2aHawaii
General Topics => Legal and Activism => Topic started by: changemyoil66 on December 13, 2023, 12:01:14 PM
-
https://www.honolulupd.org/police-services/firearms/?fbclid=IwAR1uHfe0BRazX-JZiQ-iPhO6fFDoTUwVAUegFW6rQD7eiGUvQTvlfirpZ2M
Click proposed rules link.
Click on public hearing notice
Written testimony can be submitted to :
HPDLTC@honolulu.gov
-
Did i read that right? $150 for the LTC? Wow!
-
Did i read that right? $150 for the LTC? Wow!
Yes, this was in the SB1230 bill that passed earlier this year. Also if after 120 days have passed, its an automatic denial and you lose your $150 dollars.
-
When someone hates you this much is it okay to hate them back?
Asking for a friend O0
-
HPD: You don't get to exercise your Constitutional right to bear arms until you pay $150.00. Then 4 years from now you pay us again. And again. And again. Oh and by the way, no forget to read where when and how you can carry.
Me: Oooooh yoo fackahs I HATE YOU HATE YOU HATE YOUUUUUUU!!!!!
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
:wave: Just kidding HPD. We all gotta make a living. Must give you guys a boner though, knowing how much power you guys have over us.
But yeah. Not you guys. It's yo bosses that's full of shiite.
-
EVERYONE should be concerned about this part
"Statements or actions by the person indicating any dangerous
propensity or violent animus toward one or more individuals or
groups, including groups based on race, color, national origin,
ancestry, sex, gender identity, gender expression, sexual
orientation, age, disability, religion, or any other characteristic, and
the propensity or animus is of a nature or to an extent that would
objectively indicate to a reasonable observer that it would not be in
the interest of the public health, safety, or welfare for the person to
own, possess, or control a firearm or ammunition. The Chief may
consider information provided as part of the application, as well as
any other information available to the Honolulu Police Department
or the general public, in making this determination; and"
This is a free speech lawsuit waiting to happen and there are no specific "objective" guidelines either. The other part has points that guide what's to be used to make a determination with regard to "other information that the person is a danger". Like TRO, negligent discharges, DUI, a crime of violence within 3 years, etc...I don't agree with this part either.
-
HPD: You don't get to exercise your Constitutional right to bear arms until you pay $150.00. Then 4 years from now you pay us again. And again. And again. Oh and by the way, no forget to read where when and how you can carry.
Me: Oooooh yoo fackahs I HATE YOU HATE YOU HATE YOUUUUUUU!!!!!
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
:wave: Just kidding HPD. We all gotta make a living. Must give you guys a boner though, knowing how much power you guys have over us.
But yeah. Not you guys. It's yo bosses that's full of shiite.
"No one wakes up with a boner on how to have power over the people"-1 person would say.
-
is the boner subjective or objective?
"No one wakes up with a boner on how to have power over the people"-1 person would say.
-
Was there a HIFICO representative at this meeting?
Seems like a great place to bring up the lawsuits and how much fun it is dealing with a state that lets crime get out of control while preventing citizens from defending themselves.
https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2023/12/14/gun-safety-tips-get-concealed-carry-permits-highlight-unique-town-hall-kapolei/
-
Was there a HIFICO representative at this meeting?
Seems like a great place to bring up the lawsuits and how much fun it is dealing with a state that lets crime get out of control while preventing citizens from defending themselves.
https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2023/12/14/gun-safety-tips-get-concealed-carry-permits-highlight-unique-town-hall-kapolei/
It's amazing because when you read the article you ask yourself: Where did all the common sense go? Anyone can figure out that when there are no consequences, there will be an increase in criminal activity.
-
Was there a HIFICO representative at this meeting?
Seems like a great place to bring up the lawsuits and how much fun it is dealing with a state that lets crime get out of control while preventing citizens from defending themselves.
https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2023/12/14/gun-safety-tips-get-concealed-carry-permits-highlight-unique-town-hall-kapolei/
No.
-
EVERYONE should be concerned about this part
"Statements or actions by the person indicating any dangerous
propensity or violent animus toward one or more individuals or
groups, including groups based on race, color, national origin,
ancestry, sex, gender identity, gender expression, sexual
orientation, age, disability, religion, or any other characteristic, and
the propensity or animus is of a nature or to an extent that would
objectively indicate to a reasonable observer that it would not be in
the interest of the public health, safety, or welfare for the person to
own, possess, or control a firearm or ammunition. The Chief may
consider information provided as part of the application, as well as
any other information available to the Honolulu Police Department
or the general public, in making this determination; and"
This is a free speech lawsuit waiting to happen and there are no specific "objective" guidelines either. The other part has points that guide what's to be used to make a determination with regard to "other information that the person is a danger". Like TRO, negligent discharges, DUI, a crime of violence within 3 years, etc...I don't agree with this part either.
"Violent animus"?
"Interest of Public Health"?
"Any other characteristic"?
That is so broad and vague to be arguably unusable. Any denial on these grounds, except for the most clear cut cases, would be so easy to appeal.
I wonder if they purposefully worded the law as such to give themselves liability protection. So for example you want a gun and they say no because you have violent animus, then you sue and win but later use the gun to hurt someone they can wash their hands and say they tried to deny the gun so don't blame them. That wouldn't surprise me in this litigious heavy culture we have turned into.
-
is the boner subjective or objective?
Erective :love:
:wave:
-
State law doesn't say you need a current handgun safety course to get your CCW, but the chiefs rules is.
-
State law doesn't say you need a current handgun safety course to get your CCW, but the chiefs rules is.
I hope the cheif's rules get taken to court. Depending on how the SCOTUS rules on one of their cases of administrative agencies making up and enforcing their own rules there would be strong grounds to invalidate some of the chief's rules.
-
This is the part I am concerned about.
It was buried on page 34 of a 37 page document.
It requires firearms instructors to be counselors on mental health.
Subchapter 3 Instructor verifications and training certifications
§21-15-29 Instructor verifications.
(a) Each firearm certification program for Permits and each firearm certification program for Licenses shall be led by an instructor verified by the State of Hawaii or the Honolulu Police Department. An application for verification as an instructor shall be rejected if the applicant is legally prohibited from possessing or handling firearms.
(b) An applicant may be verified to conduct trainings for Permits to Acquire, and may also be verified to conduct trainings for Licenses to Carry, but §21-15-29 34 an applicant shall demonstrate the required qualifications for each before being so verified. Verification as an instructor for Permits to Acquire alone does not authorize the applicant to conduct trainings for Licenses to Carry, and verification as an instructor for Licenses to Carry alone does not authorize the applicant to conduct trainings for Permits to Acquire.
(c) Absent a verification process formalized by the State of Hawaii, the Training Division shall develop clear and objective criteria to verify qualifications of applicants to become instructors, with verification to be valid for two years. Such clear and objective criteria shall require the applicant to provide evidence of the following: (1) Valid, in-person certifications by nationally recognized firearms manufacturers or organizations, demonstrating the applicant’s qualifications to use a firearm proficiently and safely and to educate others regarding the same. (2) The applicant’s ability to provide reliable certifications regarding trainees’ qualifications to the Firearms Unit. An applicant shall be disqualified if the applicant was previously convicted of any criminal offense involving dishonesty or fraud, or if the applicant was previously found liable in any civil court for any act involving dishonesty or fraud. (3) For applicants seeking verification to provide training for Permits to Acquire, the applicant’s qualifications to teach others regarding mental health, suicide prevention, and domestic violence issues associated with firearms and firearm violence. The applicant shall satisfy at least one of the following: (A) If the applicant intends to conduct this portion of the training, the applicant shall submit evidence of the applicant’s education and experience in each field. (B) If a physician, psychologist, social worker, or other health care professional licensed in Hawaii and with training and experience in these issues intends to conduct this portion of the training, the applicant shall provide the name, contact information, and qualifications of the person conducting each of these portions. (C) If the applicant intends to use one or more videos for this portion of the training, the applicant shall submit information on each video to be used. (4) For applicants seeking verification to provide training for Licenses to Carry, the applicant’s qualifications to teach others regarding the law in Hawaii on self-defense and use of force, including the requirements of chapters 134 and 703, Hawaii Revised Statutes. §21-15-29 35 (A) The applicant may conduct this portion of the training, in which case the applicant shall submit evidence of the applicant’s qualifications to provide this training. (B) Alternatively, an active attorney in good standing with the Hawaii State Bar Association may conduct this portion of the training, in which case the applicant shall provide the name, contact information, and Hawaii State Bar Association JD number. (C) The applicant shall also provide a copy of the written examination to be used. (d) As used in this section and in section 21-15-30, “applicant” means the person seeking to be verified as an instructor, “instructor” means verified instructor, and “trainee” means the person seeking training to obtain a Permit to Acquire or a License to Carry. [Eff and comp ] (Auth: HRS § 134-9; RCH § 6-1604(d)) (Imp: HRS §§ 134-2, 134-7, 134-9)
-
This is the part I am concerned about.
It was buried on page 34 of a 37 page document.
It requires firearms instructors to be counselors on mental health.
Subchapter 3 Instructor verifications and training certifications
§21-15-29 Instructor verifications.
(a) Each firearm certification program for Permits and each firearm certification program for Licenses shall be led by an instructor verified by the State of Hawaii or the Honolulu Police Department. An application for verification as an instructor shall be rejected if the applicant is legally prohibited from possessing or handling firearms.
(b) An applicant may be verified to conduct trainings for Permits to Acquire, and may also be verified to conduct trainings for Licenses to Carry, but §21-15-29 34 an applicant shall demonstrate the required qualifications for each before being so verified. Verification as an instructor for Permits to Acquire alone does not authorize the applicant to conduct trainings for Licenses to Carry, and verification as an instructor for Licenses to Carry alone does not authorize the applicant to conduct trainings for Permits to Acquire.
(c) Absent a verification process formalized by the State of Hawaii, the Training Division shall develop clear and objective criteria to verify qualifications of applicants to become instructors, with verification to be valid for two years. Such clear and objective criteria shall require the applicant to provide evidence of the following: (1) Valid, in-person certifications by nationally recognized firearms manufacturers or organizations, demonstrating the applicant’s qualifications to use a firearm proficiently and safely and to educate others regarding the same. (2) The applicant’s ability to provide reliable certifications regarding trainees’ qualifications to the Firearms Unit. An applicant shall be disqualified if the applicant was previously convicted of any criminal offense involving dishonesty or fraud, or if the applicant was previously found liable in any civil court for any act involving dishonesty or fraud. (3) For applicants seeking verification to provide training for Permits to Acquire, the applicant’s qualifications to teach others regarding mental health, suicide prevention, and domestic violence issues associated with firearms and firearm violence. The applicant shall satisfy at least one of the following: (A) If the applicant intends to conduct this portion of the training, the applicant shall submit evidence of the applicant’s education and experience in each field. (B) If a physician, psychologist, social worker, or other health care professional licensed in Hawaii and with training and experience in these issues intends to conduct this portion of the training, the applicant shall provide the name, contact information, and qualifications of the person conducting each of these portions. (C) If the applicant intends to use one or more videos for this portion of the training, the applicant shall submit information on each video to be used. (4) For applicants seeking verification to provide training for Licenses to Carry, the applicant’s qualifications to teach others regarding the law in Hawaii on self-defense and use of force, including the requirements of chapters 134 and 703, Hawaii Revised Statutes. §21-15-29 35 (A) The applicant may conduct this portion of the training, in which case the applicant shall submit evidence of the applicant’s qualifications to provide this training. (B) Alternatively, an active attorney in good standing with the Hawaii State Bar Association may conduct this portion of the training, in which case the applicant shall provide the name, contact information, and Hawaii State Bar Association JD number. (C) The applicant shall also provide a copy of the written examination to be used. (d) As used in this section and in section 21-15-30, “applicant” means the person seeking to be verified as an instructor, “instructor” means verified instructor, and “trainee” means the person seeking training to obtain a Permit to Acquire or a License to Carry. [Eff and comp ] (Auth: HRS § 134-9; RCH § 6-1604(d)) (Imp: HRS §§ 134-2, 134-7, 134-9)
Almost feels like the Firearms instructor will carry the responsibility of liability in case one of his/her students go rogue.
Also section B talks about the qualification of Permit to acquire and License to carry instructors. Saying a PTA instructor doesn't necessarily qualify him as a LTC instructor and a LTC instructor is not necessarily qualified as a PTA instructor :crazy:
Now why the hell would that be? An LTC instructor should be well trained in all aspects of gun safety and handling. Can someone explain? Maybe I'm missing something.
HPD, the County, and this banana republik sure knows how to make mountains out of molehills. :grrr:
-
Almost feels like the Firearms instructor will carry the responsibility of liability in case one of his/her students go rogue.
Also section B talks about the qualification of Permit to acquire and License to carry instructors. Saying a PTA instructor doesn't necessarily qualify him as a LTC instructor and a LTC instructor is not necessarily qualified as a PTA instructor :crazy:
Now why the hell would that be? An LTC instructor should be well trained in all aspects of gun safety and handling. Can someone explain? Maybe I'm missing something.
HPD, the County, and this banana republik sure knows how to make mountains out of molehills. :grrr:
They will, which is why HIFICO brought it up about the mental health stuff. What's more funny is they changed the HRS (law) so a CCW instructor can no longer certify themselves. They did this because at least 2 that I know of did this and were granted their CCW's.
-
This is the part I am concerned about.
It was buried on page 34 of a 37 page document.
It requires firearms instructors to be counselors on mental health.
Subchapter 3 Instructor verifications and training certifications
§21-15-29 Instructor verifications.
(a) Each firearm certification program for Permits and each firearm certification program for Licenses shall be led by an instructor verified by the State of Hawaii or the Honolulu Police Department. An application for verification as an instructor shall be rejected if the applicant is legally prohibited from possessing or handling firearms.
(b) An applicant may be verified to conduct trainings for Permits to Acquire, and may also be verified to conduct trainings for Licenses to Carry, but §21-15-29 34 an applicant shall demonstrate the required qualifications for each before being so verified. Verification as an instructor for Permits to Acquire alone does not authorize the applicant to conduct trainings for Licenses to Carry, and verification as an instructor for Licenses to Carry alone does not authorize the applicant to conduct trainings for Permits to Acquire.
(c) Absent a verification process formalized by the State of Hawaii, the Training Division shall develop clear and objective criteria to verify qualifications of applicants to become instructors, with verification to be valid for two years. Such clear and objective criteria shall require the applicant to provide evidence of the following: (1) Valid, in-person certifications by nationally recognized firearms manufacturers or organizations, demonstrating the applicant’s qualifications to use a firearm proficiently and safely and to educate others regarding the same. (2) The applicant’s ability to provide reliable certifications regarding trainees’ qualifications to the Firearms Unit. An applicant shall be disqualified if the applicant was previously convicted of any criminal offense involving dishonesty or fraud, or if the applicant was previously found liable in any civil court for any act involving dishonesty or fraud. (3) For applicants seeking verification to provide training for Permits to Acquire, the applicant’s qualifications to teach others regarding mental health, suicide prevention, and domestic violence issues associated with firearms and firearm violence. The applicant shall satisfy at least one of the following: (A) If the applicant intends to conduct this portion of the training, the applicant shall submit evidence of the applicant’s education and experience in each field. (B) If a physician, psychologist, social worker, or other health care professional licensed in Hawaii and with training and experience in these issues intends to conduct this portion of the training, the applicant shall provide the name, contact information, and qualifications of the person conducting each of these portions. (C) If the applicant intends to use one or more videos for this portion of the training, the applicant shall submit information on each video to be used. (4) For applicants seeking verification to provide training for Licenses to Carry, the applicant’s qualifications to teach others regarding the law in Hawaii on self-defense and use of force, including the requirements of chapters 134 and 703, Hawaii Revised Statutes. §21-15-29 35 (A) The applicant may conduct this portion of the training, in which case the applicant shall submit evidence of the applicant’s qualifications to provide this training. (B) Alternatively, an active attorney in good standing with the Hawaii State Bar Association may conduct this portion of the training, in which case the applicant shall provide the name, contact information, and Hawaii State Bar Association JD number. (C) The applicant shall also provide a copy of the written examination to be used. (d) As used in this section and in section 21-15-30, “applicant” means the person seeking to be verified as an instructor, “instructor” means verified instructor, and “trainee” means the person seeking training to obtain a Permit to Acquire or a License to Carry. [Eff and comp ] (Auth: HRS § 134-9; RCH § 6-1604(d)) (Imp: HRS §§ 134-2, 134-7, 134-9)
But, that can't be right. EEF posted that instructors might only have to hand out the Suicide Hotline phone number to satisfy this part of the training.
EEF is never wrong.
-
A few days ago this section read something like Instructor(s) must teach all of the required subjects EXCEPT "Mental health"
I also ponder why ''students'' who wish to become ''applicants'' are now referred to as "Trainees".
LTC is not a training class !
This is the part I am concerned about.
It was buried on page 34 of a 37 page document.
It requires firearms instructors to be counselors on mental health.
Subchapter 3 Instructor verifications and training certifications
§21-15-29 Instructor verifications.
(a) Each firearm certification program for Permits and each firearm certification program for Licenses shall be led by an instructor verified by the State of Hawaii or the Honolulu Police Department. An application for verification as an instructor shall be rejected if the applicant is legally prohibited from possessing or handling firearms.
(b) An applicant may be verified to conduct trainings for Permits to Acquire, and may also be verified to conduct trainings for Licenses to Carry, but §21-15-29 34 an applicant shall demonstrate the required qualifications for each before being so verified. Verification as an instructor for Permits to Acquire alone does not authorize the applicant to conduct trainings for Licenses to Carry, and verification as an instructor for Licenses to Carry alone does not authorize the applicant to conduct trainings for Permits to Acquire.
(c) Absent a verification process formalized by the State of Hawaii, the Training Division shall develop clear and objective criteria to verify qualifications of applicants to become instructors, with verification to be valid for two years. Such clear and objective criteria shall require the applicant to provide evidence of the following: (1) Valid, in-person certifications by nationally recognized firearms manufacturers or organizations, demonstrating the applicant’s qualifications to use a firearm proficiently and safely and to educate others regarding the same. (2) The applicant’s ability to provide reliable certifications regarding trainees’ qualifications to the Firearms Unit. An applicant shall be disqualified if the applicant was previously convicted of any criminal offense involving dishonesty or fraud, or if the applicant was previously found liable in any civil court for any act involving dishonesty or fraud. (3) For applicants seeking verification to provide training for Permits to Acquire, the applicant’s qualifications to teach others regarding mental health, suicide prevention, and domestic violence issues associated with firearms and firearm violence. The applicant shall satisfy at least one of the following: (A) If the applicant intends to conduct this portion of the training, the applicant shall submit evidence of the applicant’s education and experience in each field. (B) If a physician, psychologist, social worker, or other health care professional licensed in Hawaii and with training and experience in these issues intends to conduct this portion of the training, the applicant shall provide the name, contact information, and qualifications of the person conducting each of these portions. (C) If the applicant intends to use one or more videos for this portion of the training, the applicant shall submit information on each video to be used. (4) For applicants seeking verification to provide training for Licenses to Carry, the applicant’s qualifications to teach others regarding the law in Hawaii on self-defense and use of force, including the requirements of chapters 134 and 703, Hawaii Revised Statutes. §21-15-29 35 (A) The applicant may conduct this portion of the training, in which case the applicant shall submit evidence of the applicant’s qualifications to provide this training. (B) Alternatively, an active attorney in good standing with the Hawaii State Bar Association may conduct this portion of the training, in which case the applicant shall provide the name, contact information, and Hawaii State Bar Association JD number. (C) The applicant shall also provide a copy of the written examination to be used. (d) As used in this section and in section 21-15-30, “applicant” means the person seeking to be verified as an instructor, “instructor” means verified instructor, and “trainee” means the person seeking training to obtain a Permit to Acquire or a License to Carry. [Eff and comp ] (Auth: HRS § 134-9; RCH § 6-1604(d)) (Imp: HRS §§ 134-2, 134-7, 134-9)
-
A few days ago this section read something like Instructor(s) must teach all of the required subjects EXCEPT "Mental health"
I also ponder why ''students'' who wish to become ''applicants'' are now referred to as "Trainees".
LTC is not a training class !
My personal guess is that they are copying and pasting from police recruit training requirements as well as from other sources.
Forcing people wanting to exercise a right to meet "professional standards" imposed on others is just another roadblock they think will make us shut up and color.
I might be wrong, but the same seemed to be the case the first go-round for the Chief's Rules.
-
This is the part I am concerned about.
It was buried on page 34 of a 37 page document.
It requires firearms instructors to be counselors on mental health.
Subchapter 3 Instructor verifications and training certifications
§21-15-29 Instructor verifications.
(a) Each firearm certification program for Permits and each firearm certification program for Licenses shall be led by an instructor verified by the State of Hawaii or the Honolulu Police Department. An application for verification as an instructor shall be rejected if the applicant is legally prohibited from possessing or handling firearms.
(b) An applicant may be verified to conduct trainings for Permits to Acquire, and may also be verified to conduct trainings for Licenses to Carry, but §21-15-29 34 an applicant shall demonstrate the required qualifications for each before being so verified. Verification as an instructor for Permits to Acquire alone does not authorize the applicant to conduct trainings for Licenses to Carry, and verification as an instructor for Licenses to Carry alone does not authorize the applicant to conduct trainings for Permits to Acquire.
(c) Absent a verification process formalized by the State of Hawaii, the Training Division shall develop clear and objective criteria to verify qualifications of applicants to become instructors, with verification to be valid for two years. Such clear and objective criteria shall require the applicant to provide evidence of the following: (1) Valid, in-person certifications by nationally recognized firearms manufacturers or organizations, demonstrating the applicant’s qualifications to use a firearm proficiently and safely and to educate others regarding the same. (2) The applicant’s ability to provide reliable certifications regarding trainees’ qualifications to the Firearms Unit. An applicant shall be disqualified if the applicant was previously convicted of any criminal offense involving dishonesty or fraud, or if the applicant was previously found liable in any civil court for any act involving dishonesty or fraud. (3) For applicants seeking verification to provide training for Permits to Acquire, the applicant’s qualifications to teach others regarding mental health, suicide prevention, and domestic violence issues associated with firearms and firearm violence. The applicant shall satisfy at least one of the following: (A) If the applicant intends to conduct this portion of the training, the applicant shall submit evidence of the applicant’s education and experience in each field. (B) If a physician, psychologist, social worker, or other health care professional licensed in Hawaii and with training and experience in these issues intends to conduct this portion of the training, the applicant shall provide the name, contact information, and qualifications of the person conducting each of these portions. (C) If the applicant intends to use one or more videos for this portion of the training, the applicant shall submit information on each video to be used. (4) For applicants seeking verification to provide training for Licenses to Carry, the applicant’s qualifications to teach others regarding the law in Hawaii on self-defense and use of force, including the requirements of chapters 134 and 703, Hawaii Revised Statutes. §21-15-29 35 (A) The applicant may conduct this portion of the training, in which case the applicant shall submit evidence of the applicant’s qualifications to provide this training. (B) Alternatively, an active attorney in good standing with the Hawaii State Bar Association may conduct this portion of the training, in which case the applicant shall provide the name, contact information, and Hawaii State Bar Association JD number. (C) The applicant shall also provide a copy of the written examination to be used. (d) As used in this section and in section 21-15-30, “applicant” means the person seeking to be verified as an instructor, “instructor” means verified instructor, and “trainee” means the person seeking training to obtain a Permit to Acquire or a License to Carry. [Eff and comp ] (Auth: HRS § 134-9; RCH § 6-1604(d)) (Imp: HRS §§ 134-2, 134-7, 134-9)
This will likely significantly increase the cost of the classes. As I read it the instructor must have some level of training (additional cost) or must outsource that portion of the class (additional cost)
It would be easier if the department just made a video that instructors could use, but that would require HPD to be interested in certifying trainers.... :wacko:
-
This will likely significantly increase the cost of the classes. As I read it the instructor must have some level of training (additional cost) or must outsource that portion of the class (additional cost)
It would be easier if the department just made a video that instructors could use, but that would require HPD to be interested in certifying trainers.... :wacko:
=====================
Let's not mince words here.
The actual intent of these rules is to make it as hard as possible for people to get ANY kind of firearm permit.
Therefore, the vaguer the rule is written, the easier it is to interpret it ANY WAY they want.
I would like to know what genius wrote this ill-conceived proposal before they figured out how it is supposed to be applied.
Furthermore, I would like to know if the person who WROTE these rules has any of the qualifications spelled out in these rules.
-
=====================
Let's not mince words here.
The actual intent of these rules is to make it as hard as possible for people to get ANY kind of firearm permit.
Therefore, the vaguer the rule is written, the easier it is to interpret it ANY WAY they want.
I would like to know what genius wrote this ill-conceived proposal before they figured out how it is supposed to be applied.
Furthermore, I would like to know if the person who WROTE these rules has any of the qualifications spelled out in these rules.
Someone who's anti 2a is writing a gun rule. Because if they were pro2A or abided/understood the constitution, all that the Chiefs rules would have is "are you a prohibited person from possessing a firearm. Yes/No"
-
=====================
Let's not mince words here.
The actual intent of these rules is to make it as hard as possible for people to get ANY kind of firearm permit.
Therefore, the vaguer the rule is written, the easier it is to interpret it ANY WAY they want.
I would like to know what genius wrote this ill-conceived proposal before they figured out how it is supposed to be applied.
Furthermore, I would like to know if the person who WROTE these rules has any of the qualifications spelled out in these rules.
I am not going to speculate on intent but of course agree that the end result is that it is harder for us either way.
It is not uncommon for high level people, be they legislators, department heads, heads of large businesses, etc. to write laws that sound good at some level but are in no way realistic towards actual implementation. Maybe they do is as a poison pill, or want lots of liability protection, or just don't think things through. Either way I hope that SCOTUS case gets decided in the way that makes all these additional rules invalid.
-
I am not going to speculate on intent but of course agree that the end result is that it is harder for us either way.
It is not uncommon for high level people, be they legislators, department heads, heads of large businesses, etc. to write laws that sound good at some level but are in no way realistic towards actual implementation. Maybe they do is as a poison pill, or want lots of liability protection, or just don't think things through. Either way I hope that SCOTUS case gets decided in the way that makes all these additional rules invalid.
Yeah, there's really no evidence that they don't want private citizens to carry a firearm in public ... I mean, other than the things they've said publicly and done before and after the Bruen decision.
Throw out all that nonsense, and their intent is just a mystery.
:rofl: :rofl:
-
#objective
Yeah, there's really no evidence that they don't want private citizens to carry a firearm in public ... I mean, other than the things they've said publicly and done before and after the Bruen decision.
Throw out all that nonsense, and their intent is just a mystery.
:rofl: :rofl:
-
I am not going to speculate on intent but of course agree that the end result is that it is harder for us either way.
Wheres the being objective?
-
Yeah, there's really no evidence that they don't want private citizens to carry a firearm in public ... I mean, other than the things they've said publicly and done before and after the Bruen decision.
Throw out all that nonsense, and their intent is just a mystery.
:rofl: :rofl:
Who is "they"?
Do whatever you want I am just saying I choose not to speculate on intent.
-
focus
no need to speculate
the bill was sponsored by the governor and passed by the legislature
and they stated their intent numerous times...
Who is "they"?
Do whatever you want I am just saying I choose not to speculate on intent.
-
focus
no need to speculate
the bill was sponsored by the governor and passed by the legislature
and they stated their intent numerous times...
Enter goal post moving next.
-
focus
no need to speculate
the bill was sponsored by the governor and passed by the legislature
and they stated their intent numerous times...
We pointed that out to him more than once, but actual statements by public officials must not carry any weight with him.
Hitler: We will rid our nation of the evil Jewish vermin.
EEF: I don't want to speculate on whether Hitler hates the Jews.
-
We pointed that out to him more than once, but actual statements by public officials must not carry any weight with him.
Hitler: We will rid our nation of the evil Jewish vermin.
EEF: I don't want to speculate on whether Hitler hates the Jews.
#objective
-
Reminder
WHen submitting written or oral testimony, remember to keep on task. Certain things are because of the law, so the chief or his rule makers cannot change this at this point. So don't spend too much time talking about it. In the rules, many times the law is referenced, so this will help show which rules are because of state law.
Also this isn't the time to go off topic and say stuff like mags bans are anti 2a or registration is anti 2a, etc...
I mean, it's your testimony, but going off topic doesn't help. Had that lady who's daughter committed suicide and she was rambling on about 30rd mags. She already sounds like a fool, but this adds to it.
Give personal examples on how the rules will impact you. Tell your story.
There are metal detectors to enter the building. So leave all knives, firearms, Tasers, etc...at home or in your car if the law allows.
There is a restroom that's available, but you must pass the metal detectors first, see above.
Last time HPD set up a TV to watch the oral testimony via their YouTube channel outside.
-
Reminder
WHen submitting written or oral testimony, remember to keep on task. Certain things are because of the law, so the chief or his rule makers cannot change this at this point. So don't spend too much time talking about it. In the rules, many times the law is referenced, so this will help show which rules are because of state law.
Also this isn't the time to go off topic and say stuff like mags bans are anti 2a or registration is anti 2a, etc...
I mean, it's your testimony, but going off topic doesn't help. Had that lady who's daughter committed suicide and she was rambling on about 30rd mags. She already sounds like a fool, but this adds to it.
Give personal examples on how the rules will impact you. Tell your story.
There are metal detectors to enter the building. So leave all knives, firearms, Tasers, etc...at home or in your car if the law allows.
There is a restroom that's available, but you must pass the metal detectors first, see above.
Last time HPD set up a TV to watch the oral testimony via their YouTube channel outside.
This is always my issue when submitting testimony. Outside of “these laws are unconstitutional” which is really me just saying “these laws suck” I don’t really know what to say.
-
This is always my issue when submitting testimony. Outside of “these laws are unconstitutional” which is really me just saying “these laws suck” I don’t really know what to say.
Explain how it affects you.
But at least u submit, many others dont even bother. Then grumble.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
focus
no need to speculate
the bill was sponsored by the governor and passed by the legislature
and they stated their intent numerous times...
Are we speaking about individuals or about the decision as a whole?
That is the problem when looking at a law and trying to claim intent, if you have a bunch of legislator vote yes on a bill that doesn't mean they all have the same intent. One senator could have one intent while another senator could vote for the same law with a very different intent. So how do we say "The" intent is any one specific thing? I do believe that some individual legislators have such specific intent.
What did our legislators say specifically? Did they say that they want gun permits to be as hard to get as possible? Did they say that they made it vague on purpose so they could interpret it any way they want? (Those are the two things old fart stated that I was replying to.
-
Are we speaking about individuals or about the decision as a whole?
That is the problem when looking at a law and trying to claim intent, if you have a bunch of legislator vote yes on a bill that doesn't mean they all have the same intent. One senator could have one intent while another senator could vote for the same law with a very different intent. So how do we say "The" intent is any one specific thing? I do believe that some individual legislators have such specific intent.
What did our legislators say specifically? Did they say that they want gun permits to be as hard to get as possible? Did they say that they made it vague on purpose so they could interpret it any way they want? (Those are the two things old fart stated that I was replying to.
focus
you replied to my quote
"the bill was sponsored by the governor and passed by the legislature
and they stated their intent numerous times..."
sorry if i didn't add more "maybes" and "perhaps" so you would see how "objective" i am trying to be
the governor specifically said that people have the right to feel safe
and more guns on the street means less safety
the governor sponsored the bill, and he had key legislators at his side that repeated the same thing more than once
-
Are we speaking about individuals or about the decision as a whole?
That is the problem when looking at a law and trying to claim intent, if you have a bunch of legislator vote yes on a bill that doesn't mean they all have the same intent. One senator could have one intent while another senator could vote for the same law with a very different intent. So how do we say "The" intent is any one specific thing? I do believe that some individual legislators have such specific intent.
What did our legislators say specifically? Did they say that they want gun permits to be as hard to get as possible? Did they say that they made it vague on purpose so they could interpret it any way they want? (Those are the two things old fart stated that I was replying to.
Ready to move goalpost.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
I mentioned before, didn't I?
Basic war strategy is to get rid of instructors and politicians first.
Invalidating the credentials of firearm instructors is one method to quash the pro-gun community.
Next on the hit list are community leaders, like the supervisory range officers at KHSC and admin on this forum and then shooting clubs.
Simultaneously, journalists would be on the hit list too. Pity the reporter that disputes Logan's claim that crime is down here in Hawaii.
Basically, the idea is to quash any criticism of police or political leaders.
You would notice that the bulletin boards at the range are gone.
Shooting club gatherings have been halted for quite some time now.
The range shuts down at 4pm eliminating any club social-type gatherings.
-
Persons wishing to submit written testimony in advance
may do so by emailing their testimony to :
HPDLTC@honolulu.gov
-
Persons wishing to submit written testimony in advance
may do so by emailing their testimony to :
HPDLTC@honolulu.gov
thanks
-
I’m wondering what do we get out of the rules meeting? Is there good that can come out of this? If the laws are already passed by Congress what are we testifying for?
-
I’m wondering what do we get out of the rules meeting? Is there good that can come out of this? If the laws are already passed by Congress what are we testifying for?
Showing face via in person or test.
No grumble if u dont do either.
But u are correct, i think this one's fate is in because the rules have already been redone last year. So minor tweeks to it.
Last years test, we got rid of the type 2 holster.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
I have a hard time understanding the way bills are written but I want to submit a testimony. Can someone please help what main ones we should testify for/against? And what does the strike throughs mean in the bill?
-
I have a hard time understanding the way bills are written but I want to submit a testimony. Can someone please help what main ones we should testify for/against? And what does the strike throughs mean in the bill?
A strike thru means that part is deleted.
An underline means its being added.
None of the above means its im the existing version and not being changed.
For this rules hearing, u have to email them. Also if u want to show up in person is good too.
Read the rules and write how any changes affect you. Keep in mind that if that part references the law (hrs), then its too late to change. 1 example is how the law doesnt require a handgun safety class, but the chiefs rules is.
If u get overwhelmed, just say u opposse all additions due to it being due soon.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
Right on cmo66 :shaka:
Thank you for explaining.
-
A strike thru means that part is deleted.
An underline means its being added.
None of the above means its im the existing version and not being changed.
For this rules hearing, u have to email them. Also if u want to show up in person is good too.
Read the rules and write how any changes affect you. Keep in mind that if that part references the law (hrs), then its too late to change. 1 example is how the law doesnt require a handgun safety class, but the chiefs rules is.
If u get overwhelmed, just say u opposse all additions due to it being due soon.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Wait the new handgun safety class requirement is the chiefs rule? It wasn’t required by Congress?
-
Wait the new handgun safety class requirement is the chiefs rule? It wasn’t required by Congress?
wasnt req by law, chiefs rules is adding it for ccw. Unless i missed it. Someone can verify?
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
wasnt req by law, chiefs rules is adding it for ccw. Unless i missed it. Someone can verify?
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
What about to acquire a handgun? Is that chiefs rules as well?
-
What about to acquire a handgun? Is that chiefs rules as well?
Yes. But doesnt look like anything meaningful added.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
Yes. But doesnt look like anything meaningful added.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
I’m confused because someone around here was saying that none of this was HPDs fault. Something like if HPD could make the process easier they would and that HPDs hands are tied by the legislature. So HPD is making everyone retake a handgun safety class to purchase a new handgun? If it is this really helps what I will be putting into my online testimony.
-
I’m confused because someone around here was saying that none of this was HPDs fault. Something like if HPD could make the process easier they would and that HPDs hands are tied by the legislature. So HPD is making everyone retake a handgun safety class to purchase a new handgun? If it is this really helps what I will be putting into my online testimony.
For sb1230, hpd testified (chief logan and other hpd) that sensitive places is hard to enforce. They never said its unconstitutional or that they wont enforce it. They never stated theyre against sensitive places or to not pass this portion.
The other areas, they were silent on as sb1230 redid much of the current law.
They did begin their written test with "hpd supports the intent of this bill..."
But never stated they are against it.
This is a change from the past few years where hpd pretty much supported majority of the anti 2a bills.
If u look back in the legal section, i usually put what hpd said during the hearings.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
I’m confused because someone around here was saying that none of this was HPDs fault. Something like if HPD could make the process easier they would and that HPDs hands are tied by the legislature. So HPD is making everyone retake a handgun safety class to purchase a new handgun? If it is this really helps what I will be putting into my online testimony.
Hpd doesnt make law, but enforces it.
Like other moments in history, we have seen what happens when authority figures "obey orders" or "just enforcing the law".
Imagine if hpd said they wont enforce this law. But then again, the chief of police is a politican position.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
https://www.honolulupd.org/police-services/firearms/?fbclid=IwAR1uHfe0BRazX-JZiQ-iPhO6fFDoTUwVAUegFW6rQD7eiGUvQTvlfirpZ2M
Click proposed rules link.
Click on public hearing notice
Written testimony can be submitted to :
HPDLTC@honolulu.gov
testimony submitted
-
I've submitted mine.
Thanks for providing the information.
-
It appears that "they" are trying to put as many "names" on a firearms application as possible. It's an age old strategy of intimidation by extending the reach of liability, sometimes, far beyond reason. Attorney's also do something similar by "naming as many defendants as possible" in civil cases.
What's concerning to me about this, is that people pursuing a LTC are subject to prejudice over other legal and illegal gun owners. When an illegal gun owner uses a gun in commission of a crime, no one successfully pursues all elements of that gun-related crime because of things like qualified immunity--they just blame the gun. When a gun owner defends their home from within its walls, there are statutes that protect them. However, the mere act of carrying in public exposes you and everyone who "signed off" on your application to indiscriminate amounts of prosecution and litigation.
A great majority of crimes are committed by illegal guns and illegal gun owners outside of the home, however, the proposed changes do not specifically address this. The argument is always that they are trying to keep guns out of the hands of people who don't have them, yet, none of these changes clearly demonstrate how it will accomplish this. What it does accomplish, is limiting the ability for law-abiding citizens to carry by disrupting their ability to complete this "Chain of Certifications" by extending gun-related liability far beyond the owner themselves. (Rhetorical questions) If a police officer engages in domestic violence off duty, you don't see the victims lawsuit naming the officer, police department, police academy instructors, vocational insurers, medical insurers, department psychologist, Sergeant, Lt., Chief, Mayor, and Gov all being named? Why does a private citizen need the potential endorsement of half a dozen people before they even become a liability?
-
Testimony submitted regarding amendment of Chapter 15 of the Rules of the Chief of Police, HPD, entitled “Firearms Permits and Licenses.” §§15-12 – 15-28 (last amended in Nov. 2022), and add new rules (§§15-29 to 15-31) to comply with Act 52 (2023). Implement Act 52 as to the application process, background checks, renewal process, fees, and forms for licenses to carry, permits to acquire, and registration of firearms;
“To conquer a nation, first disarm its citizens.” ― Adolf Hitler
These unreasonable and overly stringent firearms restrictions on Hawaii’s law-abiding citizens rights are clearly an infringement of guaranteed 2nd Amendment rights which are protected from government infringement and overreach by the Bill of Rights. The BOR was written to clarify the concept that government works for its citizens, not the other way around.
Some argue that the second amendment is no longer relevant or that it was written only for outdated militias. The most valid arguments against this are from two people who actually wrote the Constitution. “The Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.” - Samuel Adams. Thomas Jefferson wrote, ”The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.” The author’s intentions could not be clearer.
But, setting these indisputable constitutional facts aside, the matter is simple. Does anyone – ANYONE honestly believe that criminals will abide by any of these past, present, or additional future restrictions that are being proposed? Of course not.
Then, who will be affected? It is exclusively law-abiding citizens who have the guaranteed right to equal means of self-protection, protection of their families, and the protection of their property from those outlaws who are illegally and effortlessly armed. Will these new proposals make it even more difficult for law-abiding citizens to obtain firearms for self-protection or hunting? Of course they will.
Are criminals careful to avoid having firearms in “sensitive places”? Has any convicted felon ever registered their firearms at police headquarters, waited for weeks, taken a gun safety course, applied for a permit to acquire, completed a test of any kind, filled out eleven pages of forms, been mentally approved by a doctor, paid fees, or been certified by any governmental entity to buy or possess a firearm? Of course not. Criminals will continue to successfully do what they have always done – buy their guns instantly from other criminals. No legislation, rules, or laws will stop or even restrict that. Never has, never will.
It is not possible for the police to protect all of us from gun-wielding repeat outlaws, the insane, or judgement impaired drug addicts. By the time police can respond, the harm is completed, leaving police with the function of filling out paperwork after the crime. That is not good enough. That is not acceptable. That is not constitutional. But, moreover, it is not fair to law-abiding citizens. As the cliche states, “Criminals prefer unarmed victims.” So true!
What then is the solution to crimes committed by felons with firearms, other than more “gun control”? Rather than attempting to restrict good citizens’ rights, or blame inanimate objects which cannot commit a crime, then permanently jail felons who use firearms to commit their crimes. It is criminals who commit crimes – NOT firearms, and NOT law-abiding citizens. Again, simple common sense must prevail.
Testimony submitted by Robert W. Hochstein
-
Imagine all the resources: money, manpower, effort, and planning would go to the real source of the problem which is the criminal element and mental health.
Imagine using all those resources to incarcerate and punish crimes against innocent citizens.
Just imagine what progress it would achieve.
Then forget it. It's a pipe dream.
-
they are still accepting email testimony until midnight tonight...
-
Submitted!
-
Kit n Gun says the new requirements are necessary and good. He thanked hpd.
Ill never shop at his store.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
Submitted
Sent from my moto g power (2021) using Tapatalk
-
If the chief's rules stands, would Hawaii be the most expensive state to get a CW license? That's a lot of money to dish out every 4 years.
woo hoo.
-
Kit n Gun says the new requirements are necessary and good. He thanked hpd.
Ill never shop at his store.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
I've shopped there and like Kit generally. But this is disappointing to hear.
-
I see a fracturing 2A community thanks to this bill. What a shame with there being so little of us.
-
If the chief's rules stands, would Hawaii be the most expensive state to get a CW license? That's a lot of money to dish out every 4 years.
woo hoo.
Probably in the top 25% somewhere. Top is likely New York with a $340+$88 every 3 years. California is $205 for 2 years. Average is around $100.
The $50 renewal fee is probably lower than average.
Remember to spread the word that low income people can get it for free. Lot of people don't know about that.
-
Recap:
Going by memory so bare with me.
Gun stores present:
Young Guns
Danger Close Tactical
Peter Abraham (FFL)
Kit n Gun
Instructors present:
Urban Island Tactical (Andrew Roberts)
Kit n Gun
Darren Madrid
Butch Halemano
Peter Abraham
Young Guns instructors, I forgot their name (husband and wife, not Martha and her husband)
1 more Filipino guy who went last is a CCW instructor, I forgot his name
1 anti gun person there, the lady who's daughter committed suicide. Now she said her daughter was shot in the back of the head, wrapped in a sheet and put in the bathtub. Her husband who owned the gun got away on a loop hole. She brought a pic of her daughter. Police ruled was a suicide.
3 pro chiefs rules and HI law requirements for CCW/handgun were present. Kit n Gun, Darren Madrid, and the Filipino guy I mentioned in the CCW instructor section. They all felt the rules/new requirements are good.
Many people against this bill spoke about the law and not about areas the chief rules are able to change. The law portion needs to go thru the legislative process instead and not this hearing.
Kevin Cole the new NRA-ILA Hawaii rep was outside. He began in November 2023. He lives in HI and will be handling lawsuit/legislative stuff. Prior it was a guy named Daniel who was the West Cost NRA-ILA rep who would submit testimony and attend hearings in person (precovid) and via zoom (during covid and post covid).
A good bunch of reserve HPD on site and plain clothes. Todays turnout had like 40 people. Very small compared to last years chiefs rules hearing. The chief didn't mingle outside this time.
Somethign new was when you enter past the metal detectors, they put your info via your ID into a computer.
From what the verbal testimonies were, I don't expect any changes to be made.
-
I see a fracturing 2A community thanks to this bill. What a shame with there being so little of us.
This rules hearing showed who the fudds are.
-
ahhhh..... :grrr: pau already. Chief rules will stand. it's done. nobody better cry.
You pay big money. Then if or when you get into a self defense altercation, spend some more money. Lots and lots of money.
Just like Vegas games, odds are against you.
-
ahhhh..... :grrr: pau already. Chief rules will stand. it's done. nobody better cry.
You pay big money. Then if or when you get into a self defense altercation, spend some more money. Lots and lots of money.
Just like Vegas games, odds are against you.
I expect this to work out just as well as the ban on fireworks, drugs, and prostitution
-
Recap:
Instructors present:
Urban Island Tactical (Andrew Roberts)
Kit n Gun
Darren Madrid
Butch Halemano
Peter Abraham
Young Guns instructors, I forgot their name (husband and wife, not Martha and her husband)
1 more Filipino guy who went last is a CCW instructor, I forgot his name
Sorry, Dr. appointment. :'(
-
Instructors present:
Young Guns instructors, I forgot their name (husband and wife, not Martha and her husband)
Roanne and Greg?
-
4got
Had a lady in a nra hat going from cop to cop and recording them asking about free speech.
She then refused to give an ID to enter as its unconstitutional. She was told she can log in as annonmyious.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
Roanne and Greg?
Sounds like their names.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
Many people against this bill spoke about the law and not about areas the chief rules are able to change. The law portion needs to go thru the legislative process instead and not this hearing.
See this is what I was getting at when I asked what we should be testifying about. I don’t think many people know/knew that the handgun safety class requirement was NOT part of the law passed by Congress. I sure as hell didn’t until I asked. And I bet a lot of people testifying were just bitching about the new laws which probably did nothing to change anyone’s mind. It’s all very frustrating.
-
See this is what I was getting at when I asked what we should be testifying about. I don’t think many people know/knew that the handgun safety class requirement was NOT part of the law passed by Congress. I sure as hell didn’t until I asked. And I bet a lot of people testifying were just bitching about the new laws which probably did nothing to change anyone’s mind. It’s all very frustrating.
One minor technical point which doesn't change anything you posted.
The Hawaii State Legislature is made up of a House and a Senate.
Congress is at the federal level.
I only mention it since I saw you mention this before.
:shaka:
-
One minor technical point which doesn't change anything you posted.
The Hawaii State Legislature is made up of a House and a Senate.
Congress is at the federal level.
I only mention it since I saw you mention this before.
:shaka:
Ahh thank you sir.
-
I emailed my testimony earlier, but got no confirmation is was received by anyone. Is there a registry of testimonies?
-
I emailed my testimony earlier, but got no confirmation is was received by anyone. Is there a registry of testimonies?
I didn't get a confirmation either. Sign of things to come?
-
I emailed my testimony earlier, but got no confirmation is was received by anyone. Is there a registry of testimonies?
It's been posted on the HPD firearms webpage. About a 60/40 pro 2a.
-
Kevin Cole the new NRA-ILA Hawaii rep was outside. He began in November 2023. He lives in HI and will be handling lawsuit/legislative stuff. Prior it was a guy named Daniel who was the West Cost NRA-ILA rep who would submit testimony and attend hearings in person (precovid) and via zoom (during covid and post covid).
A good bunch of reserve HPD on site and plain clothes. Todays turnout had like 40 people. Very small compared to last years chiefs rules hearing. The chief didn't mingle outside this time.
Kevin Cole is a resident here and volunteer coordinating the activism. We haven't had a person doing that for a while. Last was Harvey Gerwig.
-
is he repping HRA? NRA-ILA? both?
Kevin Cole is a resident here and volunteer coordinating the activism. We haven't had a person doing that for a while. Last was Harvey Gerwig.
-
is he repping HRA? NRA-ILA? both?
NRA-ILA
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
Remember to spread the word that low income people can get it for free. Lot of people don't know about that.
I think the HPD fee can be waived. I'm not sure about the private sector fees.
-
focus
you replied to my quote
"the bill was sponsored by the governor and passed by the legislature
and they stated their intent numerous times..."
sorry if i didn't add more "maybes" and "perhaps" so you would see how "objective" i am trying to be
the governor specifically said that people have the right to feel safe
and more guns on the street means less safety
the governor sponsored the bill, and he had key legislators at his side that repeated the same thing more than once
You are still lumping together the whole legislature. You could easily argue the governor's intent is plain, that is not so easy to do for legislators since they can each vote for their own reasons and don't always state their intent in voting for the bill. Thus I won't speculate on their intent as a whole, what really matters is the result.
-
have you ever made a definitive statement in your entire life?
You are still lumping together the whole legislature. You could easily argue the governor's intent is plain, that is not so easy to do for legislators since they can each vote for their own reasons and don't always state their intent in voting for the bill. Thus I won't speculate on their intent as a whole, what really matters is the result.
-
My dad who was anti 2a, but not like protest against it or donate money to MDA/ET types of orgs. Just a no guns in the house and guns are bad. But over the years, he's slowly been changing. Recently when we talked about active shooters, instead of him saying to ban guns, he said to shoot back cause bad guys dont' obey laws.
He watched the hearing and agreed that the rules and law sounds unconstitutional. I didn't get to explain in detail yet, but he gets that why should someone need a class to exercise a right. The example he used is you don't need to take a test to exercise free speech.
-
You are still lumping together the whole legislature. You could easily argue the governor's intent is plain, that is not so easy to do for legislators since they can each vote for their own reasons and don't always state their intent in voting for the bill. Thus I won't speculate on their intent as a whole, what really matters is the result.
#whataboutism
#objective
-
The young man who testified that his wife has a CCW license from another state but of course hawaii has no reciprocity.
I felt for him and his wife when he testified that she goes into work everyday at 4 in the am in a questionable vicinity.
How long and how much money will this woman have to dish out and endure before she can exercise her right to defend herself?
I hope Chief Logan considers this situation when he contemplates his "new rules". ::)
If something happened to this woman in the meantime, would he be able to sleep at night?
If she were to request police escort everyday she goes to work until her CCW is granted, would he comply?
He should if he's gonna implement these stupid rules.
-
Didnt know they posted all written testimonies, they redact the email but not your name. Does it matter if you submit a written testimony as anonymous?
-
have you ever made a definitive statement in your entire life?
When something can be said definitively, yes.
-
My dad who was anti 2a, but not like protest against it or donate money to MDA/ET types of orgs. Just a no guns in the house and guns are bad. But over the years, he's slowly been changing. Recently when we talked about active shooters, instead of him saying to ban guns, he said to shoot back cause bad guys dont' obey laws.
He watched the hearing and agreed that the rules and law sounds unconstitutional. I didn't get to explain in detail yet, but he gets that why should someone need a class to exercise a right. The example he used is you don't need to take a test to exercise free speech.
That is wonderful to hear and exactly why I don't think we should alienate moderates.
-
(https://res.cloudinary.com/teepublic/image/private/s--UZNruEIi--/c_crop,x_10,y_10/c_fit,w_1109/c_crop,g_north_west,h_1260,w_1260,x_-76,y_-97/co_rgb:6ec5e7,e_colorize,u_Misc:One%20Pixel%20Gray/c_scale,g_north_west,h_1260,w_1260/fl_layer_apply,g_north_west,x_-76,y_-97/bo_0px_solid_white/t_Resized%20Artwork/c_fit,g_north_west,h_1054,w_1054/co_ffffff,e_outline:53/co_ffffff,e_outline:inner_fill:53/co_bbbbbb,e_outline:3:1000/c_mpad,g_center,h_1260,w_1260/b_rgb:eeeeee/c_limit,f_auto,h_630,q_90,w_630/v1621696500/production/designs/22013528_0.jpg)
-
That is wonderful to hear and exactly why I don't think we should alienate moderates.
Hes still very DNC supporting. Just not on the 2a. Idk if this still makes him a liberal.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
Hes still very DNC supporting. Just not on the 2a. Idk if this still makes him a liberal.
Good rebuttal.
Who said he's a "moderate?"
Sounds like a Democrat who likes the 2A from a capitalism viewpoint -- nothing more.
He's praising more government requirements and financial costs before a right can be exercised. Not very moderate, in my opinion.
There's no data to support the belief that mandatory training increases gun safety and reduces gun deaths. Most who don't know about guns seek out training from friends, coworkers spouses and of course paid trainers. Mandating it doesn't change that by any large margin.
However, it's a fact that the poorest residents, who almost always live in high crime areas, can't afford all the training required to carry. The law keeps guns out of the hands of the lower classes while ensuring only the "haves" can legally carry.
-
We don’t want to burn people, but we do need to try and snap them out of their trance
(https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F1618fa46-bfbd-4b11-8e2e-9bad242b626a_952x678.png?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email)
-
When something can be said definitively, yes.
You should start a thought experiment thread on that.
i'd love to see your list of definitive statements.
-
#providingnuance
You should start a thought experiment thread on that.
i'd love to see your list of definitive statements.
-
Hes still very DNC supporting. Just not on the 2a. Idk if this still makes him a liberal.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
But he is taking steps in the right direction, he is moderating his position. Thats good reason not to alienate him.
I wouldn't define someone as liberal or conservative based on any single issue, I would just generally call someone like your dad a moderate. Maybe that isn't technically accurate though because one could hold far left and far right extreme ideas with no moderate stances?
-
You should start a thought experiment thread on that.
i'd love to see your list of definitive statements.
I like to be sure when I state something as being the case. What is so wrong with that?
-
I like to be sure when I state something as being the case. What is so wrong with that?
It Ain’t What You Don’t Know That Gets You Into Trouble.
It’s What You Know for Sure That Just Ain’t So.
-
It Ain’t What You Don’t Know That Gets You Into Trouble.
It’s What You Know for Sure That Just Ain’t So.
Thats pretty much my position. Got a problem with that?
-
But he is taking steps in the right direction, he is moderating his position. Thats good reason not to alienate him.
I wouldn't define someone as liberal or conservative based on any single issue, I would just generally call someone like your dad a moderate. Maybe that isn't technically accurate though because one could hold far left and far right extreme ideas with no moderate stances?
I will give you a pass on this one since I didn't really post much recently on my dads political views. I was asking about him being what you call moderate because I never fully looked into its meaning.
My dad I would say is still liberal. He has voted for everyone who's won elections in HI (DNC). The only thing he really disagrees with is the 2A because I have been talking to him about it since 2016.
Even if my dad still hated the 2A, I would never alienate him because he's my dad. He still supports his vote for Biden and Trump is bad and guilty of everything the media states. He will vote for Biden again if he runs this year. I never did the "gotcha" when the Russian Hoax was proved to be false after the Mueller report or other Trump related witch hunts.
-
Thats pretty much my position. Got a problem with that?
Why are you so argumentative all the time -- even when you like what I posted?
I think you need to take longer breaks from the forum. You obviously have some emotional issues to work on.
-
I will give you a pass on this one since I didn't really post much recently on my dads political views. I was asking about him being what you call moderate because I never fully looked into its meaning.
My dad I would say is still liberal. He has voted for everyone who's won elections in HI (DNC). The only thing he really disagrees with is the 2A because I have been talking to him about it since 2016.
Even if my dad still hated the 2A, I would never alienate him because he's my dad. He still supports his vote for Biden and Trump is bad and guilty of everything the media states. He will vote for Biden again if he runs this year. I never did the "gotcha" when the Russian Hoax was proved to be false after the Mueller report or other Trump related witch hunts.
In all fairness, a moderate isn't exactly some label with clear lines that are universally understood. I call myself a moderate because I lean left on a few issues while I lean right on a lot more issues but others may use that word a little differently.
Of course you would not alienate your dad even if he had strong views against the second amendment, I was not trying to imply anything different. I only thought that your dad was a good example because he "came around" and I think that would have been less likely if people had alienated him for his stance on guns.
In the end of that video with the fat militia guy and the lady holding the sign protesting there was the protesting lady talking to one of the militia guys having a conversation. They parted ways disagreeing I am sure but she thanked them for the cookie they gave to her. I highly doubt that cookie will change her mind on guns but it could be the seed that changes her mind on them. If that little step breaks down the walls of her defenses a little and she sees them as a normal person instead of some militia wacko. That could lead to her doing some introspection or future conversations which might temper her stance. However if they alienated her I think there would be much less chance of her changing her mind and that is why I think it is better not to alienate people.
-
Why are you so argumentative all the time -- even when you like what I posted?
I think you need to take longer breaks from the forum. You obviously have some emotional issues to work on.
You are really going to ask me why I am so argumentative? You of all people?
I didn't even argue with what you posted.
-
You are really going to ask me why I am so argumentative? You of all people?
I didn't even argue with what you posted.
Show me where I said you argued with what i posted.
Now you want to argue about whether or not you are arguing?
Adding, Got a problem with that? was just you being agreeable.
My mistake.
-
Show me where I said you argued with what i posted.
Now you want to argue about whether or not you are arguing?
Adding, Got a problem with that? was just you being agreeable.
My mistake.
If you quote my statement and then ask me why I am so argumentative the direct implication is that you think I was arguing with you. You are just trolling. You may think you are as funny as Monty Pythin but you aren't.
:stopjack:
-
If you quote my statement and then ask me why I am so argumentative the direct implication is that you think I was arguing with you. You are just trolling. You may think you are as funny as Monty Pythin but you aren't.
:stopjack:
Monty Python, not "Pythin."
You can't even insult me without showing how pathetic you are.
:rofl: :rofl:.
-
New rules were signed on 1/12. Looks like everything they added stayed in, but I didn't review the instructor portion of the rules.
So you need a handgun safety course to get your CCW and still need to take the CCW course.
-
Every criminal in the state is scrambling to obey and comply as soon as possible.
-
Monty Python, not "Pythin."
You can't even insult me without showing how pathetic you are.
:rofl: :rofl:.
What a devastating comeback, don't think I can withstand someone pointing out a typo. :stopjack:
-
What a devastating comeback, don't think I can withstand someone pointing out a typo. :stopjack:
Since u replied, no u cant withstand it.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
Since u replied, no u cant withstand it.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Sarcasm is hard....
-
Sarcasm is hard....
Wrong.