm."
SECTION 2. New statutory material is underscored.
SECTION 3. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.
Post by: PalisadesKid on January 19, 2018, 02:03:17 PM
Just got an email back from Rep. Takayama's office responding to my request for their "bump stock" bill:
[At least you won't get arrested for having a stick, as it isn't "attached".... :geekdanc: This bill also doesn't criminalize "modifications" that increase rate of fire. Of course they fail to define "burst"... :crazy:]
H.B. NO.1908
A BILL FOR AN ACT
RELATING TO FIREARMS.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF HAWAII:
SECTION 1. Chapter 134, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is amended by adding a new section to part I to be appropriately designated and to read as follows:
"§134- Multiburst trigger activator; prohibition. (a) Any person in this State who manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the State, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives, lends, or possesses any multiburst trigger activator shall be guilty of a class C felony.
(b) As used in this section, "multiburst trigger activator" means:
(1) A device designed or redesigned to be attached to a semiautomatic firearm, which allows the firearm to discharge two or more shots in a burst by activating the device; or
(2) A manual or power-driven trigger activating device constructed and designed so that when attached to a semiautomatic firearm it increases the rate of fire of that firearm."
SECTION 2. New statutory material is underscored.
SECTION 3. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.
They could have just specified "binary triggers" .. but then again one would have to even be educated on what they pontificate on so .....
Post by: 6716J on January 19, 2018, 03:10:18 PM
When is the anticipated comment period to perhaps occur?I tried to submit testimony yesterday but it's not open yet online. I'm sure it will be a 30 minute window on a Wednesday between 5:23am and 5:53am Eastern Time.
I imagine this will include fast triggers along with crank triggers?
(https://cdn.classicfirearms.com/catalog/product/cache/1/image/580x/040ec09b1e35df139433887a97daa66f/a/c/acc-fostech-echo-trigger_2_web_1.jpg)
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: punaperson on January 19, 2018, 03:27:01 PM
I tried to submit testimony yesterday but it's not open yet online. I'm sure it will be a 30 minute window on a Wednesday between 5:23am and 5:53am Eastern Time.Testimony has to be submitted 24 hours prior to the start of the committee hearing (if there is one, and there will be for any bills infringing our rights). I've seen them announce a Monday hearing on Friday afternoon, meaning that testimony had to be in my midday Sunday. I'd be all upset about that as an obvious power trip to attempt to limit testimony and thus justify that "no one cares", etc., so we voted for what we thought was best for the people/children. Unfortunately it doesn't matter how many people submit testimony, nor what the ratio is, as we saw last session when on one bill the testimony was something like 103 to 17 in our FAVOR and the committee voted unanimously AGAINST us. I'm just sayin'...
I'll be submitting testimony and making phone calls on all the bills anyway.
You can go to this page: https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/home.aspx
After signing in click on the Hearing Notification icon (https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/Images/hearingorange.gif) in the center of the page about 1/3 of the way down, and then you'll be able to list all the bills you want to be notified about. Even if they try to sneak some past if you check your email every day you'll still have a chance...
Post by: punaperson on January 19, 2018, 04:22:13 PM
Massachusetts Orders Residents to Surrender Bump Stocks
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/01/19/intrusion-suspect-allegedly-assaults-homeowner-dies-shot/
Excerpts:
The state of Massachusetts is ordering residents to surrender any bump stocks in their possession, making clear that even keeping such an accessory at home is prohibited.
The bill defines a bump stock as “any device for a weapon that increases the rate of fire achievable with such weapon by using energy from the recoil of the weapon to generate a reciprocating action that facilitates repeated activation of the trigger.”
Guns.com obtained a letter being sent by the Massachusetts’ Executive Office of Public Safety and Security, which says, in part:
Effective 90 days from the enactment of the bill—February 1, 2018—the new law will also prohibit possession of bump stocks or trigger cranks, including possession in a private home. There are no exceptions to this prohibition for licensed firearm owners: an FID card, a License to Carry, or even a license to possess a machine gun will not authorize possession of a bump stock or a trigger crank.
Because the law does not allow for transfer or sale of these prohibited items, if you currently possess a bump stock or trigger crank within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts you should contact your local police department or the Massachusetts State Police to get details about how to transfer custody of the prohibited item to the police for destruction. Retention of such a prohibited item beyond the 90 day grace period will expose the owner to criminal prosecution.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on January 19, 2018, 06:58:25 PM
Post by: z06psi on January 19, 2018, 09:54:12 PM
I say we offer support for this on the condition that we get some other right or protection back. Suppressors for example.Spoken like a true Progressive.
Sent from my SM-P900 using Tapatalk
Post by: Heavies on January 19, 2018, 09:54:40 PM
I say we offer support for this on the condition that we get some other right or protection back. Suppressors for example.
The bill doesn't just go after "bump stocks" it is overly vague that would include pretty much any type of modification they see fit to deem illegal. It is not a good idea at all to support this!
Post by: macsak on January 19, 2018, 09:59:02 PM
I say we offer support for this on the condition that we get some other right or protection back. Suppressors for example.
what part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?
Post by: Heavies on January 19, 2018, 10:11:32 PM
I tried to submit testimony yesterday but it's not open yet online. I'm sure it will be a 30 minute window on a Wednesday between 5:23am and 5:53am Eastern Time.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
At this point in time, all you can do is contact your senators and representatives directly. I have called and emailed. Let them know you are watching over them closely and that you oppose. This might give them pause, and maybe even keep this from even going into consideration. (long shot but worth the effort)
Post by: zippz on January 20, 2018, 08:30:25 AM
Post by: ren on January 20, 2018, 08:55:44 AM
Should machine guns be legal and is it a constitutional right to have them? If that question is answered with a yes then everything else, including the question on the legality of bump stocks, are irrelevant.
(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/000/157/itsatrap.jpg)
Post by: drck1000 on January 20, 2018, 09:04:39 AM
I say we offer support for this on the condition that we get some other right or protection back. Suppressors for example.Personally, I really couldn’t care less about bump stock. On principle, no. With gun rights, one doesn’t offer to give anything as its apparent that everything is in jeopardy of losing anyways. If one could craft a bill that offers say guaranteed nationwide suppressor legal first and then give up jump stock, I could go for that. However, that’s not how it works, or at least how I see it. Again, based on principle, I see suppressors being deemed illegal an infringement.
Post by: z06psi on January 20, 2018, 11:23:07 AM
Personally, I really couldn’t care less about bump stock. On principle, no. With gun rights, one doesn’t offer to give anything as its apparent that everything is in jeopardy of losing anyways. If one could craft a bill that offers say guaranteed nationwide suppressor legal first and then give up jump stock, I could go for that. However, that’s not how it works, or at least how I see it. Again, based on principle, I see suppressors being deemed illegal an infringement.Ty6I'm and lyomc
Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
Post by: eyeeatingfish on January 20, 2018, 11:27:07 PM
Spoken like a true Progressive.
Sent from my SM-P900 using Tapatalk
Yeah, because progressives really want legal suppressors. :crazy:
Post by: eyeeatingfish on January 20, 2018, 11:30:41 PM
The bill doesn't just go after "bump stocks" it is overly vague that would include pretty much any type of modification they see fit to deem illegal. It is not a good idea at all to support this!
Thats why I suggest working with them on it, we add our input to fix the proposed law and they can get our support in return. We all know that us resisting it will probably have zero impact. So I say we get together on this. The alternative is they ban bump stocks anyway and we get nothing out of it.
Post by: macsak on January 20, 2018, 11:49:07 PM
So I say we get together on this.
you going to get together with your people at HPD to make this happen?
Post by: zippz on January 21, 2018, 02:21:19 AM
On the other hand I can see how this can set a precedent to banning other firearm accessories and types of firearms because they can cause harm in the wrong hands. And terrorists can kill crowds of people in many other ways.
In the end I still put my faith into the 2nd amendment that it's there for the greater good even though evil things do happen. People died in wars to protect these rights.
Post by: z06psi on January 21, 2018, 10:53:26 AM
Yeah, because progressives really want legal suppressors. :crazy:
Spoken like a true Progressive.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on January 21, 2018, 11:11:43 AM
Spoken like a true Progressive.
Only a progressive would consider giving up one right to get another right back is a good thing.
If law makers are possibly willing to "trade" suppressors for bump stocks," doesn't that scream, "maybe suppressors should not have been restricted/forbidden to start with?"
If you can get a right back by trading another for it, then violating the first right was neither right nor justified.
Post by: K30l4 on January 21, 2018, 03:04:11 PM
https://youtu.be/yQYzWCLnB24
Post by: London808 on January 21, 2018, 09:38:52 PM
Post by: z06psi on January 21, 2018, 09:47:35 PM
Only a progressive would consider giving up one right to get another right back is a good thing.Perxactly.
If law makers are possibly willing to "trade" suppressors for bump stocks," doesn't that scream, "maybe suppressors should not have been restricted/forbidden to start with?"
If you can get a right back by trading another for it, then violating the first right was neither right nor justified.
Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
Post by: punaperson on January 22, 2018, 06:45:04 AM
Just wanted to share an email I just sent to all the senate co-sponsors of SB2046, the "accelerate rate of fire modification" ban bill. At this point I refrained from even starting to get into which actual "modifications that accelerate the rate of fire" would all be deemed illegal (lubrication, polishing, springs, etc.), and how they would know that any such modifications had in fact accelerated the rate of fire...
Just as an aside, I don't expect an answer from any of them, much less an answer that justifies the bill.
Some Questions Re SB2046
Senator X,
As a sponsor of SB2046 could you please answer the following questions in a clear, unambiguous, unequivocal manner in order to clarify the background and necessity of your proposed bill?
1. How many total crimes have been committed in Hawaii, and in what years, involving firearms with any and all trigger modification devices?
2. How many total crimes have been committed in Hawaii, and in what years, involving firearms with a bump stock and/or bump fire devices?
3. How many total crimes have been committed in Hawaii, and in what years, involving firearms with trigger cranks?
4. How many total crimes have been committed in Hawaii, and in what years, involving firearms with any part, combination of parts, component, device, attachment, or accessory that is designed or
functions to accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic firearm?
5. How many total crimes have been committed in Hawaii, and in what years, involving firearms with any altered part that accelerated the rate of fire of that firearm?
6. Of those total firearms listed above in question 5, please specify the exact modification or alteration of each firearm used in those crimes with an accelerated rate of fire due to said modification or alteration.
Thank you,
[punaperson]
RHOADS
senrhoads@capitol.hawaii.gov
CHANG
senchang@capitol.hawaii.gov
KEITH-AGARAN
senkeithagaran@capitol.hawaii.gov
NISHIHARA
sennishihara@capitol.hawaii.gov
Shimabukuro
senshimabukuro@capitol.hawaii.gov
Post by: ren on January 22, 2018, 08:40:11 AM
Post by: punaperson on January 22, 2018, 09:50:22 AM
well thought out questions for our esteemed legislators Punaperson :thumbsup:A Solution in Search of a Problem (aka "Do something", even if what you do is unrelated to reality and has no effect on anything whatsoever (like crime) except being a political talking point to influence the vote of the uninformed.)
I suppose I ought to have included the fact that while I really don't know the answers to those questions (crimes preciously committed with proposed banned (altered) objects), I suspect that they are rhetorical. From what I read Massachusetts passed their law banning bump stocks and trigger cranks without there being a record of even a single crime ever in the state using those now-banned objects. I don't expect to actually get an answer from any of the sponsors of the bill, but if I do I'll be surprised if it's anything other than the typical "public safety" argument about "dangerous objects" (you know, guns, stun guns, knives, handgun magazines with more than 10 rounds, "assault pistols", bearing arms outside the home, etc., and how they could or might be used). I could be completely wrong and a few hours from now I will receive multiple emails with long lists of crimes committed in Hawaii with the soon-to-be-banned modified weapons. As far as I know there was never been a crime committed in Hawaii prior to the ban where a criminal having a larger-than-10 capacity handgun magazine fired more than 10 rounds... but I welcome evidence to the contrary.
Post by: changemyoil66 on January 22, 2018, 10:05:32 AM
Post by: macsak on January 22, 2018, 10:14:51 AM
Just so I can get all the correct info, there are 2 rate of fire increase bills? H.B. NO.1908 and 2046?
there's a senate bill and a house bill
Post by: aieahound on January 22, 2018, 10:30:56 AM
As far as I know there was never been a crime committed in Hawaii prior to the ban where a criminal having a larger-than-10 capacity handgun magazine fired more than 10 rounds... but I welcome evidence to the contrary.
Uyesugi used 17 round mags in a Glock 17 and reloaded once. According to court docs.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/hi-supreme-court/1270801.html
It's the wording this bill that's so messed up. Massachusetts law is worded much better.
Perhaps this is an opportunity for education of lawmakers and cooperation. To gain trust and perhaps some cooperation back.
This whole no infringement stuff. Are you guys high? This is the real world.
We have very little if any political clout as a group. Wishing is fine, but at some point reality needs to kick in.
We can write them until we're blue in the face and it won't make any difference.
Name me one time we changed the outcome of a bill with our testimony.
Maybe this is our chance to work with them to work with us. Let them know more about concealed carry.
Who even cares about or owns a bump stock?
But the wording of the bill needs to change to be specific to bump stocks like Massachusetts law.
Post by: punaperson on January 22, 2018, 10:39:21 AM
Just so I can get all the correct info, there are 2 rate of fire increase bills? H.B. NO.1908 and 2046?It's senate SB2046, referenced in most of the posts in this thread.
HB1908 is much narrower in scope than the senate bill, and has a lot less ambiguous language (no "alters" to "increase the rate of fire", though I did write Takayama last week and ask him to define "burst"... since he defines the term "multiburst" using the term "burst"):
"§134- Multiburst trigger activator; prohibition. (a) Any person in this State who manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the State, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives, lends, or possesses any multiburst trigger activator shall be guilty of a class C felony.
(b) As used in this section, "multiburst trigger activator" means:
(1) A device designed or redesigned to be attached to a semiautomatic firearm, which allows the firearm to discharge two or more shots in a burst by activating the device; or
(2) A manual or power-driven trigger activating device constructed and designed so that when attached to a semiautomatic firearm it increases the rate of fire of that firearm."
HB1908 (house) was referred to committees today:
Measure Title: RELATING TO FIREARMS.
Report Title: Prohibited; Multiburst Trigger Activators
Description: Prohibits multiburst trigger activators.
Current Referral: JUD, CPC
Introducer(s): TAKAYAMA, CREAGAN, DECOITE, GATES, ING, KEOHOKALOLE, LOPRESTI, LOWEN, NISHIMOTO, SAY
Sort by Date Status Text
1/18/2018 H Pending introduction.
1/19/2018 H Introduced and Pass First Reading.
1/22/2018 H Referred to JUD, CPC, referral sheet 4
SB2046
https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2018/bills/SB2046_.HTM
HB1908
https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2018/bills/HB1908_.HTM
Post by: punaperson on January 22, 2018, 11:08:51 AM
Uyesugi used 17 round mags in a Glock 17 and reloaded once. According to court docs.I believe the Uyesugi crime occurred (1999) AFTER the handgun mag limit bill was already law (1992)? "Section 134-8 HRS amended June 29, 1992, banned all magazines that hold more than 10 rounds and are capable of use in a semi-auto handgun." (http://hawaiihistoricarms.com/more-than-10-rds-magazine-ban/) Thus only proving that the law had no effect on stopping a criminal from possessing and using an illegal item.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/hi-supreme-court/1270801.html
It's the wording this bill that's so messed up. Massachusetts law is worded much better.
Perhaps this is an opportunity for education of lawmakers and cooperation. To gain trust and perhaps some cooperation back.
This whole no infringement stuff. Are you guys high? This is the real world.
We have very little if any political clout as a group. Wishing is fine, but at some point reality needs to kick in.
We can right them until we're blue in the face and it won't make any difference.
Name me one time we changed the outcome of a bill with our testimony.
Maybe this is our chance to work them to work with us. Let them know more about concealed carry.
Who even cares about or owns a bump stock?
But the wording of the bill needs to change to be specific to bump stocks like Massachusetts law.
There was a lot of testimony (the majority) last session opposing SB208, the exclusion of firearm ownership/possession to anyone on the Terrorist Screening Database, and the bill was deferred (tabled) in committee. Was it deferred in part due to the opposing testimony? I don't know. Maybe. Maybe not. That bill has been re-introduced and re-referred to committees, so they might give it another shot. The sponsors of the bill read like the who's who of the
You want us to help them right a "better" bill infringing our rights that will more likely withstand any future legal challenges? Not my idea of Second Amendment activism, but I know some out there differ.
Post by: macsak on January 22, 2018, 11:46:21 AM
Name me one time we changed the outcome of a bill with our testimony.
last year we stopped the liability insurance requirement
Post by: zippz on January 22, 2018, 12:26:02 PM
Those would make a big difference. In general, not for this specific bill.
Post by: aieahound on January 22, 2018, 12:39:27 PM
And often their ineffectiveness.
Good example also Mac.
I generally always submit testimony on the 2A bills and will on these.
However, my testimony will be on how poorly worded and general they are.
I just see this as a chance to play politics with politicians without really losing anything.
We are in a crazy ass blue state, like it or not.
Learn the rules then play the game.
Idealism and wishful thinking doesn't get us anywhere.
Post by: changemyoil66 on January 22, 2018, 12:40:13 PM
We need testimony from non firearm related organizations like the aclu, domestic violence, unions, and other groups.
Those would make a big difference. In general, not for this specific bill.
I talked to Kimberly Scott, the mother of Charli Scott, that girl who was preggers and killed by her exbf on Maui. I told her that if Charli were armed (CCW), she might have had a better chance to survive the attack. Because she was over powered by the ex. Kimberly agreed, but it seems her focus is on changing the laws so that killing a pregnant woman, you can also be charged in the death of her unborn child. I told her that the law she is proposing is only after the fact, and won't prevent it from happening.
Forget about the ACLU, unless we get a black guy to testify about racism and how he can't carry.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on January 22, 2018, 08:16:55 PM
you going to get together with your people at HPD to make this happen?
Yeah, because police, not the legislature, pass laws. :crazy:
Post by: eyeeatingfish on January 22, 2018, 08:20:20 PM
Only a progressive would consider giving up one right to get another right back is a good thing.
If law makers are possibly willing to "trade" suppressors for bump stocks," doesn't that scream, "maybe suppressors should not have been restricted/forbidden to start with?"
If you can get a right back by trading another for it, then violating the first right was neither right nor justified.
Oh please, we have already given up rights and we are about to lose another. Be realistic and see what we can get back. If the choice is no bump stock and no suppressors vs no bump stock but suppressors are legal I would choose the latter.
That being said, full auto is right about where I draw the line for what weapons should be legal and illegal, so from my stance I am really not giving up any rights.
And stop playing the you're just a progressive card, you are just as bad as those who drop the race card when one of their snowflake ideas is challenged.
Post by: ren on January 22, 2018, 08:23:38 PM
Oh please, we have already given up rights and we are about to lose another. Be realistic and see what we can get back. If the choice is no bump stock and no suppressors vs no bump stock but suppressors are legal I would choose the latter.
That being said, full auto is right about where I draw the line for what weapons should be legal and illegal, so from my stance I am really not giving up any rights.
And stop playing the you're just a progressive card, you are just as bad as those who drop the race card when one of their snowflake ideas is challenged.
The loss of full auto is when we stepped onto that slope that was full of algae.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on January 22, 2018, 08:26:07 PM
The loss of full auto is when we stepped onto that slope that was full of algae.
A line has to be drawn somewhere. We can agree to disagree of course, but that is just where I would draw the line.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on January 22, 2018, 08:33:23 PM
Post by: London808 on January 22, 2018, 09:11:28 PM
I talked to Kimberly Scott, the mother of Charli Scott, that girl who was preggers and killed by her exbf on Maui. I told her that if Charli were armed (CCW), she might have had a better chance to survive the attack. Because she was over powered by the ex. Kimberly agreed, but it seems her focus is on changing the laws so that killing a pregnant woman, you can also be charged in the death of her unborn child. I told her that the law she is proposing is only after the fact, and won't prevent it from happening.
Forget about the ACLU, unless we get a black guy to testify about racism and how he can't carry.
To do that they would have to say an unborn child is a life and as such abortion is murder. Never go a happen.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on January 22, 2018, 09:17:07 PM
To do that they would have to say an unborn child is a life and as such abortion is murder. Never go a happen.
It's already happened in 38 states with fetal homicide laws. At least 23 states have fetal homicide laws that apply to the earliest stages of pregnancy.
http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx
Post by: aieahound on January 22, 2018, 10:23:19 PM
I just don't want this to turn into an unborn fetus thread. That's a whole 'nother thread
If someone wants to start it.
No, I'm not a moderator.
Post by: punaperson on January 23, 2018, 06:38:06 AM
Oh please, we have already given up rights and we are about to lose another. Be realistic and see what we can get back. If the choice is no bump stock and no suppressors vs no bump stock but suppressors are legal I would choose the latter.Interesting coincidence that today's "Quote of the Day" on Joe Huffman's blog is about this very topic. He quotes former NRA leader Neal Knox's book "The Gun Rights War", and then adds a comment of his own. Please go to the original to see all the active links.
http://blog.joehuffman.org/2018/01/23/quote-of-the-day-james-a-garfield/
There is a silly notion, fervently adhered to by many gun owners, that if our side of the gun issue would just sit down and talk with the other side, we could work out a “reasonable” compromise that would satisfy “society’s need to keep guns out of the hands of criminals,” while imposing little inconvenience upon law-abiding gun owners.
…and the lion shall lie down with the lamb.
These people will say whatever it takes, no matter how deceptive, and suppress factual data to achieve their goals. These are evil people and it is time we stand up to politicians who advocate for infringements upon our rights. We must tell them they have no business being a public servant. They belong in prison. [And I'll add: AMEN!!]
That being said, full auto is right about where I draw the line for what weapons should be legal and illegal, so from my stance I am really not giving up any rights.I think I heard some black people saying that in the 1960s who were satisfied riding in the back of the bus... never.
Post by: aieahound on January 23, 2018, 10:48:47 AM
(Referring to myself)
Well said Puna.
Post by: ren on January 23, 2018, 01:24:53 PM
Oh please, we have already given up rights and we are about to lose another. Be realistic and see what we can get back. If the choice is no bump stock and no suppressors vs no bump stock but suppressors are legal I would choose the latter.
That being said, full auto is right about where I draw the line for what weapons should be legal and illegal, so from my stance I am really not giving up any rights.
And stop playing the you're just a progressive card, you are just as bad as those who drop the race card when one of their snowflake ideas is challenged.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLHtxRzu6KQ
Post by: eyeeatingfish on January 23, 2018, 03:38:43 PM
Interesting coincidence that today's "Quote of the Day" on Joe Huffman's blog is about this very topic. He quotes former NRA leader Neal Knox's book "The Gun Rights War", and then adds a comment of his own. Please go to the original to see all the active links.
http://blog.joehuffman.org/2018/01/23/quote-of-the-day-james-a-garfield/
There is a silly notion, fervently adhered to by many gun owners, that if our side of the gun issue would just sit down and talk with the other side, we could work out a “reasonable” compromise that would satisfy “society’s need to keep guns out of the hands of criminals,” while imposing little inconvenience upon law-abiding gun owners.
…and the lion shall lie down with the lamb.
These people will say whatever it takes, no matter how deceptive, and suppress factual data to achieve their goals. These are evil people and it is time we stand up to politicians who advocate for infringements upon our rights. We must tell them they have no business being a public servant. They belong in prison. [And I'll add: AMEN!!]
I think I heard some black people saying that in the 1960s who were satisfied riding in the back of the bus... never.
You completely avoided answering the issue of where the line should be drawn on what firearms should be legal.
I will also not succumb to the false dichotomy that everyone is either a diehard gun supporter or a left wing gun hater.
We can be hardcore idealist and lose or we can recognize an opportunity to try and get a beneficial trade. The whole cry of them violating their office and rights are being taken away is good and all but you really think that is going to change Espero's mind?
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on January 23, 2018, 03:44:24 PM
You completely avoided answering the issue of where the line should be drawn on what firearms should be legal.
I will also not succumb to the false dichotomy that everyone is either a diehard gun supporter or a left wing gun hater.
We can be hardcore idealist and lose or we can recognize an opportunity to try and get a beneficial trade. The whole cry of them violating their office and rights are being taken away is good and all but you really think that is going to change Espero's mind?
Trade? You mean like, "If you give me your car, I'll let you keep your house?" That kind of trade?
Send me a list of all your valuables, and I'll let you know which ones I'd like to trade with you.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on January 23, 2018, 03:52:36 PM
Trade? You mean like, "If you give me your car, I'll let you keep your house?" That kind of trade?
Send me a list of all your valuables, and I'll let you know which ones I'd like to trade with you.
Suppressors are illegal here FYI. No one is talking about trading something you have to keep something you have. Trade something you have for something you don't have but want more.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on January 23, 2018, 03:56:50 PM
Suppressors are illegal here FYI. No one is talking about trading something you have to keep something you have. Trade something you have for something you don't have but want more.
Or, spend that time making something legal that should have never been banned in the first place.
Acquiescence is how freedom dies.
Post by: bass monkey on January 23, 2018, 04:08:15 PM
You completely avoided answering the issue of where the line should be drawn on what firearms should be legal.
I will also not succumb to the false dichotomy that everyone is either a diehard gun supporter or a left wing gun hater.
We can be hardcore idealist and lose or we can recognize an opportunity to try and get a beneficial trade. The whole cry of them violating their office and rights are being taken away is good and all but you really think that is going to change Espero's mind?
I'd like more details about this trade.
So all NFA items become legal in Hawaii in exchange for?
Post by: z06psi on January 23, 2018, 04:08:41 PM
You completely avoided answering the issue of where the line should be drawn on what firearms should be legal.
I will also not succumb to the false dichotomy that everyone is either a diehard gun supporter or a left wing gun hater.
We can be hardcore idealist and lose or we can recognize an opportunity to try and get a beneficial trade. The whole cry of them violating their office and rights are being taken away is good and all but you really think that is going to change Espero's mind?
Your argument is mute. You can own everything from destructive devices to fully automatic weapons with the right license on the Federal level. Hawaii's police state, which you bow to doesn't allow it.
Post by: punaperson on January 23, 2018, 05:17:17 PM
You completely avoided answering the issue of where the line should be drawn on what firearms should be legal.I didn't "avoid" anything. Where did you ask me, or anyone else for that matter, a question about "where the line should be drawn"? Where did you even imply you were asking me a question?
But I'll answer anyway now that you've let me know that you wanted to know (By the way, for future reference, I won't know you're asking me a question unless you ask me a question). Since one of the "central components" of the Second Amendment is to protect the pre-existing right of self-defense (see: SCOTUS in Heller and McDonald) against both individual criminal(s) aggression and government tyrannical oppression, any weapon used by the government to suppress the rights of its citizens should be available to its citizens for self-defense. :geekdanc:
I will also not succumb to the false dichotomy that everyone is either a diehard gun supporter or a left wing gun hater.Good for you. But I didn't present any such dichotomy. You made that up. In other words, a strawman (again).
We can be hardcore idealist and lose or we can recognize an opportunity to try and get a beneficial trade.Haha. Now THAT'S funny! :rofl: Right after (the very next sentence!) you accuse me of presenting a false dichotomy I neither made nor even implied, you enunciate a clear and concrete false dichotomy. Man, that's gonna be hard to beat.
The whole cry of them violating their office and rights are being taken away is good and all but you really think that is going to change Espero's mind?I don't think anything is going to change Espero's mind (short of him seeing and believing some future polling result that he will certainly lose an upcoming election unless he supports (in actions, not words) a "hardline" pro Second Amendment civil rights stance). Might as well state the facts that they are oath-breakers, and as a consequence ought to be removed from office, tried, convicted, and jailed. They swore to uphold our right to bear arms. They have failed to take any actions to restore our totally violated right to legally bear arms (various bills to create "shall issue CCW", and public requests for bills to establish open carry, permitless carry, etc.), despite being repeatedly asked to, and they have taken actions to further violate our right to bear arms (bills to ask Congress to defeat national CCW reciprocity, etc.). Just the facts.
You've only got two more days until the deadline for submitting legislation. Have you submitted a bill or suggested a bill to a legislator with your "compromise" "trade"? Why don't you post a copy of it here with your next post? I'd certainly like to read it, and be especially interested in which anti Second Amendment legislator you got to sponsor a bill to legalize suppressors (not just for hunting I presume) and submit it.
Post by: macsak on January 23, 2018, 05:27:30 PM
Hawaii's police state, which you bow to doesn't allow it.
he doesn't bow to it...
Post by: z06psi on January 23, 2018, 05:43:45 PM
he doesn't bow to it...
Matter of opinion. They are his words.
Post by: macsak on January 23, 2018, 05:50:06 PM
Matter of opinion. They are his words.
you're missing my point..
Post by: aieahound on January 23, 2018, 06:35:06 PM
Hawaii's police state, which you bow to doesn't allow it.
If you live in Hawaii, you're bowing to it to.
We all bow to it until we become a true political force and play politics.
Learn the rules then play the game.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on January 23, 2018, 07:38:34 PM
Or, spend that time making something legal that should have never been banned in the first place.
Acquiescence is how freedom dies.
This isn't acquiescence, it is being realistic
Post by: z06psi on January 23, 2018, 07:38:43 PM
If you live in Hawaii, you're bowing to it to.
We all bow to it until we become a true political force and play politics.
Learn the rules then play the game.
Not when you are forced to live here.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on January 23, 2018, 07:39:22 PM
I'd like more details about this trade.
So all NFA items become legal in Hawaii in exchange for?
I was thinking specifically of legalized suppressors in exchange for outlawing bumpstocks. I hadn't thought about what other NFA items could be asked for.
Post by: z06psi on January 23, 2018, 07:42:34 PM
This isn't acquiescence, it is being realistic
Again an opinion. Your realism will end up with you owning one double barrel shotgun and 3 marked and accounted for by the government in your house.
No range. No hobby. No freedom as my forefathers intended for the entire country. Not just the mainland.
See for yourself in the U.K. example.
Post by: z06psi on January 23, 2018, 07:43:06 PM
I was thinking specifically of legalized suppressors in exchange for outlawing bumpstocks. I hadn't thought about what other NFA items could be asked for.
And you speak of realism? ::)
Post by: eyeeatingfish on January 23, 2018, 07:54:56 PM
I didn't "avoid" anything. Where did you ask me, or anyone else for that matter, a question about "where the line should be drawn"? Where did you even imply you were asking me a question?
But I'll answer anyway now that you've let me know that you wanted to know (By the way, for future reference, I won't know you're asking me a question unless you ask me a question). Since one of the "central components" of the Second Amendment is to protect the pre-existing right of self-defense (see: SCOTUS in Heller and McDonald) against both individual criminal(s) aggression and government tyrannical oppression, any weapon used by the government to suppress the rights of its citizens should be available to its citizens for self-defense. :geekdanc:
I wasn't trying to ask you a question I was bring up the issue that is at the core of it all. I know my comment says answering that is a typo on my part. I had a sentence typed out then decided to change it but forgot to change answering to addressing. I personally don't support private citizens being allowed to buy things like hand grenades, C4, and all the other mass damage weapons available to the military. As for full auto weapons I am of the opinion that citizens can adequately combat a government with semi-auto weapons such as an AR-15, and that is where I draw the line. We are free to disagree on where this line should be drawn of course but I think it is a fallacy to insist that every right in the constitution is absolute and can never be restricted in any way shape or form. We can go down that tangent if you want but I am stopping there since it is a little off topic.
Quote
Good for you. But I didn't present any such dichotomy. You made that up. In other words, a strawman (again).
I didn't say you presented such a dichotomy. My statement was in response to the individual you quoted and to the general ideal I keep encountering that there are no moderates and negotiating is never an option.
Quote
I don't think anything is going to change Espero's mind (short of him seeing and believing some future polling result that he will certainly lose an upcoming election unless he supports (in actions, not words) a "hardline" pro Second Amendment civil rights stance). Might as well state the facts that they are oath-breakers, and as a consequence ought to be removed from office, tried, convicted, and jailed. They swore to uphold our right to bear arms. They have failed to take any actions to restore our totally violated right to legally bear arms (various bills to create "shall issue CCW", and public requests for bills to establish open carry, permitless carry, etc.), despite being repeatedly asked to, and they have taken actions to further violate our right to bear arms (bills to ask Congress to defeat national CCW reciprocity, etc.). Just the facts.
I think they would certainly disagree that they have broken any oaths. There are different schools of thought on exactly what the 2nd amendment means. If they are applying it as they think it means then they aren't breaking any oaths. It just so happens that their interpretation is wrong in my opinion, but that doesn't make them oath breakers.
Quote
You've only got two more days until the deadline for submitting legislation. Have you submitted a bill or suggested a bill to a legislator with your "compromise" "trade"? Why don't you post a copy of it here with your next post? I'd certainly like to read it, and be especially interested in which anti Second Amendment legislator you got to sponsor a bill to legalize suppressors (not just for hunting I presume) and submit it.
I must admit I am still new to the process and would like to work with someone more experienced on this. I did not know the window was that short. I had made attempts to contact my previous state rep however I have recently moved and need to find my new rep and try to get in touch with them. I had thought about going straight to Espero on this though since he is not my rep I am not sure if that is the proper way to go about it.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on January 23, 2018, 07:58:02 PM
Again an opinion. Your realism will end up with you owning one double barrel shotgun and 3 marked and accounted for by the government in your house.
No range. No hobby. No freedom as my forefathers intended for the entire country. Not just the mainland.
See for yourself in the U.K. example.
And what is your realism? A small group of gun supporters sends angry emails to Espero and bump stocks get banned anyway? Seems your track is closer to the UK than mine.
Post by: z06psi on January 23, 2018, 08:49:43 PM
And what is your realism? A small group of gun supporters sends angry emails to Espero and bump stocks get banned anyway? Seems your track is closer to the UK than mine.
No angry email sent to Espero. Again, I am leaving the state because of its blatant over reach.
Lovely weather, most people are decent but the state government sucks.
I don't think I have ever seen a government raise rates on most fees and taxes. Then the next week declare a $800 million surplus.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on January 23, 2018, 09:05:09 PM
No angry email sent to Espero. Again, I am leaving the state because of its blatant over reach.
Lovely weather, most people are decent but the state government sucks.
I don't think I have ever seen a government raise rates on most fees and taxes. Then the next week declare a $800 million surplus.
Sorry to hear that. I haven't yet brought myself to pick up and leave but it is definitely something I have thought about.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on January 23, 2018, 09:11:38 PM
Sorry to hear that. I haven't yet brought myself to pick up and leave but it is definitely something I have thought about.
Me, too .....
The part about you leaving.
:rofl:
Post by: ren on January 23, 2018, 09:12:52 PM
No angry email sent to Espero. Again, I am leaving the state because of its blatant over reach.
Lovely weather, most people are decent but the state government sucks.
I don't think I have ever seen a government raise rates on most fees and taxes. Then the next week declare a $800 million surplus.
Most of my friends don't care about stuff like that. As long as it doesn't immediately affect their paycheck. Life is good when you turn a blind eye to the thief that walks in the middle of the night and steals a nickel here and there, maybe a dollar, people won't notice it for decades.
Post by: z06psi on January 23, 2018, 09:28:22 PM
This place is a nanny state and I want nothing to do with it.
Post by: z06psi on January 23, 2018, 09:36:14 PM
Perfect example. I walk up to the Kalihi DMV counter because we were told to register our bicycles. The lady looks at me and says
"Do you have your receipts?".
I said no, we bought these bicycles some years ago and did not need the receipts.
She said "Well how did you register them?"
We didn't. Georgia doesn't require registration of bicycles nor pet, nor firearms. She literally looked at me as if I just dropped out of a spaceship with an arm growing out the side of my head.
This is just one example of what I talk about. Indoctrinated, weak people lead to people of power taking power from the individual.
Post by: z06psi on January 23, 2018, 09:37:50 PM
How many pictures will be taken of my car and given to the state? Zero.
Post by: z06psi on January 23, 2018, 09:38:54 PM
As much as I want to.
Post by: Heavies on January 24, 2018, 02:01:01 AM
You have to register your bicycles!The term is "plantation mentality"
Perfect example. I walk up to the Kalihi DMV counter because we were told to register our bicycles. The lady looks at me and says
"Do you have your receipts?".
I said no, we bought these bicycles some years ago and did not need the receipts.
She said "Well how did you register them?"
We didn't. Georgia doesn't require registration of bicycles nor pet, nor firearms. She literally looked at me as if I just dropped out of a spaceship with an arm growing out the side of my head.
This is just one example of what I talk about. Indoctrinated, weak people lead to people of power taking power from the individual.
Post by: punaperson on January 24, 2018, 10:35:17 AM
I think they would certainly disagree that they have broken any oaths. There are different schools of thought on exactly what the 2nd amendment means. If they are applying it as they think it means then they aren't breaking any oaths. It just so happens that their interpretation is wrong in my opinion, but that doesn't make them oath breakers.Sure. They ALL "support the Second Amendment, but...". See this example from a Washington state legislator just last week when stating his support for a bumpstock ban bill: "Democratic Sen. Kevin Van de Wege, the sponsor of the bump stock bill, noted that he’s a lifetime member of the NRA and a defender of the 2nd Amendment [Of course he is!!], but said “this is something that shouldn’t be allowed.” [Of course it shouldn't!!]
From the Heller SCOTUS decision (written by Scalia):
At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.”... When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose—confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998) , in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, Justice Ginsburg wrote that “(s)urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment … indicate(s): ‘wear, bear, or carry … upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose … of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ ” Id., at 143 (dissenting opinion) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 214 (6th ed. 1998)).
From the Hawaii state constitution:
Article I
RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS
Section 17. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. [Ren Const Con 1978 and election Nov 7, 1978]
From the United States Constitution:
Amendments to the Constitution
Bill of Rights
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Thus, by both the Hawaii state and Federal constitutions, which all Hawaii legislators and elected officials (governor, etc.), and some unelected/appointed officials (police chiefs, AG, etc.) have sworn an oath to uphold and defend both constitutions, neither the federal nor state (via McDonald extending Heller's protections against the states' infringement) governments may infringe on the pre-existing right to self-defense via ‘wear[ing], bear[ing], or carry[ing] … upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose … of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person’, independent of location (inside or outside the home).
Since almost none of the Hawaii legislators have taken measures to oppose the existing Hawaii statutory scheme which de facto denies every single citizen of the state the right to lawfully ‘wear, bear, or carry … upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose … of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person', nor have they taken measures to overturn said de facto ban by introducing and supporting legislation to allow for the uninfringed exercise of said right, nor have they advocated for nor passed any resolutions to impeach the governor and AG nor demand that they remedy the situation, nor have they asked or demanded that county police chiefs change their de facto no issue policies, nor will they even answer the question "What does your sworn oath to uphold the right to ‘wear, bear, or carry … upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose … of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person' mean, anyway?, I thus hold them as oathbreakers.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on January 27, 2018, 02:55:43 PM
Me, too .....
The part about you leaving.
:rofl:
I'm sorry, I don't speak troll.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on January 27, 2018, 02:59:34 PM
Sure. They ALL "support the Second Amendment, but...". See this example from a Washington state legislator just last week when stating his support for a bumpstock ban bill: "Democratic Sen. Kevin Van de Wege, the sponsor of the bump stock bill, noted that he’s a lifetime member of the NRA and a defender of the 2nd Amendment [Of course he is!!], but said “this is something that shouldn’t be allowed.” [Of course it shouldn't!!]
From the Heller SCOTUS decision (written by Scalia):
At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.”... When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose—confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998) , in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, Justice Ginsburg wrote that “(s)urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment … indicate(s): ‘wear, bear, or carry … upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose … of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ ” Id., at 143 (dissenting opinion) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 214 (6th ed. 1998)).
From the Hawaii state constitution:
Article I
RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS
Section 17. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. [Ren Const Con 1978 and election Nov 7, 1978]
From the United States Constitution:
Amendments to the Constitution
Bill of Rights
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Thus, by both the Hawaii state and Federal constitutions, which all Hawaii legislators and elected officials (governor, etc.), and some unelected/appointed officials (police chiefs, AG, etc.) have sworn an oath to uphold and defend both constitutions, neither the federal nor state (via McDonald extending Heller's protections against the states' infringement) governments may infringe on the pre-existing right to self-defense via ‘wear[ing], bear[ing], or carry[ing] … upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose … of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person’, independent of location (inside or outside the home).
Since almost none of the Hawaii legislators have taken measures to oppose the existing Hawaii statutory scheme which de facto denies every single citizen of the state the right to lawfully ‘wear, bear, or carry … upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose … of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person', nor have they taken measures to overturn said de facto ban by introducing and supporting legislation to allow for the uninfringed exercise of said right, nor have they advocated for nor passed any resolutions to impeach the governor and AG nor demand that they remedy the situation, nor have they asked or demanded that county police chiefs change their de facto no issue policies, nor will they even answer the question "What does your sworn oath to uphold the right to ‘wear, bear, or carry … upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose … of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person' mean, anyway?, I thus hold them as oathbreakers.
Fair enough, and might I add, a well articulated argument.
I fully agree with all of this in support of CCW.
Post by: zippz on January 29, 2018, 11:55:43 AM
https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2018/Bills/SB2046_.pdf
Post by: punaperson on January 29, 2018, 01:02:14 PM
FYI, hearing notice just came up for this for Thursday.Call or email by Wednesday at 1:35 PM for testimony to be included for sure (late testimony may be included).
https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2018/Bills/SB2046_.pdf
The meeting agenda is here:
https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2018/hearingnotices/HEARING_PSM_02-01-18_.HTM
There are some other bills of highly questionable merit that may also be of interest to 2A-protected rights types.
COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY, INTERGOVERNMENTAL, AND MILITARY AFFAIRS
Senator Clarence K. Nishihara, Chair
phone: 808-586-6970
fax: 808-586-6879
sennishihara@capitol.hawaii.gov
Senator Glenn Wakai, Vice Chair
phone: 808-586-8585
fax: 808-586-8588
senwakai@capitol.hawaii.gov
Members
Rosalyn H. Baker
phone: 808-586-6070
fax: 808-586-6071
senbaker@capitol.hawaii.gov
Laura H. Thielen
phone: 808-587-8388
fax: 808-587-7240
senthielen@capitol.hawaii.gov
Les Ihara Jr.
phone: 808-586-6250
fax: 808-586-6251
senihara@capitol.hawaii.gov
Post by: changemyoil66 on January 29, 2018, 01:14:35 PM
Post by: Jl808 on January 29, 2018, 02:03:42 PM
Testify here -> https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=2046
The list of other bills that PSM is having a hearing on is on this page -> https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=30081.msg267975#msg267975
Post by: changemyoil66 on January 29, 2018, 02:08:36 PM
Post by: Heavies on January 29, 2018, 02:35:28 PM
-Sign in, or sign up
-click link
-submit testimony OPPOSING SB2046
Thank you
Sample testimony...
Quote
As a law-abiding Second Amendment supporter in Hawaii, and voter, I urge you to please oppose Senate Bill 2046.
SB 2046 would make it a crime to own, manufacture, possess, sell, barter, trade, gift, transfer or acquire a firearm accessory or any other device, part or combination of parts that is designed to or functions to accelerate the rate of fire of a semi-automatic firearm. In addition, SB 2046 would also criminalize installing, removing, or altering parts of a firearm with the intent of accelerating the rate of fire.
The broad and overreaching provisions of SB 2046 could criminalize firearm modifications such as competition triggers, muzzle brakes, and ergonomic changes that are commonly done by law-abiding gun owners to make their firearms more suitable for self-defense, competition, hunting, or even overcoming disability.
These restrictions will do nothing to curb violence or criminals from obtaining or using such devices, and only serve to automatically and arbitrarily make LAW ABIDING CITIZENS criminals overnight for no reason at all.
Again, please consider opposing Senate Bill 2046.
Sincerely,
Heavies, VOTER
91-0000 Street St
Ewa Beach, HI 96706-2716
Post by: macsak on January 29, 2018, 02:56:29 PM
https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=2046&year=2018
-Sign in, or sign up
-click link
-submit testimony OPPOSING SB2046
Thank you
Sample testimony...
nice job, heavies
Post by: aieahound on January 29, 2018, 02:57:08 PM
Thanks for the sample Heavies.
:shaka:
Post by: macsak on January 29, 2018, 03:18:28 PM
Done.
Thanks for the sample Heavies.
:shaka:
I made a slightly edited version of heavies' testimony
As a law-abiding Second Amendment supporter in Hawaii, and voter, I urge you to please oppose Senate Bill 2046.
SB 2046 would make it a crime to own, manufacture, possess, sell, barter, trade, gift, transfer or acquire a firearm accessory or any other device, part or combination of parts that is designed to or functions to accelerate the rate of fire of a semi-automatic firearm. In addition, SB 2046 would also criminalize installing, removing, or altering parts of a firearm with the intent of accelerating the rate of fire.
The broad and overreaching provisions of SB 2046 could criminalize firearm modifications such as competition triggers, muzzle brakes, and ergonomic changes that are commonly done by law-abiding gun owners to make their firearms more suitable for self-defense, competition, hunting, or even overcoming disability.
These restrictions will do nothing to curb violence nor keep criminals from obtaining or using such devices, and only serve to automatically and arbitrarily make LAW ABIDING CITIZENS criminals overnight for no reason at all. In addition, it does not address the root cause of gun violence, which is mental illness and psychiatric medications.
mahalo
macsak, hawaii resident and voter
Post by: London808 on January 29, 2018, 04:02:23 PM
I NAME Oppose the enactment of SB 2046.
This is a new jerk reaction to a tragedy that occurred this past year, Although this law seems like a well meaning law that may stop another event like this from happening, it simply is not true and will have no effect on crime at any level.
The wording of the bill, including "or to accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic firearm," Have no legal definition or meaning and can be interpreted in any number of ways. Something as simple as replacing the factory trigger with a smoother one or one with a lighter pull (often done with precision and competition shooters) would be illegal.
This law would also be impossible to enforce short of the police departments disassembling and cataloging every part of every firearm in the state.
With regards to the ban of bump stocks mentioned in the law. A bump stock can be replicated with any number of tools, including but not limited to a shoe lace, a rubber band, a belt. Not to mention that with a little practice the same style of fire can be achieved without any modification to any semiautomatic rifle. The simple true of the matter is these tools are not used in murders or shootings because they cause the fire to be inaccurate and unreliable.
My final objection to this bill is the arbitrary ban of something that is currently legal. Resulting in people having to surrender or destroy their personal property without compensation or face felony charges. This alone has already been ruled unconstitutionall in federal courts across the country.
Post by: macsak on January 29, 2018, 05:25:22 PM
https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=2046&year=2018
-Sign in, or sign up
-click link
-submit testimony OPPOSING SB2046
Thank you
Sample testimony...
please note, testimony MUST be submitted 24 hours before meeting time, late submissions may or may not be distributed
Post by: rklapp on January 29, 2018, 06:34:55 PM
Post by: drck1000 on January 29, 2018, 08:37:22 PM
Will certainly be keeping an eye on this one.
With Tsutsui stepping down and Senate leader saying not interested, the House Speaker, Scott Saiki is next in line. He’s my rep and absolutely terrible for gun rights.
Post by: Lihikai on January 29, 2018, 08:50:55 PM
Post by: oldfart on January 29, 2018, 08:54:43 PM
Post by: eyeeatingfish on January 29, 2018, 10:10:51 PM
Post by: changemyoil66 on January 30, 2018, 10:02:04 AM
Post by: macsak on January 30, 2018, 10:10:08 AM
Is there a way to see all the for and against votes by the public submissions?
after the hearing, all testimony is available online
Post by: 6716J on January 30, 2018, 11:06:04 AM
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: Heavies on January 30, 2018, 06:01:57 PM
Quote
Aloha e [heavies],
Mahalo for your email. I'm a supporter of Second Amendment rights and appreciate your input. I'll consider this closely if and when I have an opportunity to vote on it.
Best wishes to you and your 'ohana.
Me ke aloha pumehana,
Senator Mike Gabbard
Chair, Agriculture and Environment Committee
Hawai'i State Capitol, Room 201
Honolulu, Hawai`i 96813
Ph: 586-6830 Fax: 586-6679
P.S. Click HERE to check out my Senate webpage "Agriculture is our wisest pursuit, because it will in the end contribute most to real wealth, good morals, and happiness." Thomas Jefferson
Post by: hvybarrels on January 31, 2018, 09:11:31 AM
Quote
The first question we need to ask is how does banning common and widely accepted firearm modifications help Hawaii's citizens? We already have the lowest gun deaths in the nation, so it's already impossible to estimate how much modified parts made a difference because the control group is already so tiny. Meanwhile we have drowning deaths at 13 times the national average, but I don't see any rush to regulate snorkel parts.
Does this bill actually intend to make a difference, or is it just another political maneuver to put bullet points on campaign flyers and make career politicians look like they are "taking a stand" without actually accomplishing anything productive?
Post by: aieahound on February 01, 2018, 02:04:05 PM
Testimony re SB2046 is posted: https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/Session2018/Testimony/SB2046_TESTIMONY_PSM_02-01-18_.PDFGood job folks.
Tabulation:
FOR 5 (five)
OPPOSED 104 (one hundred and four)
I haven't read all the comments (and even my quick tabulation looking through over 100 pages could be off by a couple), but the support is from HPD, Maui Prosecutor, Big Island Mayor Harry Kim, Americans for Democratic action and one individual.
Now let's see how the committee "translates" that public input into action.
I appreciate everyone who took the time to submit testimony to attempt to defensively defeat legislation to further restrict our rights.
Now, can we please take the same energy and attempt to use it to go on the offense and get the committee chairs to hear the bills to restore our rights (CCW shall issue, handgun mag limit change to 17, and end stun gun ban)? :shaka:
Post by: aieahound on February 01, 2018, 02:10:13 PM
Testimony re SB2046 is posted: https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/Session2018/Testimony/SB2046_TESTIMONY_PSM_02-01-18_.PDF
Tabulation:
FOR 5 (five)
OPPOSED 104 (one hundred and four)
I haven't read all the comments (and even my quick tabulation looking through over 100 pages could be off by a couple), but the support is from HPD, Maui Prosecutor, Big Island Mayor Harry Kim, Americans for Democratic action and one individual.
Now let's see how the committee "translates" that public input into action.
I appreciate everyone who took the time to submit testimony to attempt to defensively defeat legislation to further restrict our rights.
Now, can we please take the same energy and attempt to use it to go on the offense and get the committee chairs to hear the bills to restore our rights (CCW shall issue, handgun mag limit change to 17, and end stun gun ban)? :shaka:
Post by: punaperson on February 01, 2018, 03:01:54 PM
Chairman starts off the committee meeting by saying that there are too many people who want to testify on SB2046, so (even though you took time off work and came all the way down here and maybe paid for parking, etc.) you won't be able to testify. Why have "in person" testimony if there is a "time limit" that is interpreted to mean the vast majority of people there to testify can't testify? So much for "public input". :crazy: :wtf:
Then there's the fact that only two of the five committee members are present, so there is no "quorum" and they can't do anything after they sit there for 90 minutes listenting to all the people they did allow to testify on other bills, and postpone action until at least the next meeting on Feb 6. Why even have the meeting and hear all the "public input" (such as is allowed given the "time constraints") when the majority of the members aren't even there? It's almost like they all have their minds made up before any procedural events (testimony, meetings, votes, etc.) take place, so they haven't really missed anything by missing the meeting and the in person testimony (such as was "allowed"). >:(
Post by: zippz on February 01, 2018, 04:09:29 PM
Its terrible what Puna said about the committee, all that hard work and the government drops the ball.
Post by: punaperson on February 01, 2018, 04:36:46 PM
https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2018/hearingnotices/HEARING_PSM_02-06-18_DEFER-1_.HTM
COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY, INTERGOVERNMENTAL, AND MILITARY AFFAIRS
Senator Clarence K. Nishihara, Chair
Senator Glenn Wakai, Vice-Chair
MEASURES DEFERRED TO TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 06, 2018
DATE:Tuesday, February 06, 2018
TIME:1:20 PM
PLACE:Conference Room 229
State Capitol
415 South Beretania Street
DECISION MAKING ON THE FOLLOWING MEASURE(S):
[list of all measures, including SB2046]
[Note at bottom of page:]
No testimony will be accepted.
[They gave us our one chance to submit written testimony and (not) testify in person. If even one scintilla of rationality is allowed to bear upon the decision, SB2046 will be defeated/deferred. I'm not holding my breath.][/list]
Post by: nathanm14fan on February 01, 2018, 04:55:35 PM
Your argument is mute. You can own everything from destructive devices to fully automatic weapons with the right license on the Federal level. Hawaii's police state, which you bow to doesn't allow it.
And I'm sure many people don't realize that according to HRS 134-11, state and county law enforcement officers are allowed to own NFA firearms and high capacity magazines. Federal LEO private ownership is NOT exempt. HRS 134-8 governs those items.
"134-11 Exemptions. (a) Sections 134-7 to 134-9 and 134-21 to 134-27, except section 134-7(f), shall not apply:
(1) To state and county law enforcement officers; provided that such persons are not convicted of an offense involving abuse of a family or household member under section 709-906;"
Post by: PalisadesKid on February 01, 2018, 04:56:38 PM
Committee meets as mentioned next Feb. 6:
https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2018/hearingnotices/HEARING_PSM_02-06-18_DEFER-1_.HTM
COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY, INTERGOVERNMENTAL, AND MILITARY AFFAIRS
Senator Clarence K. Nishihara, Chair
Senator Glenn Wakai, Vice-Chair
MEASURES DEFERRED TO TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 06, 2018
DATE:Tuesday, February 06, 2018
TIME:1:20 PM
PLACE:Conference Room 229
State Capitol
415 South Beretania Street
DECISION MAKING ON THE FOLLOWING MEASURE(S):
[list of all measures, including SB2046]
[Note at bottom of page:]
No testimony will be accepted.
[They gave us our one chance to submit written testimony and (not) testify in person. If even one scintilla of rationality is allowed to bear upon the decision, SB2046 will be defeated/deferred. I'm not holding my breath.][/list]
So we have a few more days to call and email these committee chairs with our $0.02 regarding this bill ... fine. So be it.
Post by: punaperson on February 01, 2018, 05:01:51 PM
So we have a few more days to call and email these committee chairs with our $0.02 regarding this bill ... fine. So be it.I'll repost the list here for anyone who wants to follow the above suggestion (NIshihara and Thielen were present today):
COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY, INTERGOVERNMENTAL, AND MILITARY AFFAIRS
Senator Clarence K. Nishihara, Chair
phone: 808-586-6970
fax: 808-586-6879
sennishihara@capitol.hawaii.gov
Senator Glenn Wakai, Vice Chair
phone: 808-586-8585
fax: 808-586-8588
senwakai@capitol.hawaii.gov
Members
Rosalyn H. Baker
phone: 808-586-6070
fax: 808-586-6071
senbaker@capitol.hawaii.gov
Laura H. Thielen
phone: 808-587-8388
fax: 808-587-7240
senthielen@capitol.hawaii.gov
Les Ihara Jr.
phone: 808-586-6250
fax: 808-586-6251
senihara@capitol.hawaii.gov
Post by: Jl808 on February 01, 2018, 05:12:12 PM
https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2018/bills/SB2046_.pdf
SB2046 Firearms; Trigger Modification Devices; Bump Stocks RELATING TO FIREARMS.
Prohibits trigger modification devices, including bump stocks, that are designed or function to accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic firearm.
Oppose. K. RHOADS, S. CHANG, KEITH-AGARAN, NISHIHARA, Shimabukuro PSM, JDC
Post by: Jl808 on February 01, 2018, 05:12:32 PM
https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2018/bills/SB2046_.pdf
SB2046 Firearms; Trigger Modification Devices; Bump Stocks RELATING TO FIREARMS.
Prohibits trigger modification devices, including bump stocks, that are designed or function to accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic firearm.
Oppose. K. RHOADS, S. CHANG, KEITH-AGARAN, NISHIHARA, Shimabukuro PSM, JDC
Post by: drck1000 on February 01, 2018, 05:29:04 PM
S 2/1/2018: The committee(s) on PSM deferred the measure until 02-06-18 1:20PM in conference room 229.Those listed after oppose in red in fact opposed? Rhonda? Wow if that’s true.
https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2018/bills/SB2046_.pdf
SB2046 Firearms; Trigger Modification Devices; Bump Stocks RELATING TO FIREARMS.
Prohibits trigger modification devices, including bump stocks, that are designed or function to accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic firearm.
Oppose. K. RHOADS, S. CHANG, KEITH-AGARAN, NISHIHARA, Shimabukuro PSM, JDC
Post by: punaperson on February 01, 2018, 07:09:37 PM
Those listed after oppose in red in fact opposed? Rhonda? Wow if that’s true.No. That's just an "artifact" of the "copy and paste" from the spreadsheet. It's the suggestion to those here to "oppose" the bill. The following names are the entire list of introducers of the bill and not related to their position on the bill (which would obviously be in support of a bill they introduce).
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rwd7YQNUy9ALVIXR81-Sh1tfWuiYLOaX4re1bDN-GBY/edit#gid=504834860
Post by: macsak on February 01, 2018, 07:12:25 PM
No. That's just an "artifact" of the "copy and paste" from the spreadsheet. It's the suggestion to those here to "oppose" the bill. The following names are the entire list of introducers of the bill and not related to their position on the bill.
as previously mentioned, it was deferred because there was not a quorum
they were running out of time, but they did take in-person testimony
Post by: punaperson on February 01, 2018, 07:19:00 PM
as previously mentioned, it was deferred because there was not a quorumMy recollection is that the chair allowed two in-person testimonies. He gave Dan Reid of the NRA 40 seconds to repeat several NRA talking points, and then allowed one other person who has an FFL manufacturing license to speak for less than two minutes (he explained that if he got two factory rifles, both Hawaii legal, one of which had a slightly lesser trigger pull than the other, and took that lesser pull trigger out of the one rifle and put it in the other rifle he would be guilty under the proposed law of modifying).
they were running out of time, but they did take in-person testimony
Post by: macsak on February 01, 2018, 07:44:47 PM
Chairman starts off the committee meeting by saying that there are too many people who want to testify on SB2046, so (even though you took time off work and came all the way down here and maybe paid for parking, etc.) you won't be able to testify. Why have "in person" testimony if there is a "time limit" that is interpreted to mean the vast majority of people there to testify can't testify? So much for "public input". :crazy: :wtf:
i was there, he actually stated that there were many bills that had numerous people testifying, so people should keep that in mind
and there is a "time limit" for everyone testifying, not just for SB2046
it just turned out that since SB2046 was one of the last bills, they didn't give the testifiers much time
your call if that was deliberate or not
but the gun violence protective order was not last, and neither meeting took the bills in order, so who knows?
Post by: PalisadesKid on February 01, 2018, 08:04:17 PM
I'll repost the list here for anyone who wants to follow the above suggestion (NIshihara and Thielen were present today):
COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY, INTERGOVERNMENTAL, AND MILITARY AFFAIRS
Senator Clarence K. Nishihara, Chair
phone: 808-586-6970
fax: 808-586-6879
sennishihara@capitol.hawaii.gov
Senator Glenn Wakai, Vice Chair
phone: 808-586-8585
fax: 808-586-8588
senwakai@capitol.hawaii.gov
Members
Rosalyn H. Baker
phone: 808-586-6070
fax: 808-586-6071
senbaker@capitol.hawaii.gov
Laura H. Thielen
phone: 808-587-8388
fax: 808-587-7240
senthielen@capitol.hawaii.gov
Les Ihara Jr.
phone: 808-586-6250
fax: 808-586-6251
senihara@capitol.hawaii.gov
Oh yeah I got those... BTW still ZERO response to the two sets of messages I left for ALL of these individuals, so emails had to do. Same goes for my attempts to request NO HEARING for SB 2265 (5 year registration, bans on flash hiders, etc...). :wtf: :wtf: :wtf:
Post by: drck1000 on February 01, 2018, 08:07:12 PM
No. That's just an "artifact" of the "copy and paste" from the spreadsheet. It's the suggestion to those here to "oppose" the bill. The following names are the entire list of introducers of the bill and not related to their position on the bill (which would obviously be in support of a bill they introduce).Cool. Thanks.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rwd7YQNUy9ALVIXR81-Sh1tfWuiYLOaX4re1bDN-GBY/edit#gid=504834860
Post by: punaperson on February 01, 2018, 09:07:15 PM
i was there, he actually stated that there were many bills that had numerous people testifying, so people should keep that in mindI think it would be "helpful" if they had an upfront stated policy about how much in-person testimony would be allowed per bill considered. It could be "five minutes total for each side FOR and OPPOSED, each individual one minute maximum unless there are fewer than five people in which case the time will be divided evenly" or something like that. They could also notify people shortly after the 24 hour-prior-to-meeting deadline for written testimony is due which five people who opted to present live testimony were to be included in that group, with maybe two or three "alternates" in case some of the first five are no shows, thus saving others from taking time off work, driving, etc. to no end if they aren't allowed to testify. Why the "hard" deadline when the meeting had to end? Schedule more time between the end of one set of meetings and the next round if that was the issue. I mean, I know they don't care about wasting citizens' time and money, but they could extend such a policy as a simple courtesy. Or maybe it doesn't matter to anyone there and they are all happy to have gone to the meeting and not gotten a chance to testify. It doesn't effect me, being on an "outer island", as I won't be traveling to Oahu. It just doesn't have the "appearance" of equity. The chair has the sole power to decide which bills will be granted a hearing at all, so why have a format that has the appearance of the opportunity to allow public input, and then cut that public input to a negligible amount? Especially given that the chairman ignores all requests to schedule hearings for the bills that would begin to restore some of our trampled rights. I'm just sayin'...
and there is a "time limit" for everyone testifying, not just for SB2046
it just turned out that since SB2046 was one of the last bills, they didn't give the testifiers much time
your call if that was deliberate or not
but the gun violence protective order was not last, and neither meeting took the bills in order, so who knows?
Post by: macsak on February 01, 2018, 09:29:13 PM
I think it would be "helpful" if they had an upfront stated policy about how much in-person testimony would be allowed per bill considered. It could be "five minutes total for each side FOR and OPPOSED, each individual one minute maximum unless there are fewer than five people in which case the time will be divided evenly" or something like that. They could also notify people shortly after the 24 hour-prior-to-meeting deadline for written testimony is due which five people who opted to present live testimony were to be included in that group, with maybe two or three "alternates" in case some of the first five are no shows, thus saving others from taking time off work, driving, etc. to no end if they aren't allowed to testify. Why the "hard" deadline when the meeting had to end? Schedule more time between the end of one set of meetings and the next round if that was the issue. I mean, I know they don't care about wasting citizens' time and money, but they could extend such a policy as a simple courtesy. Or maybe it doesn't matter to anyone there and they are all happy to have gone to the meeting and not gotten a chance to testify. It doesn't effect me, being on an "outer island", as I won't be traveling to Oahu. It just doesn't have the "appearance" of equity. The chair has the sole power to decide which bills will be granted a hearing at all, so why have a format that has the appearance of the opportunity to allow public input, and then cut that public input to a negligible amount? Especially given that the chairman ignores all requests to schedule hearings for the bills that would begin to restore some of our trampled rights. I'm just sayin'...
no one was not allowed to testify
I spoke to someone present, and the chair asked who wanted to speak, and only those who spoke raised their hands
Post by: zippz on February 03, 2018, 02:19:40 PM
I think it would be "helpful" if they had an upfront stated policy about how much in-person testimony would be allowed per bill considered. It could be "five minutes total for each side FOR and OPPOSED, each individual one minute maximum unless there are fewer than five people in which case the time will be divided evenly" or something like that. They could also notify people shortly after the 24 hour-prior-to-meeting deadline for written testimony is due which five people who opted to present live testimony were to be included in that group, with maybe two or three "alternates" in case some of the first five are no shows, thus saving others from taking time off work, driving, etc. to no end if they aren't allowed to testify. Why the "hard" deadline when the meeting had to end? Schedule more time between the end of one set of meetings and the next round if that was the issue. I mean, I know they don't care about wasting citizens' time and money, but they could extend such a policy as a simple courtesy. Or maybe it doesn't matter to anyone there and they are all happy to have gone to the meeting and not gotten a chance to testify. It doesn't effect me, being on an "outer island", as I won't be traveling to Oahu. It just doesn't have the "appearance" of equity. The chair has the sole power to decide which bills will be granted a hearing at all, so why have a format that has the appearance of the opportunity to allow public input, and then cut that public input to a negligible amount? Especially given that the chairman ignores all requests to schedule hearings for the bills that would begin to restore some of our trampled rights. I'm just sayin'...
Sounds like an unusual situation, I've never seen this before when I testified at the capitol. If they're short on time, they'll usually limit people to 2 minutes and cut them off when time is up or tell people not to repeat the same talking points again. 1 minute isn't much time to do anything.
Post by: punaperson on February 03, 2018, 04:45:28 PM
Sounds like an unusual situation, I've never seen this before when I testified at the capitol. If they're short on time, they'll usually limit people to 2 minutes and cut them off when time is up or tell people not to repeat the same talking points again. 1 minute isn't much time to do anything.I'm waiting for the meeting video to get posted. Maybe I misunderstood the words of the chairman, both at the very opening of the meeting and just prior to hearing anyone comment on the bill. I'll report once I get to hear that. I'm not sure if the fact that the chairman was one of the introducers of the bill might influence his decisions about hearing testimony. I mean, I know it's not supposed to, but he did know that the written testimony had gone 103 to 5 against him...
Post by: punaperson on February 04, 2018, 06:52:23 AM
https://act.nraila.org/default.aspx
Click on Hawaii on the map and SB2046 will be the first choice.
Post by: punaperson on February 05, 2018, 03:38:21 PM
http://www.civilbeat.org/2018/02/legislature-keeps-written-testimony-under-wraps-til-the-last-minute/
Legislature Keeps Written Testimony Under Wraps Til The Last Minute
The common practice of not releasing testimony to the public until an hour before a hearing has one Republican lawmaker pushing for change.
A GOP lawmaker is decrying the Legislature’s lack of transparency when it comes to making public the written testimony on proposed legislation.
“I’m very disturbed about the lack of open government,” Rep. Cynthia Thielen said Friday. “When chairs refuse to release that testimony in a meaningful way then they control all the information.”
Following what has become common practice in the Hawaii Legislature, Yamane decided to keep the public from seeing written testimony on bills until an hour before the hearing.
Thielen said in the past she did not receive testimony until just before the committee hearing started, a concern other lawmakers have privately expressed.
[Just one bill, the one that is the subject of this thread, before the committee the other day had 117 pages of testimony... and they looked at at least 6 other bills in that meeting... they get the testimony "just before the meeting"?]
Post by: punaperson on February 06, 2018, 07:22:04 AM
According to the Senate "Upcoming Live Events" schedule (http://olelo.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=13), only one committee meeting will be broadcast today, and two tomorrow, and the PSM "decision making" meeting today is not among them. So we apparently won't get to see or hear our "representatives" as they present their reasoning prior to their votes unless you live on or travel to Oahu and attend the meeting in person, and that room has a capacity of what, maybe 40 people at the most? So that means that approximately .000029% of the states population will be able to witness this "decision making".
Also the same page has not posted the video of the PSM meeting from Feb. 1, which I hoped to see to get exact quotes from chairperson Nishihara regarding the presentation of testimony re SB2046 and limitations upon that.
Maybe they will schedule streaming later in the day, but the other streams listed for today and tomorrow have been posted for days.
Also the "Late Testimony" has been posted (https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/Session2018/Testimony/SB2046_TESTIMONY_PSM_02-01-18_LATE.PDF).
FOR 1 (ONE)
OPPOSED 17 (SEVENTEEN)
Testimony TOTAL
FOR 6 (SIX)
OPPOSED 120 (ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY)
Post by: rpoL98 on February 06, 2018, 04:19:41 PM
Post by: zippz on February 06, 2018, 04:30:00 PM
120 OPPOSED is not a lot. yes, I submitted. my opinion, we need 10 times that many, to really make a statement.
I agree 120 is a good start and it did surprise me. We do need several hundred to make them give things a second look and thousands for them to approve something like CCW.
Post by: PalisadesKid on February 06, 2018, 05:25:26 PM
The committee(s) on PSM recommend(s) that the measure be PASSED, UNAMENDED. The votes in PSM were as follows: 5 Aye(s): Senator(s) Nishihara, Wakai, Baker, Ihara, L. Thielen; Aye(s) with reservations: none ; 0 No(es): none; and 0 Excused: none.
Post by: macsak on February 06, 2018, 05:36:11 PM
PSM RECOMMENDS SB 2046 TO PASS W/O AMENDMENTS.
The committee(s) on PSM recommend(s) that the measure be PASSED, UNAMENDED. The votes in PSM were as follows: 5 Aye(s): Senator(s) Nishihara, Wakai, Baker, Ihara, L. Thielen; Aye(s) with reservations: none ; 0 No(es): none; and 0 Excused: none.
oh crap
Post by: punaperson on February 06, 2018, 05:48:35 PM
Post by: hvybarrels on February 06, 2018, 06:28:37 PM
Post by: drck1000 on February 06, 2018, 06:34:09 PM
I bet passed just based on “bump stock” alone.
Post by: aieahound on February 06, 2018, 06:40:46 PM
oh crap
My thought exactly. :grrr:
Post by: oldfart on February 06, 2018, 06:55:51 PM
Post by: PalisadesKid on February 06, 2018, 06:57:37 PM
:wtf:
Monkeys see and monkeys do. The inferiority complex with Hawaii Democrats blossomed again when they saw their Massachusetts counterparts passing their own Bump Stock Ban.
Like children saying "HEY LOOK AT US TOO!!!"
Post by: z06psi on February 06, 2018, 07:33:46 PM
This place is hell on liberty loving American.
Post by: changemyoil66 on February 06, 2018, 09:13:28 PM
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
Post by: zippz on February 06, 2018, 09:17:22 PM
Still got chances to defeat this if we keep it up. 120 opposing testimonies were a good start, we need more people and more organizations next time.
Edit: Got it mixed up, forgot this is an SB. 1 senate committee and 2 house committees.
Post by: changemyoil66 on February 06, 2018, 09:24:14 PM
We got 1 more committee in the house and the final vote, then 2 more committees in the senate and the final vote, then the governor's approval.I talked to my rep, he seems opposed to this one, but he did submit a bill that is more specific. So hopefully he votes nay.
Still got chances to defeat this if we keep it up. 120 opposing testimonies were a good start, we need more people and more organizations next time.
Can we get the shooters at kokohead involved? Seems like way more than 120 people go there in 1 day.
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
Post by: zippz on February 06, 2018, 09:30:23 PM
Post by: ren on February 06, 2018, 09:39:09 PM
Post by: zippz on February 06, 2018, 10:25:40 PM
Post by: rpoL98 on February 07, 2018, 01:45:10 AM
Post by: Jl808 on February 07, 2018, 04:07:21 AM
https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2018/bills/SB2046_.pdf
SB2046 Firearms; Trigger Modification Devices; Bump Stocks
RELATING TO FIREARMS. Prohibits trigger modification devices, including bump stocks, that are designed or function to accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic firearm.
Oppose. K. RHOADS, S. CHANG, KEITH-AGARAN, NISHIHARA, Shimabukuro PSM, JDC
Post by: zippz on February 07, 2018, 07:38:10 AM
Post by: changemyoil66 on February 07, 2018, 08:45:13 AM
Another option is to make the PD oppose this bill. Amend it to require the PDs to inspect and certify all firearms for modifications at time of registration. They would hate that.
1) Will LE be exempt from this bill? I didn't see an "exclusion" section.
2) And can anyone confirm there is no grandfather clause.
3) Can someone explain how our bill to law process works? I got the district rep proposes bill. Then it goes to committee (5 people?) who votes if it goes to...and how many people are involved.
Post by: drck1000 on February 07, 2018, 09:27:59 AM
Another option is to make the PD oppose this bill. Amend it to require the PDs to inspect and certify all firearms for modifications at time of registration. They would hate that.Don’t think it should be left up to interpretation, by anyone really.
And I doubt the firearms department will care either way.
Post by: zippz on February 07, 2018, 09:30:52 AM
Don’t think it should be left up to interpretation, by anyone really.
And I doubt the firearms department will care either way.
PDs will hate it because they will need more personnel in the firearms section and they must be certified gunsmith on each type of firearm and modification. An impossible task.
Post by: drck1000 on February 07, 2018, 09:31:56 AM
PDs will hate it because they will need more personnel in the firearms section and they must be certified gunsmith on eachbtypenof firearm and modification. An impossible task.Not disputing it would make more work. Just that they could default to non- compliant if left up to individual making determination.
Post by: zippz on February 07, 2018, 09:33:27 AM
3) Can someone explain how our bill to law process works? I got the district rep proposes bill. Then it goes to committee (5 people?) who votes if it goes to...and how many people are involved.
Like this?
https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=29982.0
Post by: zippz on February 07, 2018, 09:41:02 AM
https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=29599.0
Post by: changemyoil66 on February 07, 2018, 09:48:16 AM
Like this?
https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=29982.0
Thanks zipps, I guess I'm one of those lazy F*kka's. :rofl: :rofl:
What determines if a proposed bill goes to the house or senate? I want to make sure I contact the right person. Example: Mike Gabbard proposed 17rd mag limits (Senate), but Scott Nishimoto proposed CCW (House).
Post by: punaperson on February 07, 2018, 12:16:37 PM
Thanks zipps, I guess I'm one of those lazy F*kka's. :rofl: :rofl:The House or Senate first votes on bills in committees depending if the bill is proposed/"introduced" by a Representative or a Senator. Sometimes the bills have a "companion" bill in the other chamber that is virtually identical, when a senator and rep get together prior to submitting bills. If not, then if the one chamber's committees pass the bill, it goes to the other chamber and if it passes committees there it goes to the full chamber... at which point, I believe, a joint senate-house committee make any final changes before the floor votes in each chamber. Then to the governor if it passes.
What determines if a proposed bill goes to the house or senate? I want to make sure I contact the right person. Example: Mike Gabbard proposed 17rd mag limits (Senate), but Scott Nishimoto proposed CCW (House).
Senator Gabbard also has a CCW shall issue bill (SB2067) and the stun gun ban repeal bill (SB2068). The handgun mag limit to 17 is SB2066.
Post by: changemyoil66 on February 07, 2018, 12:35:50 PM
The House or Senate first votes on bills in committees depending if the bill is proposed/"introduced" by a Representative or a Senator. Sometimes the bills have a "companion" bill in the other chamber that is virtually identical, when a senator and rep get together prior to submitting bills. If not, then if the one chamber's committees pass the bill, it goes to the other chamber and if it passes committees there it goes to the full chamber... at which point, I believe, a joint senate-house committee make any final changes before the floor votes in each chamber. Then to the governor if it passes.
Senator Gabbard also has a CCW shall issue bill (SB2067) and the stun gun ban repeal bill (SB2068). The handgun mag limit to 17 is SB2066.
Got it, the arrow and dotted/solid lines on the flow chart were confusing. So Follow either the solid line or the dotted (depending if a rep or a senator submitted the bill), but either way, each bill goes to both the house and senate before going to the lower portion of the flow chart.
Post by: macsak on February 07, 2018, 03:16:13 PM
Got it, the arrow and dotted/solid lines on the flow chart were confusing. So Follow either the solid line or the dotted (depending if a rep or a senator submitted the bill), but either way, each bill goes to both the house and senate before going to the lower portion of the flow chart.
one VERY important thing to know is that conference committee takes place WITHOUT PUBLIC COMMENT
and the conference committee has the power to change any language it chooses
it can even change the complete bill or restore language that was already defeated in committee or house/sentate floor
this is why it is important to always testify and call/email and make sure everyone knows where we stand and that they will be held accountable (cough)
Post by: Jl808 on February 09, 2018, 10:37:15 AM
https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2018/bills/SB2046_.pdf
SB2046 Firearms; Trigger Modification Devices; Bump Stocks
RELATING TO FIREARMS. Prohibits trigger modification devices, including bump stocks, that are designed or function to accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic firearm.
Oppose. K. RHOADS, S. CHANG, KEITH-AGARAN, NISHIHARA, Shimabukuro PSM, JDC
Post by: Jl808 on February 09, 2018, 10:37:22 AM
https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2018/bills/SB2046_.pdf
SB2046 Firearms; Trigger Modification Devices; Bump Stocks
RELATING TO FIREARMS. Prohibits trigger modification devices, including bump stocks, that are designed or function to accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic firearm.
Oppose. K. RHOADS, S. CHANG, KEITH-AGARAN, NISHIHARA, Shimabukuro PSM, JDC
Post by: PalisadesKid on February 09, 2018, 11:15:08 AM
Copy and pasting JI808's post in another thread:
These 2 bills have moved on to the Senate JDC committee.
S 2/9/2018: Reported from PSM (Stand. Com. Rep. No. 2177) with recommendation of passage on Second Reading and referral to JDC.
https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2018/bills/SB2046_.pdf
SB2046 Firearms; Trigger Modification Devices; Bump Stocks
RELATING TO FIREARMS. Prohibits trigger modification devices, including bump stocks, that are designed or function to accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic firearm.
Oppose. K. RHOADS, S. CHANG, KEITH-AGARAN, NISHIHARA, Shimabukuro PSM, JDC
https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=2046&year=2018
S 2/9/2018: Reported from PSM (Stand. Com. Rep. No. 2165) with recommendation of passage on Second Reading, as amended (SD 1) and referral to JDC.
https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2018/bills/SB2436_SD1_.pdf
SB2436 SD1 Firearms; Ammunition; Disqualification; Voluntary Surrender
RELATING TO FIREARMS. Shortens the time period for voluntary surrender of firearms and ammunition upon disqualification from ownership, possession, or control from 30 days to 24 hours. (SD1)
Oppose. NISHIHARA, BAKER, K. RHOADS, Espero, L. Thielen, Wakai PSM, JDC
https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=2436&year=2018
=========================
Please contact your senators if they are in this committee.
JDC Committee:
https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/committeepage.aspx?comm=JDC&year=2018
(https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/Members/Images/RepSenPhotos/taniguchi.jpg)
Brian T. Taniguchi (HRA 2012 B rating and NRA 2010 B+ rating)
Senate District 11
Hawaii State Capitol, Room 219
phone: 808-586-6460
fax: 808-586-6461
sentaniguchi@capitol.hawaii.gov
(https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/Members/Images/RepSenPhotos/rhoads.jpg)
Karl Rhoads (NRA and HRA F rating)
Senate District 13
Hawaii State Capitol, Room 204
phone: 808-586-6130
fax: 808-586-6131
senrhoads@capitol.hawaii.gov
(https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/Members/Images/RepSenPhotos/gabbard.jpg)
Mike Gabbard (HRA 2012 A rating and NRA 2010 A Rating)
Senate District 20
Hawaii State Capitol
Room 201
phone: 808-586-6830
fax: 808-586-6679
sengabbard@capitol.hawaii.gov
(https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/Members/Images/RepSenPhotos/kim.jpg)
Donna Mercado Kim (HRA 2014 F rating and NRA 2010 F rating)
Senate District 14
Hawaii State Capitol
Room 218
phone: 808-587-7200
fax: 808-587-7205
senkim@capitol.hawaii.gov
(https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/Members/Images/RepSenPhotos/lthielen.jpg)
Laura Thielen (HRA 2012 C Rating)
Senate District 25
Hawaii State Capitol
Room 231
phone: 808-587-8388
fax: 808-587-7240
senthielen@capitol.hawaii.gov
=========================
There are 2 VERY Anti-2A senators and 2 lukewarm pro-2A senators and 5th neutral one who has already voted for this bill on the PSM committee (Laura Thielen).
We're screwed.
Please contact Gabbard, Taniguchi and Thielen to encourage them to vote against these bills.
Post by: punaperson on February 23, 2018, 04:48:27 PM
This means written testimony must be submitted by Monday at 9:30 AM to not be "LATE".
SB2436
(SB2046 will be considered at same meeting!)
COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Senator Brian T. Taniguchi, Chair
Senator Karl Rhoads, Vice Chair
NOTICE OF DECISION MAKING
DATE: Tuesday, February 27, 2018
TIME: 9:30 a.m.
PLACE: Conference Room 016
Decision making meeting only, no oral testimony will be accepted.
Persons wishing to submit written testimony may do so up to 24 hours prior to the hearing.
Post by: punaperson on February 23, 2018, 04:50:05 PM
This means written testimony must be submitted by Monday at 9:30 AM to not be "LATE".
SB2046
(SB2436 will be considered at same meeting!)
COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Senator Brian T. Taniguchi, Chair
Senator Karl Rhoads, Vice Chair
NOTICE OF DECISION MAKING
DATE: Tuesday, February 27, 2018
TIME: 9:30 a.m.
PLACE: Conference Room 016
Decision making meeting only, no oral testimony will be accepted.
Persons wishing to submit written testimony may do so up to 24 hours prior to the hearing.
Post by: zippz on February 23, 2018, 05:07:14 PM
Post by: zippz on February 23, 2018, 05:35:54 PM
If you do want to submit testimony online, like to add comments, msg me so I can discard the paper one.
Post by: 6716J on February 23, 2018, 07:32:51 PM
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: Heavies on February 24, 2018, 06:58:24 AM
Post by: 2ahavvaii on February 24, 2018, 03:21:15 PM
I need help collecting testimonies at koko head sat afternoon and Sunday. Also at gun stores. Msg me your phone number and ill contact you.
They've attempted to allay concerns about the bill affecting other devices and accessories twice now. In light of the updated bill narrowing the restriction to bump stocks and binary triggers, what arguments would you use against the bill now?
Post by: zippz on February 24, 2018, 03:35:35 PM
They've attempted to allay concerns about the bill affecting other devices and accessories twice now. In light of the updated bill narrowing the restriction to bump stocks and binary triggers, what arguments would you use against the bill now?
This bill, SB2046, was not changed since introduction.
Clarification there are 2 separate bills. HB1908 was amended to only affect bumpstocks, trigger cranks, etc. SB2046 has not changed and still affects trigger mods.
If you are asking this question, you should've attended the legislative workshop.
Post by: zippz on February 24, 2018, 08:05:16 PM
They've attempted to allay concerns about the bill affecting other devices and accessories twice now. In light of the updated bill narrowing the restriction to bump stocks and binary triggers, what arguments would you use against the bill now?
If you want to learn more about how the legislative process works, read my other thread https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=29982.0 or msg me and we'll meet up and I'll go over all the questions that you have.
Post by: macsak on February 24, 2018, 08:35:34 PM
They've attempted to allay concerns about the bill affecting other devices and accessories twice now. In light of the updated bill narrowing the restriction to bump stocks and binary triggers, what arguments would you use against the bill now?
HB 1908 was limited to only bump stocks and trigger cranks
this is SB 2046, which still includes the trigger mods
we need to fight this one too, especially since we will not be able to testify in person at the hearing
one thing you could say is to adopt the wording of HB 1908
or you can argue against the trigger modification part
Post by: macsak on February 26, 2018, 06:42:50 PM
HB 1908 was limited to only bump stocks and trigger cranks
this is SB 2046, which still includes the trigger mods
we need to fight this one too, especially since we will not be able to testify in person at the hearing
one thing you could say is to adopt the wording of HB 1908
or you can argue against the trigger modification part
here's the testimony:
34 support
300+ oppose
https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/Session2018/Testimony/SB2046_TESTIMONY_JDC_02-27-18_.PDF
great job, but we need even more next time!
Post by: zippz on February 26, 2018, 07:49:40 PM
We need 34 more!
(https://i.imgur.com/zCDlr8O.jpg)
https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=2046&year=2018
Current estimated numbers of testimony is:
466 Opposed
38 Support
1 Comments
Note: They haven't processed 64 handwritten testimony yet which I added to the numbers.
Post by: ren on February 26, 2018, 08:18:33 PM
Post by: 6716J on February 26, 2018, 09:15:29 PM
HELP US BREAK 500 TESTIMONY!!!!Awesomeness
We need 34 more!
(https://i.imgur.com/zCDlr8O.jpg)
https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=2046&year=2018
Current estimated numbers of testimony is:
466 Opposed
38 Support
1 Comments
Note: They haven't processed 64 handwritten testimony yet which I added to the numbers.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: Boomah on February 26, 2018, 10:56:38 PM
It's great to see & read so many opposed to the bill, but we definitely need more. Fingers crossed we bust through the 500 mark :thumbsup:
Boomah :shaka:
Post by: 2ahavvaii on February 27, 2018, 08:45:44 AM
Post by: 6716J on February 27, 2018, 08:55:27 AM
I like Jonagustine's comment "Do any of you legislators even read this?" Fucking assholes. There's 12-13X more testimony in opposition, and they'll probably unanimously pass it.Do you really want to know? Because the real question is do they care?
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: macsak on February 27, 2018, 09:00:42 AM
Do you really want to know? Because the real question is do they care?
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
more oppose testimony to come
but probably a lot of LATE supports
Post by: Drakiir84 on February 27, 2018, 09:16:20 AM
Post by: changemyoil66 on February 27, 2018, 09:40:43 AM
Dan Goo just texted, he talked to Senator Taniguchi today and it looks like he is going to adopt the house language that specifies bump stocks and trigger cranks. We'll see.
What does that mean? As in only specifically bump stocks / cranks will be illegal?
Post by: 2ahavvaii on February 27, 2018, 09:45:22 AM
What does that mean? As in only specifically bump stocks / cranks will be illegal?
that means that they'll have 2 different bills that specifies only bump stocks/cranks that are going to be voted on. They're getting rid of the "catch-all" phrases. I may have been a bit premature earlier, but it would be a "partial win" if they only banned bump stock/cranks. You're pissing a lot more people off by lumping in trigger mods and muzzle breaks.
Post by: macsak on February 27, 2018, 09:50:34 AM
that means that they'll have 2 different bills that specifies only bump stocks/cranks that are going to be voted on. They're getting rid of the "catch-all" phrases. I may have been a bit premature earlier, but it would be a "partial win" if they only banned bump stock/cranks. You're pissing a lot more people off by lumping in trigger mods and muzzle breaks.
not two bills
they will combine the house and senate versions in "conference committee"
but in committee, they can change any language they want
outside of public scrutiny too
so we have to still be vigilant
Post by: punaperson on February 27, 2018, 09:59:53 AM
Dan Goo just texted, he talked to Senator Taniguchi today and it looks like he is going to adopt the house language that specifies bump stocks and trigger cranks. We'll see.I wonder if that implies that the language already exists for HB1908 HD2 and they just haven't made it public yet? I was told yesterday that they wouldn't have the language for "2 or 3 days". Who knows what's happening in those back halls and smoke-filled rooms?
Post by: macsak on February 27, 2018, 10:04:18 AM
I wonder if that implies that the language already exists for HB1908 HD2 and they just haven't made it public yet? I was told yesterday that they wouldn't have the language for "2 or 3 days". Who knows what's happening in those back halls and smoke-filled rooms?
updated testimony posted
https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/Session2018/Testimony/SB2046_TESTIMONY_JDC_02-27-18_.PDF
there's more to count now...
Post by: drck1000 on February 27, 2018, 10:21:33 AM
I scrolled through about 1/3 of the testimony and I just hope the opposition response continues to build! :thumbsup:
Thank you to those who have been volunteering to get out, spread the word and raise awareness.
Post by: macsak on February 27, 2018, 10:38:29 AM
I wonder if that implies that the language already exists for HB1908 HD2 and they just haven't made it public yet? I was told yesterday that they wouldn't have the language for "2 or 3 days". Who knows what's happening in those back halls and smoke-filled rooms?
video is up on FB
Post by: punaperson on February 27, 2018, 11:20:26 AM
video is up on FBCan you please post a link? Is it available for viewing by people who despise Mark Zuckerberg and refuse to contribute even a fraction of a cent to his socialist tyranny agenda? :shaka:
Post by: macsak on February 27, 2018, 11:34:29 AM
Can you please post a link? Is it available for viewing by people who despise Mark Zuckerberg and refuse to contribute even a fraction of a cent to his socialist tyranny agenda? :shaka:
not much to see, and more difficult to hear
someone, i think the vice chair, sen taniguchi, says that they want to change the wording to HB1908, there is a break as they all read it, and then they vote
i bet they discussed it beforehand, because there were no questions or discussion on the record
Post by: punaperson on February 27, 2018, 11:46:17 AM
not much to see, and more difficult to hearNo mention of anything at all, even the quantity of testimony or anything? They didn't even state the language that supposedly conformed to HB1908 (which isn't public yet)? What was the vote? Let me guess: UNANIMOUS FOR? (I hope I'm completely wrong and rightly criticized as being a cynical bastard disconnected from the reality of a sympathetic and responsive legislature...).
someone, i think the vice chair, sen taniguchi, says that they want to change the wording to HB1908, there is a break as they all read it, and then they vote
i bet they discussed it beforehand, because there were no questions or discussion on the record
Post by: macsak on February 27, 2018, 11:48:12 AM
No mention of anything at all, even the quantity of testimony or anything? They didn't even state the language that supposedly conformed to HB1908 (which isn't public yet)? What was the vote? Let me guess: UNANIMOUS FOR? (I hope I'm completely wrong and rightly criticized as being a cynical bastard disconnected from the reality of a sympathetic and responsive legislature...).
our guys that were there are more active on FB than on this forum
I will ask
Post by: macsak on February 27, 2018, 12:55:31 PM
our guys that were there are more active on FB than on this forum
I will ask
I am told that it was unanimous for the amendments
and that it is supposed to ban specifically bump stocks and trigger cranks only
no mention was made of the amount of testimony
Post by: Jl808 on February 27, 2018, 01:14:21 PM
S 2/27/2018: The committee(s) on JDC recommend(s) that the measure be PASSED, WITH AMENDMENTS. The votes in JDC were as follows: 5 Aye(s): Senator(s) Taniguchi, K. Rhoads, Gabbard, Kim, L. Thielen; Aye(s) with reservations: none ; 0 No(es): none; and 0 Excused: none.
https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2018/bills/SB2046_.pdf
SB2046 Firearms; Trigger Modification Devices; Bump Stocks
RELATING TO FIREARMS. Prohibits trigger modification devices, including bump stocks, that are designed or function to accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic firearm.
Oppose. K. RHOADS, S. CHANG, KEITH-AGARAN, NISHIHARA, Shimabukuro PSM, JDC
Post by: rustyeleio on February 27, 2018, 06:43:07 PM
https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=2046
Post by: 2ahavvaii on February 27, 2018, 07:03:21 PM
Yay, they are still including trigger mods, even though a large portion of the testimony specifically pointed them out.
Post by: macsak on February 27, 2018, 07:14:55 PM
or any part, combination of parts, component, device, attachment, or accessory that is designed or functions to accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic firearm;
Yay, they are still including trigger mods, even though a large portion of the testimony specifically pointed them out.
amended version available in a couple days
Post by: London808 on February 27, 2018, 07:19:51 PM
or any part, combination of parts, component, device, attachment, or accessory that is designed or functions to accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic firearm;
Yay, they are still including trigger mods, even though a large portion of the testimony specifically pointed them out.
Yeay it bans nothing.
Just fit the so called device to the firearm first in which case this is the base fire rate and not an increased rate.
Post by: rustyeleio on February 27, 2018, 07:24:06 PM
Yeay it bans nothing.
Just fit the so called device to the firearm first in which case this is the base fire rate and not an increased rate.
Yeah, I was also wondering about rifles built from parts. Whatever trigger you install is the original trigger. Ah well, at least i got a fancy email response from Mike Gabbard (or his designee). :rofl:
Post by: zippz on February 27, 2018, 10:17:02 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/ShBtE3h.jpg)
Post by: 2ahavvaii on February 27, 2018, 11:21:31 PM
Post by: Heavies on February 28, 2018, 08:09:33 AM
I dont understand why these lawmakers can't just create bills that are plainly spoken. Instead of saying exaclty what their objective is (to ban bump stocks), they need to get all cute and try to use "big words" that may or may not have unforeseen circumstances. This kind of idiotic shit is why hawaii is so backwards and some laws are routinely ignored by citizens and law enforcement. Just look at the cell phone crosswalk law, I work in downtown and have not seen a single person ticketed for it. Hell, by the courthouse by alakea street, I see cops walking and looking on their phones, as well as pedestrians. The law is a joke. At the same time, I have seen many jaywalking tickets though.So, when confronted with opposition, they can remove things to appease. They can say to antis, "look we banned bump stocks" and they can say to the pros, "look we listened to your concerns" while, all the time, they did absolutely NOTHING to stop bad people, NOTHING to increase safety of our schools or public spaces, and NOTHING but turn formally lawful citizens into automatic felons.
They are satisfied with taking a crumb, instead of a slice of our pie. Eventually taking a crumb here and a crumb there will net the goal of no pie for you.
Post by: changemyoil66 on February 28, 2018, 09:37:17 AM
Post by: dafrtknocker on February 28, 2018, 10:27:00 AM
I dont understand why these lawmakers can't just create bills that are plainly spoken. Instead of saying exaclty what their objective is (to ban bump stocks), they need to get all cute and try to use "big words" that may or may not have unforeseen circumstances. This kind of idiotic shit is why hawaii is so backwards and some laws are routinely ignored by citizens and law enforcement. Just look at the cell phone crosswalk law, I work in downtown and have not seen a single person ticketed for it. Hell, by the courthouse by alakea street, I see cops walking and looking on their phones, as well as pedestrians. The law is a joke. At the same time, I have seen many jaywalking tickets though.
Plain spoken is too easy, the more confusing its sounds lets a judge in a few years say "Hey they really meant to ban all AR-15 type rifles"
Post by: tillamook on February 28, 2018, 12:06:40 PM
So even offering to pay them doesnt work ;)
Post by: zippz on February 28, 2018, 12:27:49 PM
I dont think they read the testimony. I offered a reward (cash donation to the legislator) who replied to me about one of my emails or the testimony.
So even offering to pay them doesnt work ;)
It would be illegal to offer or accept something like that.
Post by: zippz on February 28, 2018, 12:31:43 PM
I dont understand why these lawmakers can't just create bills that are plainly spoken. Instead of saying exaclty what their objective is (to ban bump stocks), they need to get all cute and try to use "big words" that may or may not have unforeseen circumstances. This kind of idiotic shit is why hawaii is so backwards and some laws are routinely ignored by citizens and law enforcement. Just look at the cell phone crosswalk law, I work in downtown and have not seen a single person ticketed for it. Hell, by the courthouse by alakea street, I see cops walking and looking on their phones, as well as pedestrians. The law is a joke. At the same time, I have seen many jaywalking tickets though.
I used to think the same way too. But its not possible since the law has to be written to withstand an attorneys argument. Can't use a brand name since someone can just change the name of a product. If you have a bad description of the device, a person could change one small thing and the law doesn't apply aka 94 assault weapon ban or the bullet button.
Post by: changemyoil66 on February 28, 2018, 12:36:26 PM
Post by: tillamook on February 28, 2018, 12:53:07 PM
It would be illegal to offer or accept something like that.
to offer a donation to acknowledge that they read it? oh well. I guess I'll get to see how well they treat prisoners in the sanctuary state
Post by: 2ahavvaii on February 28, 2018, 02:51:14 PM
I used to think the same way too. But its not possible since the law has to be written to withstand an attorneys argument. Can't use a brand name since someone can just change the name of a product. If you have a bad description of the device, a person could change one small thing and the law doesn't apply aka 94 assault weapon ban or the bullet button.
Then just continually add to the list yearly.... That's what the fed does for drugs, even though people come up with new synthetic drugs all the time. They don't just ban the entire class of drugs for the entire population.
Post by: Bunker on February 28, 2018, 03:04:08 PM
Post by: z06psi on February 28, 2018, 04:25:09 PM
Post by: punaperson on February 28, 2018, 04:31:31 PM
So I haven't seen anything, other than trigger modifications, about Echo/Binary stuff.HB1908 HD1:
"a device that fires multiple shots with the pull and release of the trigger"
Post by: 6716J on February 28, 2018, 04:57:29 PM
Sounds like Trump is going to ban bump stocks by EO but I haven't seen him mention trigger cranks yet. Whether at the federal or state level, I think it's safe to assume bump stocks will be a thing of the past fairly soon.Or worse....
Feinstein shakes with glee after Trump suggests adding assault weapons ban to background check bill
http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-updates-feinstein-reacts-with-glee-after-trump-1519859544-htmlstory.html
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: Bunker on February 28, 2018, 05:28:54 PM
Or worse....I seen that and cringed. Hopefully just an act, because that, hopefully is a non-starter with republicans. Hopefully he is just saying that knowing the republicans will remove it. Trump is such a wildcard, you never know what he will do.
Feinstein shakes with glee after Trump suggests adding assault weapons ban to background check bill
http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-updates-feinstein-reacts-with-glee-after-trump-1519859544-htmlstory.html
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: zippz on March 02, 2018, 07:25:22 PM
At least they acknowledged the opposition testimonies this time, but they never uploaded the 29 missing testimonies.
Post by: punaperson on March 02, 2018, 09:39:11 PM
[I've used bold to highlight the "justification" for this law...]
https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2018/CommReports/SB2046_SD1_SSCR2755_.htm
Honorable Ronald D. Kouchi
President of the Senate
Twenty-Ninth State Legislature
Regular Session of 2018
State of Hawaii
Sir:
Your Committee on Judiciary, to which was referred S.B. No. 2046 entitled:
"A BILL FOR AN ACT RELATING TO FIREARMS,"
begs leave to report as follows:
The purpose and intent of this measure is to prohibit trigger modification devices, including bump stocks, that are designed or function to accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic firearm.
Your Committee received testimony in support of this measure from the Office of the Mayor of the County of Hawai‘i, Department of the Prosecuting Attorney of the County of Maui, Honolulu Police Department, Injury Prevention Advisory Committee, Young Progressives Demanding Action Hawaii, Filipina Advocacy Network, IMUAlliance, Oahu County Committee on Legislative Priorities of the Democratic Party of Hawaii, and thirty-nine individuals. Your Committee received testimony in opposition to this measure from the National Rifle Association of America, Honolulu County Republican Party, 2A Hawaii, Hawaii Rifle Association, Hawaii Hunting Association, Institute for Rational and Evidence-based Legislation, and more than four hundred fifty individuals. Your Committee received comments on this measure from two individuals.
Your Committee finds that the shooter in the October 1, 2017, Las Vegas shooting used a device, commonly known as a "bump stock", to manipulate the trigger mechanism on a semi-automatic rifle in such a way as to allow a rate of fire comparable to a fully automatic firearm. Your Committee further finds that the State has a compelling interest in limiting the availability of such devices to promote the safety of the public and reduce the risk of firearm violence in Hawaii. Your Committee additionally finds that the definition of "trigger modification device" in this measure is unnecessarily complicated and limiting. Your Committee notes that House Bill No. 1908 H.D.1, Regular Session of 2018, contains new statutory language that is substantively similar but more flexible.
Accordingly, your Committee has amended this measure by:
(1) Removing language prohibiting ownership of trigger modification devices;
(2) Inserting language from House Bill No. 1908 H.D.1, Regular Session of 2018, establishing the manufacture, import, sale, gift, lending, or possession of any multiburst trigger activator as a class C felony;
(3) Defining "multiburst trigger activator" to mean:
(A) A device that simulates automatic gunfire by allowing standard function of a semiautomatic firearm with a static positioned trigger finger or a device that fires multiple shots with the pull and release of the trigger; or
(B) A manual or power-driven trigger activating device constructed and designed so that when attached to a semiautomatic firearm it simulates automatic gunfire; and
(4) Inserting an effective date of July 1, 2050, to encourage further discussion.
As affirmed by the record of votes of the members of your Committee on Judiciary that is attached to this report, your Committee is in accord with the intent and purpose of S.B. No. 2046, as amended herein, and recommends that it pass Third Reading in the form attached hereto as S.B. No. 2046, S.D. 1.
Respectfully submitted on behalf of the members of the Committee on Judiciary,
_______________________________
BRIAN T. TANIGUCHI, Chair
Post by: Heavies on March 03, 2018, 12:17:50 AM
Post by: punaperson on March 03, 2018, 06:10:03 AM
Last I heard they haven't completed the investigation of the LV shooting, and haven't heard any evidence that a bump stock was actually used in that crime. I didn't know that having a certain item in that area automatically means it was used.....Yeah, based on the existing information about the Vegas murders you'd think one definite law they would propose would be to ban the sale of "battlefield weapons of war" to white males over the age of 60, right? That makes as much sense as any of their other "proposals", and would do just a much "public safety" "good" re future murders and murderers.
Post by: London808 on March 03, 2018, 09:11:21 AM
Last I heard they haven't completed the investigation of the LV shooting, and haven't heard any evidence that a bump stock was actually used in that crime. I didn't know that having a certain item in that area automatically means it was used.....
I always though it strange he had bump sticks on rifles with bipods. Wouldn’t that stop it working
Post by: Heavies on March 03, 2018, 11:28:14 AM
I always though it strange he had bump sticks on rifles with bipods. Wouldn’t that stop it working
I am not a bump stock owner, but with a device that works on free recoil, at the least, it would seriously impede operation, I'm thinking. Don't know for sure.
Post by: zippz on March 03, 2018, 11:56:39 AM
Post by: tillamook on March 03, 2018, 03:17:43 PM
I always though it strange he had bump sticks on rifles with bipods. Wouldn’t that stop it working
Works better with a bipod. I made a "bump SAW" which was an attempt to make a more reliable bipod based rifle with a bump stock. (poor mans SAW)
I never got very good with it but my son was very good.
(https://i.imgur.com/rKnmB7w.jpg)
Post by: Jl808 on March 04, 2018, 09:40:35 AM
https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2018/bills/SB2046_SD1_.pdf
SB2046 SD1 Firearms; Multiburst Trigger Activators; Prohibited
RELATING TO FIREARMS. Prohibits multiburst trigger activators. Defines multiburst trigger activator as a device that simulates automatic gunfire by allowing standard function of a semiautomatic firearm with a static positioned trigger finger or a device that fires multiple shots with the pull and release of a trigger; or a manual or power-driven trigger activating device constructed and designed so that when attached to a semiautomatic firearm it simulates automatic gunfire. Effective 7/1/2050. (SD1)
Oppose. K. RHOADS, S. CHANG, KEITH-AGARAN, NISHIHARA, Shimabukuro PSM, JDC
Post by: Jl808 on March 04, 2018, 09:42:05 AM
https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2018/bills/SB2046_SD1_.pdf
SB2046 SD1 Firearms; Multiburst Trigger Activators; Prohibited
RELATING TO FIREARMS. Prohibits multiburst trigger activators. Defines multiburst trigger activator as a device that simulates automatic gunfire by allowing standard function of a semiautomatic firearm with a static positioned trigger finger or a device that fires multiple shots with the pull and release of a trigger; or a manual or power-driven trigger activating device constructed and designed so that when attached to a semiautomatic firearm it simulates automatic gunfire. Effective 7/1/2050. (SD1)
Oppose. K. RHOADS, S. CHANG, KEITH-AGARAN, NISHIHARA, Shimabukuro PSM, JDC
Post by: punaperson on March 04, 2018, 11:56:33 AM
SECTION 1. Chapter 134, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is amended by adding a new section to part I to be appropriately designated and to read as follows:
"§134- Multiburst trigger activator; prohibition. (a) Any person in this State who manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the State, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives, lends, or possesses any multiburst trigger activator shall be guilty of a class C felony.
(b) As used in this section, "multiburst trigger activator" means:
(1) A device that simulates automatic gunfire by allowing standard function of a semiautomatic firearm with a static positioned trigger finger or a device that fires multiple shots with the pull and release of the trigger; or
(2) A manual or power-driven trigger activating device constructed and designed so that when attached to a semiautomatic firearm it simulates automatic gunfire."
SECTION 2. This Act does not affect rights and duties that matured, penalties that were incurred, and proceedings that were begun before its effective date.
SECTION 3. New statutory material is underscored.
Post by: changemyoil66 on March 04, 2018, 01:51:15 PM
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
Post by: ren on March 04, 2018, 02:08:16 PM
Works better with a bipod. I made a "bump SAW" which was an attempt to make a more reliable bipod based rifle with a bump stock. (poor mans SAW)
I never got very good with it but my son was very good.
(https://i.imgur.com/rKnmB7w.jpg)
nice yard :thumbsup:
Post by: z06psi on March 05, 2018, 07:30:43 AM
Does section 2 mean grandfather?
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
I think so.
Post by: Heavies on March 05, 2018, 08:17:55 AM
Does section 2 mean grandfather?
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
How would "they" know you got it pre/post ban? You can mailorder these LEGAL items. There is no current law preventing you...
Post by: rpoL98 on March 05, 2018, 12:32:41 PM
doesn't make sense. what's new.
Post by: 2ahavvaii on March 05, 2018, 08:58:36 PM
Post by: zippz on March 05, 2018, 10:10:19 PM
Post by: London808 on March 06, 2018, 02:38:08 AM
Does section 2 mean grandfather?
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
No. It standard in Hawaii legislative changes. It means if you were arrested for a crime pre change you couldn’t be charged with the new one as it happened before the change
For example of possession was a misdemeanor and you were arrested, then whilst waiting for your trial the law changed to make it a felony. You couldn’t be convicted of the felony.
It’s included because they are modifying a sedition and not adding a new section.
Post by: London808 on March 06, 2018, 02:40:13 AM
It bans semi automatic firearms or it doesn’t ban anything.
Post by: aieahound on March 06, 2018, 11:50:45 AM
http://www.civilbeat.org/2018/03/reasonable-gun-regulation-for-all-of-us/
"Rather than attempting to list all of the different technical, jargon-based and/or colloquial terminology used to describe these kinds of modifications (which will allow for endless permutations and workarounds), let’s make it crystal clear that “any and all modifications that have the effect of increasing the rate-of-fire of any firearm beyond its factory manufactured rate are banned, and any individual found to have purchased, sold, imported, built or installed such a modification device on a firearm shall be guilty of a Class C felony,” while “any and all modifications to the trigger of a firearm that reduce the amount of force needed to pull said trigger, and that also have no effect whatsoever on the rate-of-fire of said firearm, shall be exempt from this statute.”"
Post by: macsak on March 06, 2018, 12:28:29 PM
Interesting article on authors proposed wording:
http://www.civilbeat.org/2018/03/reasonable-gun-regulation-for-all-of-us/
"Rather than attempting to list all of the different technical, jargon-based and/or colloquial terminology used to describe these kinds of modifications (which will allow for endless permutations and workarounds), let’s make it crystal clear that “any and all modifications that have the effect of increasing the rate-of-fire of any firearm beyond its factory manufactured rate are banned, and any individual found to have purchased, sold, imported, built or installed such a modification device on a firearm shall be guilty of a Class C felony,” while “any and all modifications to the trigger of a firearm that reduce the amount of force needed to pull said trigger, and that also have no effect whatsoever on the rate-of-fire of said firearm, shall be exempt from this statute.”"
is that the guy that was crying at the hearing?
"millennials are getting KILLED"
Post by: Drakiir84 on March 06, 2018, 01:53:15 PM
Interesting article on authors proposed wording:
http://www.civilbeat.org/2018/03/reasonable-gun-regulation-for-all-of-us/
"Rather than attempting to list all of the different technical, jargon-based and/or colloquial terminology used to describe these kinds of modifications (which will allow for endless permutations and workarounds), let’s make it crystal clear that “any and all modifications that have the effect of increasing the rate-of-fire of any firearm beyond its factory manufactured rate are banned, and any individual found to have purchased, sold, imported, built or installed such a modification device on a firearm shall be guilty of a Class C felony,” while “any and all modifications to the trigger of a firearm that reduce the amount of force needed to pull said trigger, and that also have no effect whatsoever on the rate-of-fire of said firearm, shall be exempt from this statute.”"
But I do want machine guns so I definitely find your ban on bump stocks unreasonable.
Post by: aieahound on March 06, 2018, 02:11:50 PM
is that the guy that was crying at the hearing?
"millennials are getting KILLED"
Huh huh huh.
Probably.
Post by: ren on March 06, 2018, 02:22:52 PM
No matter what we ban crazy is still there to kill.
Post by: punaperson on March 06, 2018, 02:24:55 PM
I won't bother to go into all the problems and false assumptions he declares, but...
“...any and all modifications that have the effect of increasing the rate-of-fire of any firearm beyond its factory manufactured rate are banned..."
London808 made a variation on this point earlier. There is no such thing as a "factory manufactured rate". How do you make something that doesn't exist the standard? The rate of fire depends on the operator... compare a newb to Jerry Miculek. I'd guess Jerry's "factory manufactured rate" would be at least 3 or 4 TIMES that of the newb. But like I said, facts don't matter to these people, they just make shit up out of ignorance and think they're solving a problem in some clever way.
And there are many people that have sound legal and statistical arguments that all the NFA restrictions are unconstitutional and unwarranted by any rational standard based upon the evidence of the effect on public safety of making such items illegal or difficult/expensive to acquire.
I said I wasn't going to get into all his poor arguments...
Post by: z06psi on March 06, 2018, 02:59:56 PM
None of those reasons are for the 2A. Not a damn one.
Post by: punaperson on March 06, 2018, 04:13:11 PM
"No one is talking about taking away legally obtained firearms that are appropriate for hunting, self-defense or legal gun sports."I'm curious about the illegal gun sports. :wtf:
None of those reasons are for the 2A. Not a damn one.
Post by: hvybarrels on March 06, 2018, 05:51:25 PM
Post by: London808 on March 06, 2018, 06:59:49 PM
"No one is talking about taking away legally obtained firearms that are appropriate for hunting, self-defense or legal gun sports."
None of those reasons are for the 2A. Not a damn one.
SCOTUS would disagree on self defense. Unless you believe that its only applicable to the militia
Post by: punaperson on March 06, 2018, 08:36:20 PM
3/6/2018 S Report adopted; Passed Third Reading, as amended (SD 1). Ayes, 25; Aye(s) with reservations: none . Noes, 0 (none). Excused, 0 (none). Transmitted to House.
3/6/2018 H Received from Senate (Sen. Com. No. 73) in amended form (SD 1).
Post by: Jl808 on March 07, 2018, 09:29:03 AM
3 Anti-2A Bills crossed over yesterday. HB1908, SB2046, SB2436
H 3/6/2018: Received from Senate (Sen. Com. No. 73) in amended form (SD 1).
https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2018/bills/SB2046_SD1_.pdf
SB2046 SD1 Firearms; Multiburst Trigger Activators; Prohibited
RELATING TO FIREARMS. Prohibits multiburst trigger activators. Defines multiburst trigger activator as a device that simulates automatic gunfire by allowing standard function of a semiautomatic firearm with a static positioned trigger finger or a device that fires multiple shots with the pull and release of a trigger; or a manual or power-driven trigger activating device constructed and designed so that when attached to a semiautomatic firearm it simulates automatic gunfire. Effective 7/1/2050. (SD1)
Oppose. K. RHOADS, S. CHANG, KEITH-AGARAN, NISHIHARA, Shimabukuro PSM, JDC
Post by: Pillow on March 08, 2018, 01:00:51 PM
edit: Nevermind, I'm mixing this up with the house version of the bill, HB 1908
Post by: Jl808 on March 09, 2018, 04:53:56 PM
https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2018/bills/SB2046_SD1_.pdf
SB2046 SD1 Firearms; Multiburst Trigger Activators; Prohibited
RELATING TO FIREARMS. Prohibits multiburst trigger activators. Defines multiburst trigger activator as a device that simulates automatic gunfire by allowing standard function of a semiautomatic firearm with a static positioned trigger finger or a device that fires multiple shots with the pull and release of a trigger; or a manual or power-driven trigger activating device constructed and designed so that when attached to a semiautomatic firearm it simulates automatic gunfire. Effective 7/1/2050. (SD1)
Oppose. K. RHOADS, S. CHANG, KEITH-AGARAN, NISHIHARA, Shimabukuro JUD
Post by: punaperson on April 04, 2018, 01:54:09 PM
That means they gave us 47 minutes to submit "late" testimony!!!!!!!!! :wtf:
You've now got 6 minutes left!!!!!!!! :wtf:
SB2046 SD1
RELATING TO FIREARMS.
Prohibits multiburst trigger activators. Defines multiburst trigger activator as a device that simulates automatic gunfire by allowing standard function of a semiautomatic firearm with a static positioned trigger finger or a device that fires multiple shots with the pull and release of a trigger; or a manual or power-driven trigger activating device constructed and designed so that when attached to a semiautomatic firearm it simulates automatic gunfire. Effective 7/1/2050. (SD1)
Post by: changemyoil66 on April 04, 2018, 01:59:36 PM
Post by: punaperson on April 04, 2018, 02:39:46 PM
Did they merge the 2 bills?No. It's still a completely separate bill.
They just wanted to make sure that you were watching your email inbox constantly so that when they gave citizens a 47 minute heads up to the committee hearing you'd have plenty of time to ask your boss if you could leave the office RIGHT NOW in order to get to the committee to testify.
Gotta love these folks and how they "serve" us. >:(
Post by: rpoL98 on April 04, 2018, 04:04:53 PM
and probably only the anti-2A gun grabbers got the top secret confidential secret squirrel notification to submit supporting testimony. this is how democracy works, in places like Venezuela, Syria, Iran, etc.
Post by: punaperson on April 04, 2018, 04:31:48 PM
is this their new strategy, so then they can say "well, gee whiz, there was no opposing testimony..."The committee got ONE (1) written testimony, and it was in favor of the bill. it was sent at
and probably only the anti-2A gun grabbers got the top secret confidential secret squirrel notification to submit supporting testimony. this is how democracy works, in places like Venezuela, Syria, Iran, etc.
Submitted on: 4/4/2018 1:23:17 PM,
ten minutes after the email was sent out. I sent mine in at 1:56 PM, 5 minutes after seeing the email, and it did not appear in the written testimony, and I'd be willing to bet no one showed up in person to testify, unless zippz was down the hall when the email went out and had the time to show up.
Inadvertent? Intentional? I'm sure they'd deny any deliberate effort to subvert the public testimony process, but I suspect that behind closed doors at least some of them say that the testimony is a waste of time because they are going to pass it no matter what.
Post by: zippz on April 04, 2018, 05:36:09 PM
The committee got ONE (1) written testimony, and it was in favor of the bill. it was sent at
Submitted on: 4/4/2018 1:23:17 PM,
ten minutes after the email was sent out. I sent mine in at 1:56 PM, 5 minutes after seeing the email, and it did not appear in the written testimony, and I'd be willing to bet no one showed up in person to testify, unless zippz was down the hall when the email went out and had the time to show up.
Inadvertent? Intentional? I'm sure they'd deny any deliberate effort to subvert the public testimony process, but I suspect that behind closed doors at least some of them say that the testimony is a waste of time because they are going to pass it no matter what.
Not me. I'll find out more about this.
Post by: punaperson on April 04, 2018, 09:00:47 PM
What's the point of voting for "Republicans" if they vote in solidarity with the Democrats on this kind of crap?
4/4/2018 H The committees on JUD recommend that the measure be PASSED, WITH AMENDMENTS. The votes were as follows: 7 Ayes: Representative(s) Nishimoto, San Buenaventura, Brower, Morikawa, Takayama, McDermott, Thielen; Ayes with reservations: none; Noes: none; and 1 Excused: Representative(s) C. Lee.
Post by: z06psi on April 04, 2018, 10:52:40 PM
There are no Conservatives within this state government either.
I have 42 days left. Good luck folks.
Post by: zippz on April 05, 2018, 10:07:25 AM
The committee got ONE (1) written testimony, and it was in favor of the bill. it was sent at
Submitted on: 4/4/2018 1:23:17 PM,
ten minutes after the email was sent out. I sent mine in at 1:56 PM, 5 minutes after seeing the email, and it did not appear in the written testimony, and I'd be willing to bet no one showed up in person to testify, unless zippz was down the hall when the email went out and had the time to show up.
This is the rulebook on how the representatives run the committee hearings. From what I understand there are laws that require public notice, but the legislature define those terms and can waive them. I dunno, I gotta read the rulebook and HRS later.
https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/docs/HouseRules.pdf
Post by: punaperson on April 05, 2018, 12:22:15 PM
11.5. Committee Meetings.
(1) Meetings, including decision-making sessions, of standing committees
shall be public. Notice shall be publicly posted or announced on the
House floor at least forty-eight hours prior to the meeting. Except for
notices posted by the Committee on Finance, notice shall be posted
before 4:30 p.m. on the last day of the work week for a hearing to be
held on the following Monday or Tuesday. Notice of meetings may be
shortened at the discretion of the Speaker upon request on the House
floor by a chair or vice-chair and upon good cause shown.
* * * *
Maybe they did it the right way, but if they did I'm guessing they didn't do it 47 minutes before the meeting, which is when I got the email announcement of the hearing for the bill.
Maybe instead of being called the "rules" they should be called the "suggestions"?
Post by: zippz on April 05, 2018, 12:30:23 PM
According to this "rule" a chair or vice chair had to request from the Speaker to shorten the notice. From page 10:
11.5. Committee Meetings.
(1) Meetings, including decision-making sessions, of standing committees
shall be public. Notice shall be publicly posted or announced on the
House floor at least forty-eight hours prior to the meeting. Except for
notices posted by the Committee on Finance, notice shall be posted
before 4:30 p.m. on the last day of the work week for a hearing to be
held on the following Monday or Tuesday. Notice of meetings may be
shortened at the discretion of the Speaker upon request on the House
floor by a chair or vice-chair and upon good cause shown.
* * * *
Maybe they did it the right way, but if they did I'm guessing they didn't do it 47 minutes before the meeting, which is when I got the email announcement of the hearing for the bill.
Maybe instead of being called the "rules" they should be called the "suggestions"?
I don't see it as meeting the intent or an immediate problem to show good cause.
Post by: punaperson on April 05, 2018, 01:30:50 PM
I don't see it as meeting the intent or an immediate problem to show good cause.This is either a nightmare or a really really bad joke.
I called chair Nishimoto's office and asked 1. when was the request submitted to the house speaker on the house floor, 2. when was the request granted, and 3. what was the "good cause" shown?
Paraphrase: "We don't know anything about that. You should call the speakers office." As I explained my frustration about not being able to submit testimony, I was told, "Well "late" testimony was accepted and you can see it online". My response was yes, I see the late testimony, including mine, but obviously it was useless relative to the committee vote since the committee members voted on the bill prior to the testimony being available. You mean they're going to go back now and read it and then maybe recall the meeting and re-vote on the bill? Never happened and never will. So what's the point of having testimony? I was told, "Well, it will still be up for vote in the future and people can look at the testimony at that time". So why have any committee testimony at all, especially if the bill is scheduled in a manner that doesn't allow testimony prior to the vote? Why not just postpone testimony until the ultimate final vote? Ugh.
I then called speaker Saiki's office. Same questions. Yes, the judiciary chair did submit the request either the night before or that morning, and since those requests must be submitted prior to 11:30 AM the 1:43 PM notification sounded about right as to how things would likely play out in that scenario.
Now for the "good cause" part. This is classic. First I was told that I needed to call Nishimoto's office and ask them!! :wtf: I told the Saiki phone rep that the Nishimoto phone rep told me to call Saiki. The phone rep agreed that that was a legitimate source of frustration. He then said he could only speculate that the reason given for the request to shorten public notice is that there is a deadline for "second decking" on Friday (the office rep at least thought it was Friday), and thus all bills have to have been through committee by that point. I asked why, given that that date/deadline is and has been no secret, and is binding on ALL bills, how is it that this bill somehow escaped notice of all the sponsors and committee members and was left off the agenda when it obviously had to be on the agenda if it was going to move forward? No explanation for that. So the "explanation" amounts to: "Oops. We forgot. Or something."
That's how it works around here folks. Now suck it up and watch them further infringe your rights in any old way they choose. Rules, schmules.
Post by: zippz on April 05, 2018, 02:11:26 PM
Not sure where to submit it. Maybe ethics department.
Could also write an article in the paper. Civil Beat has this:
What’s Up With All The Gut-And-Replace Trickery At The Legislature This Year?
http://www.civilbeat.org/2018/04/whats-up-with-all-the-gut-and-replace-trickery-at-the-legislature-this-year/
Post by: Pillow on April 05, 2018, 03:34:25 PM
My understanding is they only posted notice 45 minutes before the hearing was scheduled to begin so the public wasn't given a reasonable enough time frame to show up for public testimony?
Post by: punaperson on April 05, 2018, 03:42:12 PM
Send to pro-2a news outlets who would love to run the story. I'm trying to write an email to NRA-ILA about it but I'm not that well versed in how or exactly what they got away with.Certainly not time to show up unless you work in the building or next door. Their own "rules" require 48 hour notice to the public (testimony must be submitted prior to 24 hours prior to the meeting, otherwise it may be labeled "late" and not be available for the committee members voting on the bill that day). There is an exception process (to hear a bill with less than 48 hours public notice) that can be approved "upon good cause shown". Here, apparently, the "good cause shown" was "we forgot" (or something).
My understanding is they only posted notice 45 minutes before the hearing was scheduled to begin so the public wasn't given a reasonable enough time frame to show up for public testimony?
Post by: DesertRangerTycho on April 05, 2018, 05:23:06 PM
Certainly not time to show up unless you work in the building or next door. Their own "rules" require 48 hour notice to the public (testimony must be submitted prior to 24 hours prior to the meeting, otherwise it may be labeled "late" and not be available for the committee members voting on the bill that day). There is an exception process (to hear a bill with less than 48 hours public notice) that can be approved "upon good cause shown". Here, apparently, the "good cause shown" was "we forgot" (or something).
What complete BULLSHIT! These fuckers have got to go. I will be visiting my reps tomorrow and demanding heads. If these tyrants ignore their own rules then why bother follow laws at all? They do not realize where this leads.
Post by: rpoL98 on April 05, 2018, 06:10:53 PM
Post by: Direjackalope on April 05, 2018, 07:58:45 PM
Post by: Pillow on April 05, 2018, 08:13:18 PM
https://www.nationalreview.com/contact-us/
https://www.dailywire.com/contact
https://contact.nra.org/contact-us.aspx
https://www.nraila.org/contact-nra-ila/
http://gunowners.net/cgi-bin/ttx.cgi?cmd=newticket
http://thefederalist.com/contributors/#contactus
Probably some better news outlets but I'm going to work on submitting tips to all of them tomorrow.
Post by: DesertRangerTycho on April 05, 2018, 08:52:34 PM
Let some conservative news sources know. I emailed NRA-ILA. Best thing we can do is get the word out so they feel pressure rather than just ignoring our testimony and stuff. Here's some other people you can email:
https://www.nationalreview.com/contact-us/
https://www.dailywire.com/contact
https://contact.nra.org/contact-us.aspx
https://www.nraila.org/contact-nra-ila/
Great Idea! I have contacted the Dailywire and HRA about this matter. Sunshine is the best disinfectant.
http://gunowners.net/cgi-bin/ttx.cgi?cmd=newticket
http://thefederalist.com/contributors/#contactus
Probably some better news outlets but I'm going to work on submitting tips to all of them tomorrow.
Post by: zippz on April 06, 2018, 04:42:59 PM
I thought about doing a petition in Nishimotos district to scare him in the elections but he won unopposed in 2016 so he can do anything he wants.
Post by: tillamook on April 09, 2018, 01:34:39 PM
Only the chair would know the actual reason.
we all know the actual reason. But not that it matters. They dont read or acknowledge the testimony anyway.
1. Someone who isnt a legislator writes the bill.
2. The legislators put on some theater for a few weeks acting like they do something other than steal money from the public
3. They vote on the bill regardless of what it says in a pre-determined way
The "testimony," the staff at their office, and their speaking points are all there to give you the illusion they are your representative.
Even the quote from the above article is placation:
"It’s concerning because I think it damages the public faith in the process.” — Sen. Laura Thielen
That assumes there is public trust to damage in the first place. What is the approval rating of congress? 10%? Am I to think the approval of any state government is higher? They are not worried about "damaging the public faith" when it is already at 90%
Post by: z06psi on April 09, 2018, 05:20:06 PM