2aHawaii
General Topics => Legal and Activism => Topic started by: 2aHawaii on March 23, 2010, 07:17:47 PM
-
Well the hearing notice is now out and is set to be heard by the JUD committee on THIS Thursday, March 25th. This time around, instead of emailing the reps, you can submit public testimony online and by email. I know this is a long and tedius process, but it is part what we have to do to gain our freedoms back. If you have any more information, or have suggestions for additions to testimony, please do share.
Here is the hearing notice: http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2010/hearingnotices/HEARING_JUD_03-25-10_.HTM (http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2010/hearingnotices/HEARING_JUD_03-25-10_.HTM)
The rules for submitting testomony are as follows:
Persons wishing to offer comments should submit testimony at least 24 hours prior to the hearing with a transmittal cover indicating:
· Testifier's name with position/title and organization;
· The Committee the comments are directed to;
· The date and time of the hearing;
· Measure number; and
· The number of copies the Committee is requesting.
While every effort will be made to copy, organize, and collate all testimony received, materials received on the day of the hearing or improperly identified or directed to the incorrect office, may be distributed to the Committee after the hearing.
Submit testimony in ONE of the following ways:
PAPER: one copy (including an original) to Room 302 in the State Capitol;
FAX: For comments less than 5 pages in length, transmit to 586-8494 (for Oahu) or 1-800-535-3859 (for Neighbor Islanders without a computer to submit testimony through e-mail or the Web);
EMAIL: For comments less than 5 pages in length, transmit to JUDtestimony@Capitol.hawaii.gov ; or
WEB: For comments less than 4MB in size, transmit from the Web page at http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/emailtestimony. (http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/emailtestimony.)
Testimony submitted will be placed on the Legislative Web site after the hearing adjourns. This public posting of testimony on the Web site should be considered when including personal information in your testimony.
Once again, thank you all for your help.
-
Oh, if you guys need ideas for what to write, there has been a whole bunch already submitted on the testimony page (http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2010/getstatus.asp?query=SB358&showtestimony=on&currpage=1).
-
The NRA will probably be sending out an alert about this...we really need to get a lot of testimony in so we can show the committee that it's not just a few folks advocating for this. I havn't been able to put anything together for a template of sorts due to my schedule, but there is lots of good testimony that was previously submitted and that can be used a a template of sorts.
As a suggestion, I would try to include something about how the recent tsunami scare relates to all of this. Additional points to try an fit into your testimony could be the Katrina seizures and how despite those seizures the "bad guys" were still able to get/have guns; potential for civil unrest and the "authorities" inability to respond so prepared, law abiding citizens would need to be able to protect themselves; the large number of States that passed similar laws; The Federal law passed after Katrina that also forbids seizure of firearms by Federal troops; and even any comments about how in Katrina armed citizens were able to defend their property and others and did not hamper law enforcement effort despite what General Lee said in his testimony against this bill last year.
If I get the chance to write up something before the hearing, I'll post it here......
Again, we need lots of testimony......
-
Testimony sent.
-
The NRA sent out their alert
Last week Senate Bill 358 (SD1) unanimously passed out of the House Public Safety Committee with our amendment recommending the removal of the provision that related to compulsory blood identification. SD358 now heads to House Judiciary Committee where it will be heard tomorrow, March 25 at 2:45 p.m. in House conference room 325.
SB 358 would prohibit a person or government entity from seizing any firearm or ammunition under civil defense, emergency, or disaster relief powers, or during any time of national emergency or crisis, from any individual who is lawfully permitted to possess the firearm or ammunition. The most recent tsunami scare was a wake-up call to all Hawaii gun owners that protection from confiscation must be a top priority this legislative session. Though imperfect, it is a step in the right direction for Hawaii’s gun-owners.
Please take the time to contact the members of the House Judiciary Committee TODAY and ask that they move the issue forward - its success depends on you making the effort!
House Judiciary Committee
Jon Riki Karamatsu, Chair
(808) 586-8490
repkaramatsu@capitol.hawaii.gov
Ken Ito, Vice-Chair
586-8470
repito@capitol.hawaii.gov
Della Au Bellatti
586-9425
repbelatti@capitol.hawaii.gov
Rida Cabanilla
586-6080
repcabanilla@capitol.hawaii.gov
Mele Carroll
586-6790
repcarroll@capitol.hawaii.gov
Robert Herkes
586-8400
repherkes@capitol.hawaii.gov
Sylvia Luke
586-8530
repluke@capitol.hawaii.gov
Angus McKelvey
586-6160
repmckelvey@capitol.hawaii.gov
John Mizuno
586-6050
repmizuno@capitol.hawaii.gov
Hermina Morita
586-8435
repmorita@capitol.hawaii.gov
Blake Oshiro
586-6340
repboshiro@capitol.hawaii.gov
Joseph Souki
586-9444
repsouki@capitol.hawaii.gov
Clift Tsuji
586-8480
reptsuji@capitol.hawaii.gov
Glenn Wakai
586-6220
repwakai@capitol.hawaii.gov
Barbara Marumoto
586-6310
repmarumoto@capitol.hawaii.gov
Cynthia Thielen
586-6480
repthielen@capitol.hawaii.gov
-
Ditto Jaydawg...my testimony is sent as well.
-
Submitted. One point... the URL for the web testimony submission does not work. The hyperlink contains a period at the end. Just delete the period and it works.
-
Submitted my testimony as well.....
For those who would still like to submit testimony, you can do so with or without having to write something up. Just go to the weblink previously provided and hit the "support" option. If you'd like to consider writing something, you can review the previously submitted testimony and/or what I just sent in. While I wouldn't recommend using my work entirely, if parts of it can be incorporated into your testimony, or it helps break your writer's block, use away.....
LIFE provides basic firearms safety classes that are required before one can purchase a handgun in the Hawaii. We put these classes on every month and they fill up very quickly, often we have a waiting period of several months. Most students come to the class because they want to obtain a firearm for self defense.
Deciding to purchase a firearm for self defense is like buying a fire extinguisher, using a seatbelt, or having homeowners insurance. It is planning and preparing for something that you hope never happens. In a way, it is like the preparations various governmental agencies recommend when hurricane season comes around.
Why are these preparations necessary? Because, it is well known that in the event of a disaster, or a breakdown in civil order, citizens are very likely to be on their own in terms of providing food, water, medicines and other daily necessities for themselves. This basic and well understood concept is also applicable to defending one’s home and family. If the “government†is not able to supply the very basic necessities, how are they expected to be able to protect others? The truth is that cannot.
During hurricane Katrina firearms were illegally taken from law abiding citizens just when the police were least capable of protecting them. There were documented cases of police using extreme and illegal actions in this quest, including tackling an elderly lady to confiscate a small revolver and confiscating firearms being legally moved from a home after the occupants were forced to evacuate. Contrast that to the many examples of law abiding citizens using their guns to protect themselves and their community when 911 was inoperable or when police were unable to respond to calls for assistance.
The recent Tsunami scare, along with the memories of Hurricane Iniki should be enough to make anyone realize that Hawaii could, at any time, suffer a disaster of the same magnitude of Hurricane Katrina. Adjutant General Lee testified last year that he was opposed to this bill because he thought it might hamper law enforcement or rescue efforts after a disaster. What legitimate law enforcement objective would be hampered by allowing law abiding citizens to keep their firearms? None that I can think of. As a healthcare professional involved with disaster planning, preparations and response, I can say unequivocally that I would prefer to see individuals well prepared, including those with lawfully obtained firearms, rather than those who would unrealistically expect immediate rescue and protection in the aftermath of a significant disaster.
With Hawaii severely suffering during these difficult economic times, lets not forget that the gun confiscations after Katrina were found to be illegal and unconstitutional, with New Orleans being ordered by the courts to return the illegally seized firearms. With such a precedent can you imagine the cost of trying to defend any similar actions here?
And finally, let’s remember that approximately 32 states and the Federal government have passed laws prohibiting seizures of firearms during times of disaster and Hawaii should follow in their footsteps.
To even consider the possibility of allowing the seizure of legally owned firearms during times when responsible and law abiding citizens need them most, especially when you know that no governmental agency can provide adequate protection for them, is morally and ethically reprehensible.
I urge you to support and pass SB 358.
Thank you.
-
Submitted. It was short and largely based off of another, but they need to hear it and hear it again and again.
-
Thanks guys, it looks like we'll have a few pieces of testimony this time. Only a few more hours until the hearing.
-
JUD committee live on olelo 53 or on the web live streamed (http://olelo.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?publish_id=89).
-
Wow, a lot of people submitted testimony. Good job.
I just gotta add, HiCarry, you are awesome!!!
-
Wow, a lot of people submitted testimony. Good job.
I just gotta add, HiCarry, you are awesome!!!
We had about 15+ pieces of submitted testimony. Very good job, guys! Now, with that being said, we still need to get that number up if we want to get some of the more controversial bills passed, but this is a darn good start. I just checked the olelo link and was lucky enough to catch the Chair taking the vote to pass the bill out of committe...looks like it was unanimous.
Both Rep. Thieland and Ito came up to us and said they supported the bill....I know a couple of othes did as well.
Once again, great job. Let's keep the pressure on them......
2aHawaii - Thanks, but I also gotta say that you have been instrumental in all of this as well....your dedication to keeping the forum updated and getting info out those that are willing to act on that info has been key to this (and hopefully, future) victory. So, good job as well! :thumbsup:
-
I don't know about the others, but I feel really good about being involved in the legislative process. It's a lot better to speak up than stay silent and let others run your life. (and bitching about how other people run your life too.)
-
I don't know about the others, but I feel really good about being involved in the legislative process. It's a lot better to speak up than stay silent and let others run your life. (and bitching about how other people run your life too.)
Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding.......you win the prize. I don't mean to sound facetious, but I think you've hit the nail on the head. It's the same reason I do it...I could sit at my computer and bitch and moan about the laws, but all that does is get me riled up without a "release" for that energy....I would rather focus that energy on constructive efforts to change things. And, while here in Hawaii the victories have often been small, each time "we" win, it's another chip at the restrictive laws here. As with the proliferation of gun control laws, the destruction of them will be piecemeal and require a lot of time and dedication. As someone who has been doing this for the last several years, I am very glad to see that others are beginning to "get it."
We can make a difference, but not by whinning to each other about how bad things are. We need to band together, to build a united front, and to make these lawmakers really fear what will happen to their reelection chances if they don't pass the legislation "we" want.
Now, just don't get discouraged....this is a distance race (remember this bill was introduced last year...), not a sprint, and there will be setbacks. But, we cannot let that demotivate us....we need to keep focused on the ultimate "prize" and not let minor dissapointments derail our continued efforts to realize our long-term goals.
Good job, and thanks!
-
Yep, it's official....
The committees on JUD recommend that the measure be PASSED, WITH AMENDMENTS. The votes were as follows: 9 Ayes: Karamatsu, Ito, Belatti, B. Oshiro, Souki, Tsuji, Wakai, Marumoto, Thielen; Ayes with reservations: none; 0 Noes: none; and 7 Excused: Cabanilla, Carroll, Herkes, Luke, McKelvey, Mizuno, Morita.
-
Submitted. It was short and largely based off of another, but they need to hear it and hear it again and again.
When I testify in person I like to have something written out...but if you got the chance to watch the Olelo coverage of the hearing, you can see that if not testifying in person, the testimony submitted is "read" by the Chair by simply stating the name of the person and whether it is for or against the bill at hand. Some of the legislators MAY read all the testimony, but I suspect most do not and rely on just the info conveyd by the Chair's reading.....so short and sweet is just fine.
-
Good to see everything turned out well for our side. Thanks for keeping us updated 2a.
-
15+ pieces of testimony? I'm not sure how I feel about that. Makes me feel like I really contributed this time since I'm one of the few, but at the same time I realize I'm one of the FEW. I understood that few people submit testimony during these hearings and even fewer attend despite the amount of people who feel that things need to change here. But that number really drives the point home. I'll do better from now on, even if it means short and sweet.
-
Tuor,
Actually 15 is not a few, but quite a few pieces of testimony. If you were at the hearing or watched on Olelo, you would have seen the other bills that ALL had less than that. Most of them had only one or two pieces.
But as HiCarry said before, the best testimony you can provide is in-person testimony. I noticed that most in-person testimony people just read what they had submitted via online/email submissions.
-
Tuor,
Actually 15 is not a few, but quite a few pieces of testimony. If you were at the hearing or watched on Olelo, you would have seen the other bills that ALL had less than that. Most of them had only one or two pieces.
But as HiCarry said before, the best testimony you can provide is in-person testimony. I noticed that most in-person testimony people just read what they had submitted via online/email submissions.
You are correct....most "non-controversial" bills see little testimony submitted....but certain ones tend to garner more than others, like domestic violence. The point I hope to make in soliciting larger amounts of testimony for gun bills, is that we need to make it appear that we have a very large base of support for whatever bill is being heard. I made an analogy in another post to the domestic partnership bill....that was very controversial and the amount of testimony, both submitted and delivered in person was substantial. Now, I don't realistically think we'll get those types of numbers, but the tactic is to make the politicians really consider their chances of re-election if they support our bills. If we can get, for example, concealed carry on the table next year, it will take a tremendous effort to get it heard and passed. 20+ pieces of submitted testimony simply won't get the job done. Imagine for a moment that we've done our homework and next year a CCW bill actually makes it to a hearing and not only is there hundreds of pieces of testimony submitted, but we have a large contingent of folks testifying in person....now, when the Chair of whatever committee "reads" all the submitted testimony (think "Joe Citizen, supports..." a hundred + times...) AND then a long stream of in-person testimony. Can you imagine what kind of message those types of numbers can convey to nervous politicians?
So, yeah we had a good number of folks submit testimony, and yeah, in this case it worked. But, for CCW, or repealing the onerous registration and pemitting process, there will be opposition, and most likely from agencies like HPD, the AG's office, and others who the lawmakers tend to place a higher degree of "trust" in terms of "believing" their facts or positions on bills, and we'll need to counter that with tons of testimony.
So, let's start thinking about what we can do next year (there's still some stuff we may need to dod this year, but we need to think and plan strategically....) to really boost our numbers....it is the only way we'll ever get the chances we want.
Thanks again for everyones help!
-
so is it all done or is there another voting that needs to happen?
-
so is it all done or is there another voting that needs to happen?
From here it goes to the conference committe. If it passes then to the floor for a vote.
-
I need another favor:
How many folks submitted testimony via the web and just hit the "support" option without adding any comments or testimony? Did you get a confirmation e-mail noting your testimony was received? I ask because I know of at least one individual that did this and I do not see that testimony listed on the web. Can I ask that everyone who submitted testimony via the web, whether you added any comments or not, please go to the site and check to see if your testimony is there? The link is below, click on testimony and then the 3/25/10 option. Let me know if your stuff didn't get thru.
Thanks!
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2010/lists/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=358 (http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2010/lists/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=358)
-
I submitted my testimony through email and it got through.
-
I submitted my testimony through email and it got through.
me too.
-
Thanks guys...I now have confirmation that at least two individuals submitted testimony, and received the e-mail confirmation of such, but their testimony doesn't show up on the web, nor did I hear those individual's names mentioned at the hearing when they read the testimony. So, it looks like at least two pieces of testimony, and who knows how many others, did get "heard."
I have the legislative office looking itto it, so if anyone else discovers that their testimony didn't make it in despite being submitted, please let me know.
-
Wow, this is definitely something we need to know. It's really good that someone caught it.
-
Hey guys just saw this...http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2010/lists/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=358 (http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2010/lists/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=358)
do we need to post more testimony?
thanks!
-
oh, and my testimony was posted :)
-
I don't think there is testimony for this part. But I could be wrong.
When I checked the hearing notices (where there are links to provide testimony) there aren't any for the Tuesday reading.
-
Just wondering why is this part put back into the HD2 bill?
(5) Registration and blood typing. Provide for:
(A) Compulsory registration and identification to the extent that voluntary registration and identification has not been accomplished under chapter 846, part II; and
(B) Compulsory RHo blood typing on females of child bearing age or younger, and such other compulsory blood typing as may be approved by competent medical authority[.];
When in the earlier bill HD1 the (B) section was crossed out?
(5) Registration and blood typing. Provide for[: (A) Compulsory] compulsory registration and identification to the extent that voluntary registration and identification has not been accomplished under chapter 846, part II[; and
(B) Compulsory RHo blood typing on females of child bearing age or younger, and such other compulsory blood typing as may be approved by competent medical authority.];
Just wondering what happened?
-
That part was put back in so it could pass. Well, actually, someone added that section that strikes part of the HRS in SD1 and it had nothing to do with seizure of firearms. The house took that change out in HD2.
-
Looks like I missed this opportunity to participate. If I am understanding the process correctly, this still has to go through the Senate and Governor?
-
No worries, there will be plenty more chances to participate.
It is currently in the Senate and according to the most recent status update, the Senate didn't agree with the changes that the House made to the bill. I am not quite sure what this means and hopefully someone will be able to answer that question. The Legislature puts out a nifty little citizen's guide (http://capitol.hawaii.gov/site1/info/2010CitizensGuide.pdf) that gives some basics on the whole process, but I'm still fuzzy on some of the details.
Here is an image showing the journey of a bill. You can just swap the word "House" for "Senate" and vice versa to show the process for a Senate Bill like SB358.
(http://2ahawaii.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=383.0;attach=128;image)
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Okay, after a tiny bit of research, it looks like the bill will have to go through some more work in the Senate to try and get them to agree to the amendments. SB 420 (http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2009/lists/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=420) had to go through a similar process and reveals quite a bit about the process.
-
Well, it looks like the Senate and House committee members will convene tomorrow but there isn't any public testimony allowed. We are just going to have to sit back and wait.
-
Well, it looks like the Senate and House committee members will convene tomorrow but there isn't any public testimony allowed. We are just going to have to sit back and wait.
2A - Yep, conference committe is tomorrow. And, as usual, little notice is given so folks can attend if they wanted. However, while there is no testimony allowed at the conference, I would suggest that folks call the Chairs/Co-Chairs of the committe and let them know you support the intent of the bill. And, if any of those who want to participate are in Reps. Pine or Luke's district, I would suggest calling them as well.
-
The hearing got deferred to tomorrow morning....there may be an NRA alert to call the legislators asking them to pass this on for a floor vote.
-
Wow, this bill just hit HawaiiNewsNow they are reporting it passed 21-0 (http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/global/story.asp?s=12326819).
-
Excellent news! One step forward...
-
And, it would not have been possible without the coordination of 2A and the ACTIVE PARTICIPATION of the gun owners who helped out by submitting testimony.
This should be seen as an example of what we can do if we work together to advance our agenda.
GREAT job everyone. Thanks!
-
yay a victory for us!
-
Well the bill is now on the governors desk and the NRA just released their latest announcement.
On Friday, April 16, the Hawaii Senate voted 21-0 to pass Senate Bill 358, sponsored by State Senator Sam Slom (R-8). The bill now heads to the desk of Governor Linda Lingle (R) for her consideration.
SB358 would prohibit the seizure of firearms or ammunition during a government-invoked state of emergency as a result of a disaster. SB358 languished last year when it was introduced and was propelled forward after the February tsunami warning when the members of the Legislature were deluged with calls from NRA members and gun owners worried that their guns might be confiscated, similar to the post-Hurricane Katrina incidents.
Please contact the Governor TODAY and respectfully urge her to sign SB358 into law. Governor Lingle can be reached by phone at 808-586-0034.
-
Just wondering why is this part put back into the HD2 bill?
(5) Registration and blood typing. Provide for:
(A) Compulsory registration and identification to the extent that voluntary registration and identification has not been accomplished under chapter 846, part II; and
(B) Compulsory RHo blood typing on females of child bearing age or younger, and such other compulsory blood typing as may be approved by competent medical authority[.];
When in the earlier bill HD1 the (B) section was crossed out?
(5) Registration and blood typing. Provide for[: (A) Compulsory] compulsory registration and identification to the extent that voluntary registration and identification has not been accomplished under chapter 846, part II[; and
(B) Compulsory RHo blood typing on females of child bearing age or younger, and such other compulsory blood typing as may be approved by competent medical authority.];
Just wondering what happened?
Could anyone expand on this please... I am having difficulty understanding why this is needed. Thanx.
-
It isn't needed, it is a part of the existing law. The legislators wanted to keep the bill focused on getting rid of the firearm confiscation power.
-
Does anyone know how long the Governor has to sign or veto the bills?
-
Does anyone know how long the Governor has to sign or veto the bills?
I haven't been able to find the specific language about how long she has, but after speakig to a friend who knows, it appears that if the bill is passed during the active session, she has 10 days after it reaches her desk to sign or veto; if it reaches her desk after active session, it has 45 days.
-
It isn't needed, it is a part of the existing law. The legislators wanted to keep the bill focused on getting rid of the firearm confiscation power.
I meant what was the original desire by our .gov to register and blood type child bearing or younger females?
-
It isn't needed, it is a part of the existing law. The legislators wanted to keep the bill focused on getting rid of the firearm confiscation power.
I meant what was the original desire by our .gov to register and blood type child bearing or younger females?
Rh incompatibilty is a medical condition where the child has a different Rh than the mother. In the past it was difficult to treat and had a high mortality rate. Now with prophylactic use of the appropriate medications it is very treatable and rarely causes a problem. The intent (I suppose) was to register the folks in order to try and address the issue when supplies of the then "new" medication was limited. Just a guess.....