2aHawaii
General Topics => General Discussion => Topic started by: hvybarrels on March 30, 2023, 09:31:33 AM
-
Props for Kainoa, Elijah Pierick and James Hochberg for taking on a stacked deck. They are going to need a bucket and a mop for all the fake tears from the lefties who just got done celebrating the latest terrorist attack on Christian children.
I'm curious to hear what former Circuit Court Judge Randal Lee has to say after he was pulled off the rail audit for actually doing his job. He knows firsthand how dirty the state has become.
https://www.pbshawaii.org/concealed-carry-should-the-government-restrict-where-guns-are-allowed/?utm_source=HNN&utm_medium=Display&utm_campaign=Core
-
Tonights debate will be feelings vs. logic.
Marvin has been on zoom testimonies and in person b4. He doesn't let you forget that he's a veteran. But recentlly, he has only brought it up at the begining of his testimonies, instead of constant reminders thru them.
1 testimony, he used Kenosha as an example on gun control, he thought open carry was legal here. Then when called out on how he was wrong, he didn't address it, but kept to his talking points.
Rhodes is our fav, he's the guy who wants to ban 50 cal cause you can kill someone from over a mile away. Like that's an easy thing to do and no other caliber can achieve this.
Tam is head chair for C&C executive committee. He's brand new to politics and got this position. He also created Bill 57.
-
I just watched this. I thought it was a good discussion and i did agree with points on both sides. Mahalo for the participants. Throughout the program a few misnomers kept running through my head that I feel would be great if they were addressed. First, that every gun out there is a crime waiting to happen. I found it evidenced by the young adult spoke about guns coming on campus are being held with people who have, or will have ill intent. At no time did they assume the gun is held by someone like a police officer being prepared to protect them at a moment's notice. The second was that the anti gun community thinks that all 2A supporters want complete deregulation, and no consequences for a person's behavior. Maybe that stems from many of their beliefs that criminals are victims and don't need to be held to a consequence.
With that said, my disagreement with the safe places mostly falls onto private businesses. I don't feel that it should automatically be gun safe zone. I feel it should be assumed to be allowed unless specifically banned. That is where the signage discussion confused me. Are they going to require every place in the county to have a sign picking a side?
I'll also ad the discussion of government buildings. I thought it was ridiculous. The majority of the government buildings already have metal detectors AND armed guards. They are not gun free zones. If anything a government building makes the argument against gun free zones.
-
some of these talking heads are PAID
Here is Chris Marvin's propaganda business
https://www.marvinstrategies.com/our-work (https://www.marvinstrategies.com/our-work)
-
From memory:
The mod mentioned when introducing "the veteran" Chris Marvin. He also did state it a few times. The mod never mentioned HRA president Kainoa's vet status.
The college student was over his head and really had no input but feelings. Even referred to Marvin to chime in.
The former judge surprised me, I thought he would be full on anti 2a. But you can tell he is, but still stuck more to the facts. He was throwing the anti 2a side a bone here and there. He stated SCOTUS (Bruen) is rule of the land so we must abide and that many of the sensitive places won't pass the Bruen test.
Counselman Tyler used his logic which he kept repeating during the 5 hearings for Bill 57 about balancing both sides. BUT we all know he's full of it cause Bill 57 has no balance. This is the excuse in his mind that he's using to justify and to justify to others who don't read stuff.
Rhodes stated that there are more guns in HI than people, so they're easy to get (with regard to illegally). He stated to abide by the constitution (lol). He stated like Roe v Wade, Bruen could be overturned and would likely be after his lifetime. Hinting to lets disregard it cause in 40 years, it may be looked at again.
HPD Captain was OK. Can tell she didn't know the law like the back of her hand, but still knew it. Like she had to think and study prior to the event. Stated about 600+ CCW apps pending for 900+ guns. I forgot how many she said were approved, I think less than 60. Stated 3 open carry pending, but zero issued (this excludes armed guards).
"The veteran" stated so a few times that he's a vet. And when asked specifics, he had no clue but fell back on old reliable reply of "safety of the people" type reply. This is his MO and he sticks to his talking points given to him during hearings as well. When asked an unprepared question, he's clueless. Chiraq was brought up and he said the illegal guns there come from across state lines where gun laws are more lax. Wish someone chimed in and said the FBI studied this and most of the illegal guns came from 6 states away, Maryland or something that also has strict gun laws. Zero emotion, seems like he's making money off of this and really couldn't care if gun laws pass or not.
Kainoa (HRA) did well. You can see the emotion he has. Wish he did bring up more stats like 90%+ of active shootings are in gun free zones. This could have helped a few times.
The lawyer there is the one part of the Livingston vs. Hawaii lawsuit (CCW). They won this recently after Bruen was mentioned. He mentioned his 2a org a few times that's taking donations. I 4got what the link was but was like "2AL something". He asked for anyone to give him specifically how often CCW holders commit crimes and Marvin was silent. Then Rhodes had a stat from Rand or something and read it. But this study said "may" and not "data shows that" or a more deliberate finding. Kainoa and the lawyer were quick to jump on this key fact. IDK how legit Rand org is either. He also is present at some of the hearings and was at the Chiefs CCW rules hearing both times.
The new GOP rep doesn't know much about the 2A. But tried. When asked specific questions, he gave non specific answers. Gave the impression that he is a 2A supporter, but never directly said it. I'm sure he is a 2a supporter, but I never looked into how he voted for all the anti 2a floor votes if any were even held in the senate yet. Same guy posted on his IG about the gay flag at a school. He never stated he supports it or doesnt support it. Instead he asked to contact the principal to let her know what your thoughts are. Yet the fake news jumped on this and labeled him as a gay hater.
Overall, the show went better than expected. I expected it to be fully an anti 2a promoting show. I wish Andrew from HIFICO was there. But I guess they had to pick only 1 pro 2a org and went with the longer standing org of HRA. Alan Beck messaged them a question and too bad his wasn't selected. People could call, msg on FB, or email them questions to ask on the live show.
-
Second Amendment Law Center: https://www.2alc.org/
-
Forgot to add about the GOP rep.
He stated that every member took an oath of office to defend the constitution.
-
Did everyone know Chris Marvin is a veteran?
-
Did everyone know Chris Marvin is a veteran?
I heard that between one and five thousand times…
-
Did everyone know Chris Marvin is a veteran?
Really? Those people are few and far between. He must of been some Admiral General in charge or something...
-
Forgot to add about the GOP rep.
He stated that every member took an oath of office to defend the constitution.
Yep. And almost every one of them are full of shiite.
-
Watching the town hall video today. Didn't take long to recognize spin versus fact.
Chris Marvin, Every town; "One place you won't see guns carried is on Schofield, Joint Base Pearl Harbor Hickam or Marine Corp Base Hawaii because the military doesn't think that letting people carry their own personal firearms is a good idea."
That's not true.
A 2016 Pentagon rule allows base commanders to permit troops to apply to concealed carry
personal weapons on base. Check with your local base for information on their use of that policy.
Base law enforcement officers and military police are permitted to both conceal and open carry
guns on base.
Pentagon policy allows contractors to carry weapons on base for their official duties and in limited
off-duty instances as long as they meet certain criteria. That guidance can be found in a DoD directive.
Some bases allow active and retired law enforcement officers to carry a concealed weapon on
base if they are authorized to do so under a law known as the Law Enforcement Officers Safety
Act (LEOSA). On those bases, current and retired officers must register for and receive a LEOSA
carrying card and then register with the base's security office. You can check with your local base
to see whether it has a rule allowing this type of use.
https://www.military.com/pcs/can-you-carry-gun-military-base.html
So, while his assertion may be true for the 3 bases he listed, he stated the REASON was based on the MILITARY not thinking concealed carry is a good idea. That policy is set by the post/base commander. "The military" (i.e. The Pentagon) has a policy to allow concealed carry on their installations.
He also stated the Legislature is making "good laws" to restrict guns from areas that the presence of a firearm would make the situation more dangerous, such as parks, crowded areas, protests, etc. That's indirect violation of the Bruen decision as well as the Heller and mcDonald decisions that struck down the 2-tier balancing the courts and states have been using -- weighing the potential impact on public safety versus the individual's right to carry.
SCOTUS Majority Opinion:
(1) Since Heller and McDonald, the Courts of Appeals have developed a “two-step”
framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with
means-end scrutiny. The Court rejects that two-part approach as having one step too
many. Step one is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the
Second Amendment’s text, as informed by history. But Heller and McDonald do not
support a second step that applies means-end scrutiny in
the Second Amendment context. Heller’s methodology centered on
constitutional text and history. It did not invoke any means-end test
such as strict or intermediate scrutiny, and it expressly rejected any
interest-balancing inquiry akin to intermediate scrutiny. Pp. 9–15.
"Means-end scrutiny" is, in fact, the argument most anti-carry narratives center around. They are weighing public safety (state interest) against individual rights under the Constitution. That might sound logical, but it's unconstitutional -- and has been since before Bruen. We just needed a Supreme Court that was willing to make that statement so the appeals courts would stop doing doing it.
I never once heard anyone suggest that "reasonable" changes should include an increase in law enforcement or private security presence. Limiting where one can legally carry should automatically trigger a mandate to provide more on-site security for the people in those areas, like schools, hospitals, parks, etc.