2aHawaii
General Topics => Legal and Activism => Topic started by: hvybarrels on February 19, 2026, 01:40:14 PM
-
Governor Green is about to become King Green
They obviously have something truly horrible planned for us, but first they have to pass the tyranny package.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/hawaii-bills-would-allow-govt-quarantine-people-enter-property-seize-firearms-suspend
God help us if this passes.
-
Mr. Heavy, maybe a better title for this thread is
Hawaii Plans for Statewide Concentration Camps - Full Suspension of Civil Rights
“The Hawaii Legislature is advancing companion legislation that would formally codify sweeping emergency powers for the governor and county officials—including authority to quarantine individuals, enter private property without consent, suspend laws, and seize control of infrastructure—under the justification of preparing for future disasters and disease outbreaks.”
This all happens at Green’s sole order ….
COVID WAS THE TEMPLATE
The legislation explicitly cites COVID-19 as justification for strengthening emergency authority, stating:
“The COVID-19 pandemic highlights the importance of clear legal frameworks for state and county emergency management to ensure that the State and counties are ready for any type of emergency.”
Sponsors & Bill Info
(https://www.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inline-images/httpssubstack-post-media.s3.amaz%20%2810%29_10.jpg?itok=XKQVo8A6)
(https://www.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inline-images/httpssubstack-post-media.s3.amaz%20%2811%29_10.jpg?itok=0s9RgGe7)
Read the article Mr. Heavy posted above, and
if 4-alarm fire alarms are not going off in your head here - WAKE UP AND SMELL DEVIL’S ISLAND, MR. PAPILLON
Oppose this with everything you got, or gtf off this rock!
-
Just a FYI, the firearm portion 127-14 (12) is already law.
-
God help us if this passes.
Well, since Supreme Soviet Green demands it, and both House and Senate are shoving it through, even if somehow it dies this session, it unambiguously screams out their intentions, and makes it impossible continue with any fiction that the people here are viewed as anything other than serfs and vassals by the ruling junta.
It confirms everything us conspiracy theorists believed about them during COVID. They wanted their final solution to free men and women here so bad they could taste it. Probably only the money guys held them back - you know, “bad for tourism” - back when they still gave a shit about that…
-
Just a FYI, the firearm portion 127-14 (12) is already law.
This appears to override the prohibition against firearm confiscation during emergencies they passed years ago - but did they already kill that?
My apologies, but I’m not sufficiently up to date on our various degrees of tyranny over time here, so don’t feel the need for much explanation - mahalo!
-
Just a FYI, the firearm portion 127-14 (12) is already law.
What was the point of that? Wait for a chicken to sneeze so they can start a civl war?
-
Can anyone say "Baaa......Baaaa....."? If you can, you are hopeless.
The Scamdemic always was a control the masses exercise. And it now has moved forward from social engineering experiment to a full on Fire Mission.
-
This bill is being read wrong and it limits the Governor's powers during emergencies. The underlined portions are the changes, the rest is existing law. This doesn't change firearms law.
You can tell since Elijah Pierick and 2 other repubs are bill sponsors.
-
This is the official website bill to read. https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=HB&billnumber=2236&year=2026
-
This bill is being read wrong and it limits the Governor's powers during emergencies. The underlined portions are the changes, the rest is existing law. This doesn't change firearms law.
You can tell since Elijah Pierick and 2 other repubs are bill sponsors.
Hold on now - this is from the HD1 version, copied directly from the link. The bold is my edit:
“(12) Except as provided in section 134-7.2, whenever in the governor's opinion, the laws of the State do not adequately provide for the common defense, public health, safety, and welfare, investigate, regulate, or prohibit the storage, transportation, use, possession, maintenance, furnishing, sale, or distribution of, as well as any transaction related to, explosives, firearms, and ammunition, inflammable materials and other objects, implements, substances, businesses, or services of a hazardous or dangerous character, or particularly capable of misuse, or obstructive of or tending to obstruct law enforcement, emergency management, or military operations, including intoxicating liquor and the liquor business; and authorize the seizure and forfeiture of any objects, implements, or substances unlawfully possessed, as provided in this chapter.”
In the Governor’s OPINION????????????
I don’t think it’s being read incorrectly at all.
-
This bill is being read wrong and it limits the Governor's powers during emergencies. The underlined portions are the changes, the rest is existing law. This doesn't change firearms law.
You can tell since Elijah Pierick and 2 other repubs are bill sponsors.
So the governor can send his goons on your property, take all your stuff and lock you up because he suspects you might have been exposed to something, and the “pushback” is to put a time limit on it and give 2/3 of the ledge veto power?
No wonder so many people don’t register their guns here. Now that I found out about this I don’t even want the government to know I have a rain barrel.
-
So the governor can send his goons on your property, take all your stuff and lock you up because he suspects you might have been exposed to something, and the “pushback” is to put a time limit on it and give 2/3 of the ledge veto power?
No wonder so many people don’t register their guns here. Now that I found out about this I don’t even want the government to know I have a rain barrel.
Now hold on son.
They just demand the unlimited authority to do these things.
It’s not like they would actually ever execute on it to the fullest extent possible when the spirit moves them.
Now let’s all get back to watching that fat couple on Island Life Live stuff their faces with stuff on TV, shall we?
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fbloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com%2Fkitv.com%2Fcontent%2Ftncms%2Fassets%2Fv3%2Feditorial%2F8%2F46%2F846c97e8-9eec-5b3b-9608-4dde0cf35310%2F68b0d5728c049.image.jpg%3Fcrop%3D1280%252C672%252C0%252C23%26resize%3D1200%252C630%26order%3Dcrop%252Cresize&f=1&ipt=7823a0c1c150b296602fc2f8c095d44a9c40a58f946ce4dd57d8651cfd3f1be7)
-
So the governor can send his goons on your property, take all your stuff and lock you up because he suspects you might have been exposed to something, and the “pushback” is to put a time limit on it and give 2/3 of the ledge veto power?
No wonder so many people don’t register their guns here. Now that I found out about this I don’t even want the government to know I have a rain barrel.
Anyhoo, I guess all those protests of thousands of us in Waikiki during COVID - which were all explicitly NOT reported on by the local media, along with our 2A mobilization last year - clearly made a big impression…
-
The NON-UNDERLINED wording is EXISTING LAW currently in effect. This legislative bill is changing the UNDERLINED WORDING to restrict the governor's current powers.
What everyone is complaining about in here is already current law, stuff that was passed in the legislature in prior years. This was very bad and worthy of complaints. But talk about the "UNDERLINED" sections of the law they are trying to change now.
These are instructions on how to read the bill properly: https://lrb.hawaii.gov/par/overview-of-the-legislative-process/types-of-measures-bills-resolutions-messages/anatomy-of-a-bill/
(https://i.postimg.cc/QtC2rt0J/Screenshot-2026-02-20-062903.jpg)
-
Hold on now - this is from the HD1 version, copied directly from the link. The bold is my edit:
“(12) Except as provided in section 134-7.2, whenever in the governor's opinion, the laws of the State do not adequately provide for the common defense, public health, safety, and welfare, investigate, regulate, or prohibit the storage, transportation, use, possession, maintenance, furnishing, sale, or distribution of, as well as any transaction related to, explosives, firearms, and ammunition, inflammable materials and other objects, implements, substances, businesses, or services of a hazardous or dangerous character, or particularly capable of misuse, or obstructive of or tending to obstruct law enforcement, emergency management, or military operations, including intoxicating liquor and the liquor business; and authorize the seizure and forfeiture of any objects, implements, or substances unlawfully possessed, as provided in this chapter.”
In the Governor’s OPINION????????????
I don’t think it’s being read incorrectly at all.
What you quote is existing law that is already currently in effect and passed a couple years ago.
-
If you don't understand what I'm explaining. Understand that I have the most knowledge of anyone in Hawaii on 2A legislative affairs for the past 10 years and the the most conservative republican in the legislature, Elijah Pierrick, who is very strict on voting for 2A, individual, and religious rights, sponsors and fully supports this bill being mentioned, along with 2 other Republicans. They are trying to restrict the Governor's current emergency powers with this bill. An OPPOSE testimony will allow more of the BAD THINGS TO HAPPEN. A SUPPORT testimony will put some limits on the current emergency powers you are complaining about.
-
If you don't understand what I'm explaining. Understand that I have the most knowledge of anyone in Hawaii on 2A legislative affairs for the past 10 years and the the most conservative republican in the legislature, Elijah Pierrick, who is very strict on voting for 2A, individual, and religious rights, sponsors and fully supports this bill being mentioned, along with 2 other Republicans. They are trying to restrict the Governor's current emergency powers with this bill. An OPPOSE testimony will allow more of the BAD THINGS TO HAPPEN. A SUPPORT testimony will put some limits on the current emergency powers you are complaining about.
As Mr. Heavy referred to above - a nice underlined section:
“The governor or mayor shall proclaim the termination of a state of emergency or local state of emergency, respectively, at the earliest possible date that conditions warrant.
(e) The legislature may, by an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the members to which each house is entitled, terminate a state of emergency, in part or in whole, declared by the governor pursuant to this section.
(f) The county council may, by an affirmative vote of two-thirds, terminate a local state of emergency, in part or in whole, declared by the mayor pursuant to this section."
Very comforting indeed.
I absolutely acknowledge your technical point in general, and further acknowledge my fault in not knowing how f*^ked we actually were before this was called to our attention.
….but it all amounts to a distinction without a difference, my friend….
-
I don't trust the executive branch of hawaii's government and I don't trust the legislative branch of hawaii's government either.
I DON'T TRUST BOTH OF THEM AND HAVEN'T FOR DECADES.
To me they are one and the same. Banana.
-
''Section 127A-2, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is amended by adding a new definition to be appropriately inserted and to read as follows:"
"Severe weather warning" means the issuance of a public notification by the National Weather Service, Pacific Tsunami Warning Center, United States Geological Survey, or other public authority, that a dangerous condition exists that could impact the State, or any portion of it, within a specified period of time. "Severe weather warning" includes but is not limited to warnings of coastal inundation, high surf, flash flooding, volcanic activity, a tsunami, or a hurricane''
"coastal inundation, high surf, flash flooding, volcanic activity," are common occurrence's here in Hawaii
The NON-UNDERLINED wording is EXISTING LAW currently in effect. This legislative bill is changing the UNDERLINED WORDING to restrict the governor's current powers.
What everyone is complaining about in here is already current law, stuff that was passed in the legislature in prior years. This was very bad and worthy of complaints. But talk about the "UNDERLINED" sections of the law they are trying to change now.
These are instructions on how to read the bill properly: https://lrb.hawaii.gov/par/overview-of-the-legislative-process/types-of-measures-bills-resolutions-messages/anatomy-of-a-bill/
(https://i.postimg.cc/QtC2rt0J/Screenshot-2026-02-20-062903.jpg)
-
This isn't perfect and should be significantly stricter. But they have to present something that would be signed off by the governor or 2/3rds vote of the legislature. This is just enough to possibly do that.
Currently there are no limits to emergency powers and it was vetted in the recent Hawaii supreme court ruling. This bill is the only way to get some limits imposed other than a constitutional convention.
-
If you don't understand what I'm explaining. Understand that I have the most knowledge of anyone in Hawaii on 2A legislative affairs for the past 10 years and the the most conservative republican in the legislature, Elijah Pierrick, who is very strict on voting for 2A, individual, and religious rights, sponsors and fully supports this bill being mentioned, along with 2 other Republicans. They are trying to restrict the Governor's current emergency powers with this bill. An OPPOSE testimony will allow more of the BAD THINGS TO HAPPEN. A SUPPORT testimony will put some limits on the current emergency powers you are complaining about.
^^^THis.
Zipps knows a lot, not only about bills/law, but the legislative process too.
Elijah is a firm 2A supporter too.
The part that does concern me is the severe weather that seems very lemient.
-
This whole back-and-forth must be how conversations in Hell usually go ….
(https://static0.srcdn.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/far-side-hell-dog-on-fire.jpg?q=50&fit=crop&w=360&dpr=1.5)
-
Trying to remediate this law is like arguing over the color of the box cars that are literally designed to haul us off to the death camps
The checks it puts on the governors power are manini compared to the vast expansion of scenarios that he can apply legalized piracy and capricious violence.
-
Trying to remediate this law is like arguing over the color of the box cars that are literally designed to haul us off to the death camps
The checks it puts on the governors power are manini compared to the vast expansion of scenarios that he can apply legalized piracy and capricious violence.
Precisely.
This is why I’m so glad this was posted, as I was ignorant of the preexisting (and potentially deadly) threat in the first place.
Now I’m less so, with respect to the same (and potentially deadly) continuing threat, for which I’m very grateful.
Thanks for posting this!
-
This isn't perfect and should be significantly stricter. But they have to present something that would be signed off by the governor or 2/3rds vote of the legislature. This is just enough to possibly do that.
Currently there are no limits to emergency powers and it was vetted in the recent Hawaii supreme court ruling. This bill is the only way to get some limits imposed other than a constitutional convention.
Now you've confused me.
You say "Currently there are no limits to emergency powers," yet the text everyone here is discussing begins, "Except as provided in section 134-7.2...'. That's the statute that prohibits confiscation of firearms and ammo and the suspension of permits and licenses in an emergency:
§134-7.2 Prohibition against seizure of firearms or ammunition during
emergency or disaster; suspension of permit or license. (a) Notwithstanding
any provision of chapter 127A or any other law to the contrary, no person or
government entity shall seize or confiscate, under any emergency or disaster
relief powers or functions conferred, or during any emergency period, as
defined in section 127A-2, or during any time of national emergency or crisis,
as defined in section 134-34, any firearm or ammunition from any individual who
is lawfully permitted to carry or possess the firearm or ammunition under part I of
this chapter and who carries, possesses, or uses the firearm or ammunition in a
lawful manner and in accordance with the criminal laws of this State.
(b) Notwithstanding any provision of chapter 127A or any other law to the contrary,
no person or government entity shall suspend, revoke, or limit, under any emergency
or disaster relief powers or functions conferred, any lawfully acquired and maintained
permit or license obtained under and in accordance with part I of this chapter.
(c) For purposes of this section, "government entity" means any unit of government
in this State, including the State and any county or combination of counties, department,
agency, institution, board, commission, district, council, bureau, office, governing
authority, or other instrumentality of state or county government, or corporation or other
establishment owned, operated, or managed by or on behalf of this State or any county.
[L 2010, c 96, §1; am L 2014, c 111, §7]
https://law.onecle.com/hawaii/title-10/134-7.2.html
Does that not limit the executive's emergency powers? The phrase "Notwithstanding any provision of chapter 127A or any other law to the contrary,..." means no other laws on the books can override this one. Given that fact, i don't see the benefit of trying to restrict the governor's power in an emergency as it pertains to firearms. Existing law already prohibits enforcing any other law over 134-7.2.
Am I missing something? Is the bill aimed at something other that what's in 134-7.2, like sensitive places designations, etc.?
-
The question nobody seems to be asking is what sort of situation would require all these emergency powers? If an army of radioactive zombies starts marching out of the ocean it’s not like we are going to have a statewide debate about the legality of extreme measures. There’s a general understanding that we do the best we can given the circumstances, and in the right situation even cannibalism has been forgiven.
That means laws like this are specifically written to normalize tyranny. They want to make these powers part of everyday life, and the only way to get us to accept them is by selling it as a temporary solution to a problem that will conveniently present itself and never fully go away. If things get too hot they back off and say “mistakes were made”. People pass legislation that’s supposed to control emergency powers but in reality it just expands the definition of triggering events.
We are getting played here. Covid was a test run to see how we would react. Nobody went to jail for destroying the economy and poisoning the population, which means they are going to circle back and try again.
-
The question nobody seems to be asking is what sort of situation would require all these emergency powers? If an army of radioactive zombies starts marching out of the ocean it’s not like we are going to have a statewide debate about the legality of extreme measures. There’s a general understanding that we do the best we can given the circumstances, and in the right situation even cannibalism has been forgiven.
That means laws like this are specifically written to normalize tyranny. They want to make these powers part of everyday life, and the only way to get us to accept them is by selling it as a temporary solution to a problem that will conveniently present itself and never fully go away. If things get too hot they back off and say “mistakes were made”. People pass legislation that’s supposed to control emergency powers but in reality it just expands the definition of triggering events.
We are getting played here. Covid was a test run to see how we would react. Nobody went to jail for destroying the economy and poisoning the population, which means they are going to circle back and try again.
Yes.
This technique of “drawing the box” is extremely powerful with respect to basic human psychology.
First and above all, you set out the context / conceptual paradigm you want the discussion / debate to “own” or be about.
People naturally tend to accept that conceptual framework without critically analyzing it. Once they do, you can go virtually anywhere from there with it, and your assessment here is a perfect example of stripping that box away - and what you are left with now clearly makes no sense in relation to it.
Anyone really skilled in persuasion makes use of this, either consciously or unconsciously.
Like all such things, it can be used for good (I.e. prevent bad actors from hijacking a debate, etc.), or like here, most times for evil.
It is an absolutely critical skill to have and understand in the modern dystopian world.
As we all know, the most basic tools they use in Hawaii are “For the keiki” or “kapuna” or “public safety,”
Good job in pointing this out.
Sorry for the long post, but it is very seldom that anyone points this tactic out - that’s how ubiquitous and invisible it is: It’s like how you can’t see the ground you’re standing on …
-
:shaka:
-
Thank you Zippz for explaining the situation here.
:worship: :worship: :worship:
-
Thank you Zippz for explaining the situation here.
:worship: :worship: :worship:
I am also grateful to Zippz for getting the facts straight, however it’s still deeply disturbing to find out that most this stuff is already law since it’s so profoundly unconstitutional. I’m really surprised to hear that after all Gov Greed’s abuses of power they are just going to make it worse by expanding the range of scenarios for him to go even harder next time.
As far as 2a lawsuits this seems extremely low hanging fruit. There is no emergency clause to the constitution.
-
I am also grateful to Zippz for getting the facts straight, however it’s still deeply disturbing to find out that most this stuff is already law since it’s so profoundly unconstitutional. I’m really surprised to hear that after all Gov Greed’s abuses of power they are just going to make it worse by expanding the range of scenarios for him to go even harder next time.
As far as 2a lawsuits this seems extremely low hanging fruit. There is no emergency clause to the constitution.
That, and the reality that in Hawaii, the Governor is just the Party General Secretary, and the members of the legislature (aside from a handful of “accidents”) is the Party - as Mr. Quiet previously noted.
There are no checks on the Party here, whatsoever.
-
Hawaii Firearms Coalition
1h
·
Statement on SB2151
We have received numerous messages expressing concern that SB2151 is an attack on firearms or the Second Amendment. After carefully reviewing the bill in full, we want to address those concerns directly.
The firearm language referenced in SB2151 is not new authority. It already exists in Chapter 127A of the Hawaii Revised Statutes. Most importantly, §134-7.2 remains fully intact. That statute explicitly prohibits the seizure or confiscation of firearms or ammunition from lawful owners during an emergency and prohibits the suspension or revocation of valid firearm permits. Lawful ownership and lawful carrying during a declared emergency are already protected under current law, and SB2151 does not repeal or override those protections.
The bill specifically states that emergency powers operate “except as provided in section 134-7.2,” which means those protections remain in place. SB2151 does not authorize confiscation from lawful gun owners, nor does it authorize the suspension of valid permits. Claims suggesting otherwise are not supported by the text of the bill.
The primary focus of SB2151 is emergency governance. It addresses how emergencies are declared and terminated, clarifies definitions within Chapter 127A, and includes provisions related to public records and agency response deadlines during emergency periods. The core policy discussion is about emergency management structure and governmental accountability — not an attack on lawful firearm ownership.
We encourage everyone to read proposed legislation carefully and review the actual statutory language. Social media commentary often isolates phrases without context. Informed civic engagement requires looking at the full bill and understanding how it interacts with existing law before drawing conclusions.
-
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse1.mm.bing.net%2Fth%2Fid%2FOIP.bDQzdsfgVfXL1dsq4LwRmAHaE8%3Fpid%3DApi&f=1&ipt=96a1179f8fcb2a0cc266b50e4cc13130d1c5768894f6cb219fcbc8756bcac130&ipo=images)
-
It sounds like there are two opposing sets of laws on the books when it comes to firearms confiscation during an emergency.
This will inevitably create a situation where a tyrant will chose the version they need to make a power grab and then by the time it goes to court people will already dead.
Since we are amending the law anyway why not use this chance to remove the unconstitutional firearms language?
-
It sounds like there are two opposing sets of laws on the books when it comes to firearms confiscation during an emergency.
This will inevitably create a situation where a tyrant will chose the version they need to make a power grab and then by the time it goes to court people will already dead.
Since we are amending the law anyway why not use this chance to remove the unconstitutional firearms language?
Exactly! - why is this language still there?
“(12) Except as provided in section 134-7.2, whenever in the governor's opinion, the laws of the State do not adequately provide for the common defense, public health, safety, and welfare, investigate, regulate, or prohibit the storage, transportation, use, possession, maintenance, furnishing, sale, or distribution of, as well as any transaction related to, explosives, firearms, and ammunition, …”
At any rate, the difference of opinion between folks on our side seems to be between those who are focused specifically on these new bills, and those who are now looking at the totality of what these “laws” collectively mean for us as U.S. citizens here.
It’s one of the ongoing torturous psychic penalties of being an American living in a stone-age communist banana republic.
-
Exactly! - why is this language still there?
“(12) Except as provided in section 134-7.2, whenever in the governor's opinion, the laws of the State do not adequately provide for the common defense, public health, safety, and welfare, investigate, regulate, or prohibit the storage, transportation, use, possession, maintenance, furnishing, sale, or distribution of, as well as any transaction related to, explosives, firearms, and ammunition, …”
At any rate, the difference of opinion between folks on our side seems to be between those who are focused specifically on these new bills, and those who are now looking at the totality of what these “laws” collectively mean for us as U.S. citizens here.
It’s one of the ongoing torturous psychic penalties of being an American living in a stone-age communist banana republic.
Why do you keep ignoring the first 6 words?
Except as provided in section 134-7.2 ...
-
Why do you keep ignoring the first 6 words?
I’m obviously not.
On the contrary, I’m asking, now that they’re busy “revising it to include checks and balances” - why they clearly intend to keep this whole section in the law?
It’s not about unregistered firearms etc.
So, in that context, I ask YOU - why do you so glibly ignore everything that follows those six words?
Don’t bother responding, because you certainly do not know why it’s there anymore than I do - given 134-7.2.
Further, and more to my point of view - in its totality, there is absolutely nothing to be sanguine about when a one-party state demands the right to go to full-on police state - any f^*cking time for any reason - kapish?
…oh yeah, almost forgot - ON AN ISLAND POPULATION 2000 MILES FROM ANYWHERE.
Have a nice day everyone.
-
Hawaii's government: Make it clear as mud, and WE control the narrative.
-
HIFICO posted on their social media to not worry.
-
focus
https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=58398.msg513108#msg513108
HIFICO posted on their social media to not worry.
-
focus
https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=58398.msg513108#msg513108
I wish I could participate, but I’m now fully red-pilled on Hawaii.
-
focus
https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=58398.msg513108#msg513108
I never said what they posted on social media to not worry about. You assume it's about this topic. I could be talking about a bbq or something else.
My post was about a post on a post that may or may not be about another post of a post worthy topic, of which I support, but don't support, or have a neutral stance. But in the end, HIFICO post on social media, so I'm correct.
-
I never said what they posted on social media to not worry about. You assume it's about this topic. I could be talking about a bbq or something else.
My post was about a post on a post that may or may not be about another post of a post worthy topic, of which I support, but don't support, or have a neutral stance. But in the end, HIFICO post on social media, so I'm correct.
You should write legislation. This is exactly the level of clarity they are looking for. :shaka:
-
no one here posts off topic...
I never said what they posted on social media to not worry about. You assume it's about this topic. I could be talking about a bbq or something else.
My post was about a post on a post that may or may not be about another post of a post worthy topic, of which I support, but don't support, or have a neutral stance. But in the end, HIFICO post on social media, so I'm correct.
-
I’m obviously not.
On the contrary, I’m asking, now that they’re busy “revising it to include checks and balances” - why they clearly intend to keep this whole section in the law?
It’s not about unregistered firearms etc.
So, in that context, I ask YOU - why do you so glibly ignore everything that follows those six words?
Don’t bother responding, because you certainly do not know why it’s there anymore than I do - given 134-7.2.
Further, and more to my point of view - in its totality, there is absolutely nothing to be sanguine about when a one-party state demands the right to go to full-on police state - any f^*cking time for any reason - kapish?
…oh yeah, almost forgot - ON AN ISLAND POPULATION 2000 MILES FROM ANYWHERE.
Have a nice day everyone.
I posted my analysis of the entire passage already. My conclusion was exactly what mac just posted from HIFICO.
I feel I'm not being "glib." I've been completely logical and fully descriptive in my replies. You, however, keep reposting your quoted excerpt with everything except those 6 words highlighted, and you haven't provided a reasonable explanation why what follows is able to bypass the stated exception.
I see no reason to debate the text of the bill any further. You're free to believe whatever you want.
-
I posted my analysis of the entire passage already. My conclusion was exactly what mac just posted from HIFICO.
I feel I'm not being "glib." I've been completely logical and fully descriptive in my replies. You, however, keep reposting your quoted excerpt with everything except those 6 words highlighted, and you haven't provided a reasonable explanation why what follows is able to bypass the stated exception.
I see no reason to debate the text of the bill any further. You're free to believe whatever you want.
Those six words are our only protection from a framework that clearly states that private property does not exist, the government owns everything, and they can take it back from us any time they want.
The framework underneath those six words is extremely dangerous and must be destroyed, otherwise it's only a matter of time until they implement it.
https://youtu.be/jvB_qGhyg_k
-
This is just my opinion but in states like hawaii, I feel you no can win. Especially when it's a one party dominant state it's pretty much they do what ever they want to.
Like hawaii's gun laws. It's never gonna be cut and dry because they won't allow it to. A victory like the Bruen case only brings out bullshit like Aloha spirit overides 2nd amendment rights.
But I keep my guns and ammo safe, out of sight and in perfect operating order.
Because the way I see it, no permit in the universe means anything once we have WROL.
When WROL arrives, it will just be those who have and those who have not. Those who have not can cry me a river.
I just going laugh.
-
This is just my opinion but in states like hawaii, I feel you no can win. Especially when it's a one party dominant state it's pretty much they do what ever they want to.
Like hawaii's gun laws. It's never gonna be cut and dry because they won't allow it to. A victory like the Bruen case only brings out bullshit like Aloha spirit overides 2nd amendment rights.
But I keep my guns and ammo safe, out of sight and in perfect operating order.
Because the way I see it, no permit in the universe means anything once we have WROL.
When WROL arrives, it will just be those who have and those who have not. Those who have not can cry me a river.
I just going laugh.
This new version would allow the legislature to overturn any governors emergency proc too. But seeming how it's DNC controlled, that's not going to happen, unless there's a GOP governor.
-
Those six words are our only protection from a framework that clearly states that private property does not exist, the government owns everything, and they can take it back from us any time they want.
The framework underneath those six words is extremely dangerous and must be destroyed, otherwise it's only a matter of time until they implement it.
When it comes to protecting property, you're right. The government "permits" you to use your property as you wish as long as you ask permission (i.e. the whole permitting and inspection process). i've seen where people had to fight in court over the local government fining them tens of thousands for having built a shed on their property. The only way the government could even see the shed was a drone they used to fly over properties for "aerial inspections at low altitude." several courts have said that's a 4th Amendment violation of the property owner's privacy, but here the US Constitution appears to be just a recommendation rather than restrictions on government.
Local governments around the country have started raising revenue and stealing people's homes for nonpayment of fines similar to an HOA. Lots of ridiculous cases floating around on YT, etc.
The only thing that seems to be of use here is taking the government to court and letting the judge rub the offending parties' noses in the law. So, as long as there are laws prohibiting gun confiscations or permit and license suspensions during declared emergencies, we do have recourse available if they don't play by the rules.
-
I see no reason to debate the text of the bill any further. You're free to believe whatever you want.
I recon then that we each feel the same way about each other.
On this we can agree.
-
So, as long as there are laws prohibiting gun confiscations or permit and license suspensions during declared emergencies, we do have recourse available if they don't play by the rules.
Since 2020 they've been rigged elections using mail in ballots, coerced healthy people into taking dangerous experimental drugs, and burned down Lahaina in order to turn it into Aloha Disneyland.
When push comes to shove do you really think they care about legal nuance?
-
Those six words are our only protection from a framework that clearly states that private property does not exist, the government owns everything, and they can take it back from us any time they want.
The framework underneath those six words is extremely dangerous and must be destroyed, otherwise it's only a matter of time until they implement it.
https://youtu.be/jvB_qGhyg_k
Some look at what follows those six words and say “Must be they missed getting rid of those. Or something ….”
Others say, “all else equal, there must be some reason they insist on them being there….”
It’s kinda of like you hear a noise at night in your garage. You go down there and flip on the light, and immediately see things have been moved around - but no one’s there…
Some go right back up and sleep like a baby.
Others check their weapon.
-
Since 2020 they've been rigged elections using mail in ballots, coerced healthy people into taking dangerous experimental drugs, and burned down Lahaina in order to turn it into Aloha Disneyland.
When push comes to shove do you really think they care about legal nuance?
I don't think you know the meaning of that word you used -- "Nuance."
"The difference between a living human being and a flesh-eating zombie is just nuance." :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: ["A subtle or slight degree of difference,"]
-
I don't think you know the meaning of that word you used -- "Nuance."
It's true, but to be fair I have to compete with the devil in your other ear that keeps lulling you back to sleep with soft comfortable lies. >:D
-
It's true, but to be fair I have to compete with the devil in your other ear that keeps lulling you back to sleep with soft comfortable lies. >:D
You're just jealous that I have more friends than you!
:geekdanc: :wave:
-
You're just jealous that I have more friends than you!
:geekdanc: :wave:
It's all fun and games until the communists declare an emergency and kick in your door demanding "equitable redistribution" of your resources.
We pay taxes over and over again on our stuff only to find out that the law says we don't really own any of it.
-
It's all fun and games until the communists declare an emergency and kick in your door demanding "equitable redistribution" of your resources.
We pay taxes over and over again on our stuff only to find out that the law says we don't really own any of it.
Seems there are those who learned absolutely nothing from the tyranny-under-guise-of-public health that was COVID.
Count yourself as blessed that you are one of them.
That was just an appetizer.
In that vein, you gotta love their intro to these bills:
“The legislature finds that the emergence of COVID-l9 and its variants created a great challenge to global health, the economy, and the world's way of life. The governor and county mayors had to exercise their emergency powers under chapter 127A, Hawaii Revised Statutes, to impose rules aimed to control the spread of COVID-l9. The enforcement of those rules was critical to efforts to limit the spread of COVID—l9, protect the health and safety of the community, manage medical resources, and promote economic recovery.”
Guess they figure enough time has passed that the minds are all completely blank out there - and they’re right.
They learned from their mistakes, and are now making appropriate adjustments…
-
Perhaps this language in the bill is what explains why everything beyond those famous six words is still there - in spite of 134-7.2.
The Governor appears to have been given a completely general power to suspend ANY law he deems necessary:
“ (3) [Su~pcnd] Except as provided in section 127A-
14 suspend any law that impedes or tends to impede or be
15 detrimental to the expeditious and efficient execution
16 of, or to conflict with, emergency functions,
17 including laws that by this chapter specifically are
18 made applicable to emergency personnel; provided that
19 any suspension of law shall be no broader and last no
20 longer than the governor deems necessary for the
21 execution of emergency management functions, …”
127A- appears to only pertain to the provision of records, etc.
There doesn’t appear to be any limit or qualification to this power, whatsoever.
Perhaps this is how 134-7.2 goes bye-bye, and all that follows kicks in.
This makes sense of that entire section in question.
As a reminder this is in HB2236HD1
https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=HB&billnumber=2236&year=2026
-
They can find loopholes if they tried hard enough. Like they could ban magazines under an emergency order as they are firearm accessories, not firearms, and not protected under the 2A according to the 9th Circuit court.
Afterall, why would you need more than one round for self-defense anyways?
-
They can find loopholes if they tried hard enough. Like they could ban magazines under an emergency order as they are firearm accessories, not firearms, and not protected under the 2A according to the 9th Circuit court.
Afterall, why would you need more than one round for self-defense anyways?
Good point - why pick through their garbage looking for clues.
We know what we’re dealing with…
Have a Great Day Dude!
(not being sarcastic - as is my reputation…)
-
https://www.hawaiifreepress.com/Articles-Main/ID/46826/The-hidden-problem-with-emergency-powers
-
(https://i.imgur.com/NxzfKOB.jpeg)
https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=1265688698993341