2aHawaii
General Topics => Strategies and Tactics => Topic started by: Heavies on January 18, 2022, 08:35:56 PM
-
GM1311_.pdf (hawaii.gov) (https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2021/bills/GM1311_.pdf)
Given the new law that allows purchase, carry, and use of tasers, I am interested in knowing what kind of strategies you all would use, if you need to use it.
Taser pulse seems to be the most popular choice so far. Given that the device's recommended strategy seems to be.... deploy then drop, as the device discharges for 30 seconds, this gives you the chance to safely escape the situation.
However, do you think you would be in violation of the law, since you have now surrendered control of the taser?
If this is so, then how would you safely employ the taser and escape?
We've all seem the videos of guys jumping up and attacking as soon as the electricity stops.
Thoughts?
-
I prefer carrying a Mace pepper gun, but if you use a Taser Pulse and incapacitate them for 30 seconds, take 5 to 10 of those seconds to make sure the bad guy won’t be able to follow you after the power stops. If you do that and don't want to leave the Pulse gun, put the safety on which will cut the power, disconnect the cartridge and get out of there. This is assuming the bad guy has no friends with him, which is seldom true. Taser will give you a new Pulse and cartridge when you use it in a SD situation and provide a police report to back it up. On a side note, even if we were allowed to carry a firearm, I would still carry my pepper gun. Not every situation will require deadly force.
-
I think the pepper spray is much easier and simpler in a fight or flight situation. Just need to be aware of wind direction.
I won’t be buying any electric defense tools. Just IMHO.
Carrying two spray canisters will give me more peace of mind than one electric thing. A handgun is a different matter because there is less variability. The fact that the darts run out of juice, and can even just hit a belt buckle or a watch or something and be deflected, is not something I like.
And it’s a one shot thing. You ever play shooting video games where you only have ONE SHOT to take out the enemy? Good luck with that when your mind and body are freaking out about some dude(s) trying to maybe kill you.
Of course, always open to having my opinion changed with logic and facts.
PS - Having said all this, I am totally in support of HI allowing the carrying of electric guns. One step closer toward carrying firearms. An armed society is a polite one.
-
Excellent channel to see REAL WORLD situations. Very instructive.
https://youtu.be/cACq8llwURA
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
I fully expect that most non-lethal arms will fail, and that their failure may or may not provide a homeowner with a defense for using a real gun to stop an assailant. "I tried to stop the perp with a taser or pepper spray device, and he kept charging at me. I had to use a firearm to prevent him from doing serious bodily harm to my frail body."
Steve Alm's reply: "Did you try to use your bible to ameliorate the incident?"
-
PS - Having said all this, I am totally in support of HI allowing the carrying of electric guns. One step closer toward carrying firearms. An armed society is a polite one.
I'm on the fence when it comes to allowing the carrying of electric guns. I'm concerned that allowing this will give our crooked anti-gun politician leaders an excuse to implement more restrictions on firearm ownership and use.
I worry they will introduce legislation that will reason that since there are these "alternate" options, then there is really no need for firearms designed for defensive purposes.
-
I fully expect that most non-lethal arms will fail, and that their failure may or may not provide a homeowner with a defense for using a real gun to stop an assailant. "I tried to stop the perp with a taser or pepper spray device, and he kept charging at me. I had to use a firearm to prevent him from doing serious bodily harm to my frail body."
Steve Alm's reply: "Did you try to use your bible to ameliorate the incident?"
I'll probably shoot back at Steve and ask him "Would YOU???"
And then get thrown in jail for contempt.
-
I also support allowing the carrying of electric guns. However, I'm concerned that allowing this will give our crooked anti-gun politician leaders an excuse to implement more restrictions on firearm ownership and use.
I worry they will introduce legislation that will reason that since there are these "alternate" options, then there is really no need for firearms designed for defensive purposes.
I can totally see this. However, if they are dumb enough to list this as an reason, it’ll be easily shot down constitutionally. It has already been precedent that firearms are a right to have for personal self defense.
-
It has already been precedent that firearms are a right to have for personal self defense.
But not outside the home where 99.8% of the time is where you would need it. Talking about in Hawaii and a few other asshole states like Jersey.
-
Besides learning how to use a new tool, I hope everyone participates in the legislative session. They already want to ban where you can carry a taser. Basically, if you catch the bus, your shit out of luck, or even pass "near" certain places. No definition of what "near" means. Unlike federal gun free school zones, which are 1000 feet. But per federal law, you can CCW within that 1000 feet as long as you have that states issued CCW permit. And more exceptions if you live within 1000 feet of a school. No exceptions like this for the taser bill proposed.
-
I'm on the fence when it comes to allowing the carrying of electric guns. I'm concerned that allowing this will give our crooked anti-gun politician leaders an excuse to implement more restrictions on firearm ownership and use.
I worry they will introduce legislation that will reason that since there are these "alternate" options, then there is really no need for firearms designed for defensive purposes.
Bill already submitted to making someone who is carrying also carry a taser. Since no one is issued CCW or open permits, this would apply mainly for non-LEO like airport security and armored car people. The bill also requires something like 16hrs of annual training or some BS like that.
I wonder if the armored car companies/airport security will get involved with the legislative session.
-
Bill already submitted to making someone who is carrying also carry a taser. Since no one is issued CCW or open permits, this would apply mainly for non-LEO like airport security and armored car people. The bill also requires something like 16hrs of annual training or some BS like that.
I wonder if the armored car companies/airport security will get involved with the legislative session.
Leave it to Hawaii politicians to MANDATE the carry of a weapon that just less than month ago was illegal to own.
:wacko: :crazy: :wtf:
-
Bill already submitted to making someone who is carrying also carry a taser. Since no one is issued CCW or open permits, this would apply mainly for non-LEO like airport security and armored car people. The bill also requires something like 16hrs of annual training or some BS like that.
I wonder if the armored car companies/airport security will get involved with the legislative session.
in Addition then bills that are restricting places you allowed to carry taser also introduced . So in terms if you are required to carry a taser in conjunction to carrying a firearm and restricted from these places to carry a taser will prevent and restrict you from carrying a gun. Which is just about everywhere landing squarely back to what you already had. Bravo state of Hawaii for always knowing how to oppress the people! I'm sure this is in preparation for the verdict from scotus.. they are already working to counter that so my opinion is to start paying attention cause they already starting their plan.
-
It's amazing that, although it seemed SCOTUS is on the verge of ruling Hawaii's socialist and oppressive gun laws unconstitutional, the scumbags in office already are putting in place measures that actually make it HARDER for a law- abiding citizens to exercise his 2a rights.
No can win, as long as those fackahs are in office.
-
in Addition then bills that are restricting places you allowed to carry taser also introduced . So in terms if you are required to carry a taser in conjunction to carrying a firearm and restricted from these places to carry a taser will prevent and restrict you from carrying a gun. Which is just about everywhere landing squarely back to what you already had. Bravo state of Hawaii for always knowing how to oppress the people! I'm sure this is in preparation for the verdict from scotus.. they are already working to counter that so my opinion is to start paying attention cause they already starting their plan.
focus
read the exemptions to the taser carry restrictions...
-
focus
read the exemptions to the taser carry restrictions...
Please elaborate macsak enlighten us
This is what I was reading. I see no exceptions applying to the citizens.
SB 2800
The purpose of this Act is to ensure public safety by improving the training of individuals who are licensed to carry handguns by:
(1) Requiring all individuals to undergo additional training before applying for or renewing a license to carry a handgun;
(2) Requiring any individual applying for or renewing a license to carry a handgun to undergo the same review as an individual applying for or renewing a license to carry a handgun;
(3) Reducing the term of a license to carry a handgun from one year to six months to ensure those permitted are properly trained at all times; and
(4) Requiring non-lethal electric guns, also known as tasers, to be carried when carrying a firearm.
HB 1732
ThepurposeofthisActistoprohibitindividualsfrom 2carryinganelectricguninornearcertainsensitivelocations, 3withexceptions. 4SECTION2.Chapter134,HawaiiRevisedStatutes,is 5amendedbyaddinganewsectiontopartVtobeappropriately 6designatedandtoreadasfollows: 7‘~l34-Locationrestrictionsforelectricguns.(a)It 8shallbeunlawfulforanypersontocarryorpossessesan 9electricguninornearanairport,passengertransportation 10terminal,commuteroperationsarea,stateorcountygovernment 11building,oranymeetingplacerequiredtobeopentothepublic 12pursuanttochapter92;providedthatthefollowingshallbe 13exempt: 14(1)Anypersonwhopossessesweaponsinortransports 15weaponsintoacourtoflawtobeusedasevidence; 16providedthatapersonisnotexemptiftheyarea 17partytoanactionpendingbeforethecourt; 18(2)Afulltimepaidpeaceofficerofanotherstateorthe 19federalgovernmentwhoiscarryingoutofficialduties 20whileintheStateoranypersonsummonedbythepeace 21officertoassistinmakingarrestsorpreservingthepeacewhilethatpersonisengagedinassistingthe 2peaceofficer; 3(3)Apersonwhohaspermissiontopossessanelectricgun 4inwritingbyadulyauthorizedofficialwhois 5chargedwiththesecurityofastateorcounty 6governmentbuilding; 7(4)Apersonwholawfullyresidesin,owns,orisin 8possessionofastateorcountygovernmentbuilding 9withrespecttothoseportionsofthebuildingthat 10arenotownedorleasedbythestateorcounty 11government; 12(5)Apersonlicensedorregisteredinaccordancewith, 13andactingwithinthecourseandscopeofchapter463, 14andwhohasbeenhiredbytheownerofastateor 15countygovernmentbuilding;and 16(6)Anypersonoragencyexemptpursuanttosection 17134-87. 18(b)Anypersonviolatingthissectionshallbeguiltyofa 19misdemeanor.hl
-
oops
no focus
i misunderstood what you were traversing...
Please elaborate macsak enlighten us
This is what I was reading. I see no exceptions applying to the citizens.
SB 2800
The purpose of this Act is to ensure public safety by improving the training of individuals who are licensed to carry handguns by:
(1) Requiring all individuals to undergo additional training before applying for or renewing a license to carry a handgun;
(2) Requiring any individual applying for or renewing a license to carry a handgun to undergo the same review as an individual applying for or renewing a license to carry a handgun;
(3) Reducing the term of a license to carry a handgun from one year to six months to ensure those permitted are properly trained at all times; and
(4) Requiring non-lethal electric guns, also known as tasers, to be carried when carrying a firearm.
HB 1732
ThepurposeofthisActistoprohibitindividualsfrom 2carryinganelectricguninornearcertainsensitivelocations, 3withexceptions. 4SECTION2.Chapter134,HawaiiRevisedStatutes,is 5amendedbyaddinganewsectiontopartVtobeappropriately 6designatedandtoreadasfollows: 7‘~l34-Locationrestrictionsforelectricguns.(a)It 8shallbeunlawfulforanypersontocarryorpossessesan 9electricguninornearanairport,passengertransportation 10terminal,commuteroperationsarea,stateorcountygovernment 11building,oranymeetingplacerequiredtobeopentothepublic 12pursuanttochapter92;providedthatthefollowingshallbe 13exempt: 14(1)Anypersonwhopossessesweaponsinortransports 15weaponsintoacourtoflawtobeusedasevidence; 16providedthatapersonisnotexemptiftheyarea 17partytoanactionpendingbeforethecourt; 18(2)Afulltimepaidpeaceofficerofanotherstateorthe 19federalgovernmentwhoiscarryingoutofficialduties 20whileintheStateoranypersonsummonedbythepeace 21officertoassistinmakingarrestsorpreservingthepeacewhilethatpersonisengagedinassistingthe 2peaceofficer; 3(3)Apersonwhohaspermissiontopossessanelectricgun 4inwritingbyadulyauthorizedofficialwhois 5chargedwiththesecurityofastateorcounty 6governmentbuilding; 7(4)Apersonwholawfullyresidesin,owns,orisin 8possessionofastateorcountygovernmentbuilding 9withrespecttothoseportionsofthebuildingthat 10arenotownedorleasedbythestateorcounty 11government; 12(5)Apersonlicensedorregisteredinaccordancewith, 13andactingwithinthecourseandscopeofchapter463, 14andwhohasbeenhiredbytheownerofastateor 15countygovernmentbuilding;and 16(6)Anypersonoragencyexemptpursuanttosection 17134-87. 18(b)Anypersonviolatingthissectionshallbeguiltyofa 19misdemeanor.hl
-
I'm on the fence when it comes to allowing the carrying of electric guns. I'm concerned that allowing this will give our crooked anti-gun politician leaders an excuse to implement more restrictions on firearm ownership and use.
I worry they will introduce legislation that will reason that since there are these "alternate" options, then there is really no need for firearms designed for defensive purposes.
Good point
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I'm on the fence when it comes to allowing the carrying of electric guns. I'm concerned that allowing this will give our crooked anti-gun politician leaders an excuse to implement more restrictions on firearm ownership and use.
I worry they will introduce legislation that will reason that since there are these "alternate" options, then there is really no need for firearms designed for defensive purposes.
I missed where the 2nd Amendment was included in The Bill of Needs.
Rights do not require one to justify the exercise thereof. If it's exercised responsibly, there should be no "need".
I assume what I've read is true -- that police department guidance and policy ordinarily requires 2 officers be involved when trying to use non-lethal/less-than-lethal force to subdue a violent suspect. The Taser may miss, be ineffective for many reasons, or be ripped away by the suspect. There needs to be an officer with a firearm backing up the one using the Taser.
Who is going to back up the citizen who is only permitted to carry a Taser?
-
Yesterday the cops decided that a taster would not work and went back to using good old fashioned lead.
https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2022/01/25/hpd-investigating-officer-involved-shooting-near-ala-moana-center/
It's frequent incidents like this which tells me that the kinder gentler methods of self-defense are going to get somebody killed.
I do like the new taser law. I just don't think it's worth the effort to get a permit for something that can't stop a raging crackhead.
-
Somebody please, give me arguments supporting that Tasers can and will be effective deterrents.
Because I feel that it will only enrage the attacker(s). Lots of crime nowadays are committed by people high on drugs. Because cowards need something to make them brave.
Can Tasers shoot multiple times? Because most attacks are not committed by a single aggressor.
Some say shoot the Taser, drop it, then run to safety. I cannot run fast. My knees are messed up. My wife can probably outrun me but she can't run far.
And where do we run to? Right now the way I feel Tasers are better than nothing but not by much.
Again, I'm willing to hear testimonies that will show I am mistaken. But the one shot feature will be hard to get me on board with Tasers.
-
Somebody please, give me arguments supporting that Tasers can and will be effective deterrents.
Because I feel that it will only enrage the attacker(s). Lots of crime nowadays are committed by people high on drugs. Because cowards need something to make them brave.
Can Tasers shoot multiple times? Because most attacks are not committed by a single aggressor.
Some say shoot the Taser, drop it, then run to safety. I cannot run fast. My knees are messed up. My wife can probably outrun me but she can't run far.
And where do we run to? Right now the way I feel Tasers are better than nothing but not by much.
Again, I'm willing to hear testimonies that will show I am mistaken. But the one shot feature will be hard to get me on board with Tasers.
There are many vids out there on tasers dropping people. Both in training and LE encounters. There are also vids of them not doing anything (Myeni most recent). Every tool can fail, even firearms, pepper spray, knife, etc...If you have not done so already, YT "taser training" and watch the vids on how someone drops to the ground when it's activated like how it's supposed to.
To me, it sounds like you're missing the point. A taser is protected under the 2a which SCOTUS ruled on and HI was violating. So if you don't want to carry one, then that's fine. But what you are asking is to show a need or the effectiveness for a taser. This is what anti 2a law makers do to violate our rights. If there is no need or it's not effective, then they have good reason to ban X, Y, Z. How many times have I heard by law makers and people against guns that "HI is safe, there is no need to carry a gun in public". There is a current lawsuit for butterfly knives, which are illegal here. I will never carry one if they are made legal, but it's the concept of why.
With regard to running, the instruction manual states it's recommended to do so. But if you are unable to flee in 30 seconds or less, then there is the option to give the tased person another zap, which would last for another 30 seconds. So you can call the police or make other arrangements. And repeat as necessary. This is if you are using the Taser Pulse. IDK the options for other brands or models. And if you wish to discontinue the Taser Pulse's 30 second zap, then turn the safety on and it will cease. The one HPD uses does not have the 30 second feature. Maybe this would be a good reason to apply for a CCW and notate that you cannot run due to physical limitations so having a less lethal Taser will not help you.
Certain tasers can shoot multiple times. But the one mentioned above has a 1 shot. Then you would have to use it as a stun gun. No self defense scenario is perfect. Which is why it's good to carry multiple self defense tools in case 1 fails or there are multiple attackers. Since a handgun holding 10 rounds is not legal to carry, this tool is not an option for law abiding citizens.
I do think having a taser is better than nothing, but more like sticking it to the state for banning them is why I want one. IMO, I would prefer a taser over pepper spray due to the range of the taser and that if done properly, it kicks in much faster than OC. Watch OC training vids as well on YT. You will see how even though blinded, someone can still fight. Compare this to a taser where they hit the ground and are unable to move.
Let me know if you wish me to clarify further any of the above. Thank you.
-
I do like the new taser law. I just don't think it's worth the effort to get a permit for something that can't stop a raging crackhead.
This is what they want. During testimony, good ole Marx almost let is slip when asked about all the efforts. "Jump thru h......"
If I felt the same way about the effort, I would get 1 just to stick it to HI.
-
A civilian model Taser does not have more range than a pepper gun. The Mace pepper gun I carry has at least a 20 ft range with about 7 one second shots. A Taser has 15 ft at which the barbs will be 2 ft apart. You need both to hit for it to work, so the recommended distance is 7 to 10 ft where the barbs will be 1 ft apart. What I would really prefer to carry is my JPX Jet Protector. That has about a 35 ft range and fires a gel not easily deflected by wind. The one I have has 2 shots, but they now have a 4 shot model. I leave it at home because it uses a 9MM casing powered by the primer only. Because of that it is considered a firearm in Hawaii even tho the ATF said it is not.
-
Somebody please, give me arguments supporting that Tasers can and will be effective deterrents.
Try getting shot with one. I think the effectiveness will be seen more clearly if you experience it for yourself. :thumbsup:
Because I feel that it will only enrage the attacker(s). Lots of crime nowadays are committed by people high on drugs. Because cowards need something to make them brave.
I feel you are wrong. What you feel is irrelevant. When someone is targeting you, like in a dark parking area, they will see you draw and point (present) some sort of weapon. In the majority of DUG situations, the mere presentation of a firearm diffused the attack. If your attacker thinks you are holding a pistol vs. a Taser, that in many cases will cause them to flee. Enrage them? They already are threatening you (why else feel the need to defend yourself?)
Can Tasers shoot multiple times? Because most attacks are not committed by a single aggressor.
Some can, but cost more. Mostly marketed to LE.
Some say shoot the Taser, drop it, then run to safety. I cannot run fast. My knees are messed up. My wife can probably outrun me but she can't run far.
You'd be surprised what you can do physically when that adrenaline rush hits you. Even if you can't run, you can buy time to do whatever you can -- take cover in your vehicle, duck inside the nearest doorway, get someone's attention to help or call 911, find a length or pipe or a tool in your trunk, etc.
And where do we run to? Right now the way I feel Tasers are better than nothing but not by much.
Right now, most opinions of Tasers are based on videos, news reports, and hearsay. Very little firsthand experience being provided to know what's the truth. it's all academic for the most part. Your arguments against could just as easily apply to pepper spray or other gases, yet people carry them everyday -- even LE.
Again, I'm willing to hear testimonies that will show I am mistaken. But the one shot feature will be hard to get me on board with Tasers.
I'm in the "road rage" camp when imagining what the most probable situation I might find myself in could be. I don't do much that brings me into contact with attackers. I don't go out drinking, don't go to night clubs, don't walk on the beach late at night, etc. If I get confronted by someone over a road rage incident, and they follow me to "express" their anger on my person, I'd rather have a Taser in that instant than pepper spray, a knife or a cell phone. If I can drop him and evade the altercation (however that presents itself), I'm in a better position than trying to reason with someone who's mad enough to follow me and try to kick the crap out of me over literally nothing.
-
Thanks for your input, Flapp. :shaka:
Maybe I should take Taser classes. Learn more about them.
-
With messed up knees, 1 can argue u cant flee to "complete safety".
This bill would help so u dont get charged due to lack of good articulation.(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20220128/dff2c3ecd1d425da8921f8fbdd791986.jpg)
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
The requirement to retreat is the stupidest law they could ever make. The attacker is likely to be bigger, stronger, younger and faster than the one being attacked. That is why senior citizens like myself are a prime target. I will be 72 in 3 months, and even though I am pretty fit for my age, still climbing trees for extra income, if I was the bad guy I would not try to mug someone in the teenage to 50 group, especially if they were bigger and looked stronger than me. It is time for our lawmakers to give the people the right to defend themselves. Criminals have more rights than law abiding people do and that is F'd up.
-
At $350/hr, Megan Kau will gladly defend you in a self-defense case, even if you only retreat 1". Maybe I should ask her that question at her live meeting. :popcorn:
Everyone make sure to write your state representative and tell them you want the proposed law redrafted so a verbal warning to the perp is sufficient to allow you to stand your ground. He moves closer and you exercise your right to fire whatever you brought to the conflict that he started.
The state of Hawaii can make money by selling officialT-shirts with the following legal warnings, that tell a perp that you are going to stand your ground and defend yourself (no retreating).
(https://i.imgur.com/EZF14tn.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/E4eFb9R.jpg)
Not much new information presented in Megan Kau's livestream, except we do know she is 4' 11', and not that familiar with the new electric gun law. I suggest she watch this lengthy youtube video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcoFS__a3Dg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcoFS__a3Dg)
A taser can be deadly if a perp is soaked in alcohol first. It may set him on fire.
At the 28 minute mark, the blonde talks about the Eggshell Defense, which some of our elderly members can use.