2aHawaii
General Topics => State Legislative Updates => Legal and Activism => State Legislative Updates Archive => Topic started by: 2aH Feed Poster on January 18, 2013, 03:21:26 PM
-
Measure Title: RELATING TO CONCEALED CARRY LICENSE OF PISTOLS OR REVOLVERS.
Report Title: Pistols or Revolvers; Concealed Carry License
Description: Authorizes chiefs of police to issue licenses to carry a concealed pistol or revolver. Details processes for license applications, renewals, and record keeping. Strictly prohibits carrying concealed pistols or revolvers under certain circumstances. Repeals HRS section 134-9.
Companion:
Package: None
Current Referral:
Introducer(s): SLOM
1/18/13 SB274: Passed First Reading. (http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=274&year=2013)
18 January 2013, 3:00 am
1/18/13 SB274: Senate Status Update
Source: SB274 Status Feed (http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=274&year=2013)
-
1/18/13 SB274: Introduced. (http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=274&year=2013)
18 January 2013, 3:00 am
1/18/13 SB274: Senate Status Update
Source: SB274 Status Feed (http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=274&year=2013)
-
1/22/13 SB274: Referred to PSM, JDL. (http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=274&year=2013)
22 January 2013, 3:00 am
1/22/13 SB274: Senate Status Update
Source: SB274 Status Feed (http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=274&year=2013)
-
The idea of self defense being a personal responsibility issue was well brought to the forefront with Milwaukee Sherrif David Clarke http://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2013/01/28/milwaukee-county-sheriff-promotes-self-defense-and-gun-ownership/ (http://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2013/01/28/milwaukee-county-sheriff-promotes-self-defense-and-gun-ownership/) and really the effectiveness of 911. The idea of responsible ownership of firearms is integral to personal safety of individuals.
As for SB36 on recurrent training, that is interesting especially since we don't really allow concealed carry in Hawaii so why the need. As for home owners, its a point and shoot scenario and a short barrelled semi-automatic with a enough ammo to seal the deal is the safest thing for a young homeowner or single woman. A faceful of 45 or buckshot on the street is due respect for an aggressor in my opinion as well. What's funny about homeowners, they allow them to purchase a pistol here in Hawaii with zero training at all, and I'm not complaining about that, but it shows how ill informed some of our elite legislators really are.
Much Aloha,
-
Huumm, wonder why all the anti gun bills are getting hearings so soon and these pro gun bills are sitting in committee? ???
-
Huumm, wonder why all the anti gun bills are getting hearings so soon and these pro gun bills are sitting in committee? ???
That is the exact same thing i was thinking!!!
I should look up who introduced in and point that out to them
-
wow reading through the bill i notice a few things. i wonder if, because they possibly know they will lose in court with chris, they are trying to change the laws now to be more strict for if/when there is an influx of applications.
1. The wording makes it sound like hunters ed will not be enough for a cc permit. Now you need specifically listed training.
"photocopy of an affidavit from the certified instructor or standard government form from the government agency providing the training, attesting to the successful completion of the training, shall constitute evidence of qualification under this paragraph;"
2. it sounds like you can be disqualified for a misdemeanor of violence?
"may deny a license if the applicant has been found guilty of one or more crimes of violence constituting a misdemeanor,"
3. A psychological evaluation will now be required.
"A written psychological evaluation that finds the applicant to be free from any emotional or mental condition that might adversely affect the ability of the applicant to carry a concealed pistol or revolver in a safe, lawful, and responsible manner. The psychological evaluation shall have been performed within six months prior to the date of application. Emotional and mental condition shall be evaluated by either of the following:
(A) A licensed psychiatrist who has at least the equivalent of five full-time years of experience in the diagnosis and treatment of emotional and mental disorders, including the equivalent of three full-time years accrued after completion of the postgraduate medical residency education program in psychiatry; or
(B) A licensed psychologist who has at least the equivalent of five full-time years of experience in the diagnosis and treatment of emotional and mental disorders, including the equivalent of three full-time years accrued post-doctorate."
Any costs associated with obtaining the psychological evaluation shall be borne by the applicant.
-
wow reading through the bill i notice a few things. i wonder if, because they possibly know they will lose in court with chris, they are trying to change the laws now to be more strict for if/when there is an influx of applications.
1. The wording makes it sound like hunters ed will not be enough for a cc permit. Now you need specifically listed training.
"photocopy of an affidavit from the certified instructor or standard government form from the government agency providing the training, attesting to the successful completion of the training, shall constitute evidence of qualification under this paragraph;"
2. it sounds like you can be disqualified for a misdemeanor of violence?
"may deny a license if the applicant has been found guilty of one or more crimes of violence constituting a misdemeanor,"
3. A psychological evaluation will now be required.
"A written psychological evaluation that finds the applicant to be free from any emotional or mental condition that might adversely affect the ability of the applicant to carry a concealed pistol or revolver in a safe, lawful, and responsible manner. The psychological evaluation shall have been performed within six months prior to the date of application. Emotional and mental condition shall be evaluated by either of the following:
(A) A licensed psychiatrist who has at least the equivalent of five full-time years of experience in the diagnosis and treatment of emotional and mental disorders, including the equivalent of three full-time years accrued after completion of the postgraduate medical residency education program in psychiatry; or
(B) A licensed psychologist who has at least the equivalent of five full-time years of experience in the diagnosis and treatment of emotional and mental disorders, including the equivalent of three full-time years accrued post-doctorate."
Any costs associated with obtaining the psychological evaluation shall be borne by the applicant.
Yes, all items you pointed out, I disagree with. some in part.
I do agree that training should be in there. But I believe that the training one receives through a handgun safety course is sufficient to satisfy the requirement. I, for one, would seek additional training due to the responsibility one is taking on carrying, especially the legal aspects.
Misdemeanor violence is something that I don't agree with. Some people may have got a little scrap in the scrappy days, and now is of a grown mature mind. We all have our little bouts with idiocy, and those who are charged may have had legit reasons.
Making you pay for a full on psyc eval is just unacceptable, and we all know that it would be totally up to a, perhaps, anti gun dr. to give you the go ahead. You know that this doc will have a hell of a time with the media if ever he was to make a mistake... that in itself will make it very hard, and expensive, to have this requirement met. The insane can happen to anyone at any time. Even the most 'trusted' people can go 'postal' at any time.
-
I do agree that training should be in there. But I believe that the training one receives through a handgun safety course is sufficient to satisfy the requirement.
Hell no. A simple handgun safety class is not good enough for someone to carry concealed. Really!!!! You have to be able to hit your target under stress and not kill the 6 year old standing to the right.
Misdemeanor violence is something that I don't agree with. Some people may have got a little scrap in the scrappy days, and now is of a grown mature mind. We all have our little bouts with idiocy, and those who are charged may have had legit reasons.
Domestic violence is a misdemeanor. Under the Lautenberg amendment you are prohibited from owning a firearm if convicted of domestic violence.
Making you pay for a full on psyc eval is just unacceptable, and we all know that it would be totally up to a, perhaps, anti gun dr. to give you the go ahead. You know that this doc will have a hell of a time with the media if ever he was to make a mistake... that in itself will make it very hard, and expensive, to have this requirement met. The insane can happen to anyone at any time. Even the most 'trusted' people can go 'postal' at any time.
This is one of the most important things. It is a huge responsibility to carry a firearm. I wouldn't want someone with a psychological problem carrying a loaded gun in public. There is no way around this requirement with the recent events.
I'm sure they will add more restrictions if it passes.
-
Hell no. A simple handgun safety class is not good enough for someone to carry concealed. Really!!!! You have to be able to hit your target under stress and not kill the 6 year old standing to the right.
Domestic violence is a misdemeanor. Under the Lautenberg amendment you are prohibited from owning a firearm if convicted of domestic violence.
This is one of the most important things. It is a huge responsibility to carry a firearm. I wouldn't want someone with a psychological problem carrying a loaded gun in public. There is no way around this requirement with the recent events.
I'm sure they will add more restrictions if it passes.
Guess we disagree then.
But as it is, anyone can do anything, at anytime. If a person wanted to carry a loaded gun around right now, they don't need any of this. The only difference is that person is breaking the law. So, how can we, as law abiding citizens, counter that person who has no regard for the law and needs not follow all those strict requirements?
-
Guess we disagree then.
But as it is, anyone can do anything, at anytime. If a person wanted to carry a loaded gun around right now, they don't need any of this. The only difference is that person is breaking the law. So, how can we, as law abiding citizens, counter that person who has no regard for the law and needs not follow all those strict requirements?
True, that is the dilemma we face, and the logic our politicians don't possess.
-
I agree with the comment that ample training should be needed to carry a firearm, wether it be Conceal or Open Carry. But I disagree that a handgun safety course would suffice in this training. I've seen people come out of the safety course not even knowing how to unload a gun or that could properly cock a handgun.
Carrying, IMO, is a huge responsibility and much like being a Pilot, not only should you have the proper training, but also in some way should need to show a history of courses/training completed and time logged both going through training in stress situations, shooting, and handling that SPECIFIC firearm that you will carry. There are people who are willing to take on the responsibility and others who aren't. I for one, think, that for myself, the risk and responsibility of carrying greatly outweigh the probability that shit will happen and I will actually need to use one of my firearms.
While this won't stop criminals from doing whatever they want. I doubt a beginner (myself included) should a situation arise, react reasonably and properly, in the proper mindset, trying to stop some whack job that has a gun and shooting up the place. I can see instances where more harm then good would ensue.
As you all saw these crazy guys getting their gun jammed trying to kill people (Oregon and that political one in Europe) got the crap kicked out of them because their weapons failed and it wasnt second nature to them to clear the jam and proceed (in this instance good) but imagine that happening to a good guy whom was trying to stop a crazy who hasnt shot anyone? After than instance the crazy would panic and bullets will fly ultimately injuring and killing people who may have been better off in the first place and possibly giving the crazy yet one more loaded weapon.
I speak for only myself in saying this (and you can call me a pussy if you want) but I for one am not sure that i could shoot or kill someone. I know both military and police who also aren't sure that they could do this either and some of them are marines who are trained to kill!.
In summary, I believe there are non military, non leo citizens out there who should, are trained for, and are mentally equipped, to carry. But to give someone that responsibility, whom isnt trained, whether they want to carry or not, could make a bad situation worse.
-
Hell no. A simple handgun safety class is not good enough for someone to carry concealed. Really!!!! You have to be able to hit your target under stress and not kill the 6 year old standing to the right.
At what point is one qualified to carry, then? If the standard is more than simple operational competence with a firearm, there's no end to the bullshit they can heap on. I would argue to you that rookie cops, fresh out of the academy are not competent to take a high stress shot with a little girl near the target. At some point you have to say, "Ok, this guy's good enough." Since we're talking about the exercise of a Constitutionally-protected right, we would be wise to err on the side of the less restrictive.
Domestic violence is a misdemeanor. Under the Lautenberg amendment you are prohibited from owning a firearm if convicted of domestic violence.
The Lautenberg Amendment is a POS. Stripping a human right for life based on an act that isn't even punishable by more than a year in jail is absolutely ridiculous, and Frank Lautenberg is a idiotic windbag.
This is one of the most important things. It is a huge responsibility to carry a firearm. I wouldn't want someone with a psychological problem carrying a loaded gun in public. There is no way around this requirement with the recent events.
This last quote blows my mind. By that inane logic, I don't want someone with a psychological problem owning guns at all, so the permit to acquire should force applicants to show a mental health waiver from a board-licensed psychiatrist, who shall have spent no fewer than 25 office hours studying the applicant's mental health. That'll be $6,000; please. You can settle that bill with the receptionist on your way out, and your waiver will be in the mail by the end of the week.
I'm sure they will add more restrictions if it passes.
Count on that. Dis ain't da mainland!
-
At what point is one qualified to carry, then? If the standard is more than simple operational competence with a firearm, there's no end to the bullshit they can heap on. I would argue to you that rookie cops, fresh out of the academy are not competent to take a high stress shot with a little girl near the target. At some point you have to say, "Ok, this guy's good enough."
So you know about LE training enough to assume that a rookie would not be competent enough to stop a threat in a situation? Or are you just talking out your ass? LE training involves at least 40 hours of basic firearms handling and qualifications. Then they go through scenario based training that is pass or fail. When its all done and complete they (LE) have likely completed at least 200 + hours of firearm based training. So do you still think a 8 hour handgun safety class is sufficient? I think not!
The Lautenberg Amendment is a POS. Stripping a human right for life based on an act that isn't even punishable by more than a year in jail is absolutely ridiculous, and Frank Lautenberg is a idiotic windbag.
Really!!! So you think that a guy that beats the shit out his wife and, or kids should be able to get a gun? A guy that has a history of stalking, threatening, choking, hitting, a family member should be able to get a gun? Why! So the next time he flips out he can get that gun and kill his whole family and potentially kill the officers responding to the call. You still think the Lautenberg amendment is a POS? If you do, then I truly believe that you don't deserve to carry concealed because something is seriously wrong with your logic.
-
So we do not allow 4'-7" 90lb grandma permission to carry her .380 to the open market, to fend off the chronics that will beat her ass for the $20 she has in her pocket, because she has not the physical strength to complete a rigorous training requirement?
-
So we do not allow 4'-7" 90lb grandma permission to carry her .380 to the open market, to fend off the chronics that will beat her ass for the $20 she has in her pocket, because she has not the physical strength to complete a rigorous training requirement?
I don't think the goal should be that everyone is carrying, it should be just enough so that if the 4'7". 90 lb grandma gets attacked there is a good chance that someone near by is, and can assist in defending her. Just my 2 cents? You really think 4'7" 90lb and probably 9- year old grandman would be able to draw and take a safe shot at her attackers before she got beat down anyway?
I doubt she would even have enough time to react. I dont think attackers come at you straight on and will say ma'am in about 10 seconds I am going to attack you and steal your bag, so you might want to take your gun out of your purse first so you can defend yourself?
Attacks happen in a split second, and are by surprise. Most normal people wouldnt be able to draw and defend in time, must less an older woman who probably carries in her purse.
-
I don't think the goal should be that everyone is carrying, it should be just enough so that if the 4'7". 90 lb grandma gets attacked there is a good chance that someone near by is, and can assist in defending her. Just my 2 cents? You really think 4'7" 90lb and probably 9- year old grandman would be able to draw and take a safe shot at her attackers before she got beat down anyway?
I doubt she would even have enough time to react. I dont think attackers come at you straight on and will say ma'am in about 10 seconds I am going to attack you and steal your bag, so you might want to take your gun out of your purse first so you can defend yourself?
Attacks happen in a split second, and are by surprise. Most normal people wouldnt be able to draw and defend in time, must less an older woman who probably carries in her purse.
:thumbsup: it's the 3-5 rule. Statistically Most attacks happen within 3-5 feet, and take 3-5 seconds
-
So you know about LE training enough to assume that a rookie would not be competent enough to stop a threat in a situation? Or are you just talking out your ass? LE training involves at least 40 hours of basic firearms handling and qualifications. Then they go through scenario based training that is pass or fail. When its all done and complete they (LE) have likely completed at least 200 + hours of firearm based training. So do you still think a 8 hour handgun safety class is sufficient? I think not!
Really!!! So you think that a guy that beats the shit out his wife and, or kids should be able to get a gun? A guy that has a history of stalking, threatening, choking, hitting, a family member should be able to get a gun? Why! So the next time he flips out he can get that gun and kill his whole family and potentially kill the officers responding to the call. You still think the Lautenberg amendment is a POS? If you do, then I truly believe that you don't deserve to carry concealed because something is seriously wrong with your logic.
This type of thinking is the reason why the country is going to he'll in a hand basket.
The "Only police officers should have guns because they're trained" thinking is bullshit.
I could post twenty links to negligent, or accidental discharges from police officers in thirty seconds via YouTube.
The truth is that possession of firearms is your right already.
The simple fact is that in localities where "untrained" civilians can carry their guns on them, the crime rates are lower than in places where gun laws are strictest.
These are the facts.
-
This type of thinking is the reason why the country is going to he'll in a hand basket.
The "Only police officers should have guns because they're trained" thinking is bullshit.
I could post twenty links to negligent, or accidental discharges from police officers in thirty seconds via YouTube.
The truth is that possession of firearms is your right already.
The simple fact is that in localities where "untrained" civilians can carry their guns on them, the crime rates are lower than in places where gun laws are strictest.
These are the facts.
I'm not saying that only police should carry guns. I'm saying that if a civilian is going to carry one they need to have adequate training. A simple handgun safety course is NOT good enough. Some people believe that it is their right and any required training is unacceptable. That's bullshit. Have some personal responsibly.
When the shit hits the fan and someone that carrying concealed decides to fire I want to be confident that they won't be killing someone innocent because they panicked and started just squeezing off rounds. You have to be accountable for each round fired from your gun. Just because there is a threat does not mean you are justified to shoot. You have to be able to identify the different factors present then make the decision to shoot. All of this has to be done in your mind within 3-5 seconds. Sorry, but I don't think a normal civilian can do that without training.
I'm all for concealed carry, but there are people out there that should not carry concealed because they are a liability.
-
I'm all for concealed carry, but there are people out there that should not carry concealed because they are a liability.
There are police officers that should not carry a gun because they're a liability.
We should disarm all LEO's immediately.
http://www.todaysthv.com/news/article/244279/288/Nevada-police-officer-kills-family-self (http://www.todaysthv.com/news/article/244279/288/Nevada-police-officer-kills-family-self)
http://www.copblock.org/22406/police-officer-kills-family-dog-then-commits-felony-by-washing-evidence-away-video/ (http://www.copblock.org/22406/police-officer-kills-family-dog-then-commits-felony-by-washing-evidence-away-video/)
http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2009/09/report_detroit_police_officers.html (http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2009/09/report_detroit_police_officers.html)
Sacked police officer kills family (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sN0YPzKK3U#ws)
-
I'm not saying that only police should carry guns. I'm saying that if a civilian is going to carry one they need to have adequate training. A simple handgun safety course is NOT good enough. Some people believe that it is their right and any required training is unacceptable. That's bullshit. Have some personal responsibly.
When the shit hits the fan and someone that carrying concealed decides to fire I want to be confident that they won't be killing someone innocent because they panicked and started just squeezing off rounds. You have to be accountable for each round fired from your gun. Just because there is a threat does not mean you are justified to shoot. You have to be able to identify the different factors present then make the decision to shoot. All of this has to be done in your mind within 3-5 seconds. Sorry, but I don't think a normal civilian can do that without training.
I'm all for concealed carry, but there are people out there that should not carry concealed because they are a liability.
So who decided someone is qualified or not? What is "sufficient" training?
If you look across the rest of America in Shall Issue states, most of them have pretty minimal training requirements. It's not the wild west as many people would like you to believe. In the end, it's all gonna be up to the individual whether or not they are going to take a shot or not. Heck, people won't even know if they can until that very moment. It's the same way with LEOs.
-
Anyone from a well trained professional to a beginner has the capacity to make mistakes, use poor judgement, or go completely nuts because of some event in their lives that causes them to lose their sense of responsibility. I say if an applicant has already been diagnosed with some mental problem that is sufficient enough to make them a serious liability, then don't issue them a ccw permit. I don't believe that a person should have psychological screening done. If the problem hasn't arisen by the time they're 21, then its doubtful to exist. Everyone has issues from time to time. I don't need my mental capacity to be judged by a doctor who is likely anti-gun and whose personal opinions are far different than mine. I don't like the idea of being restricted based on if I've been convicted of a misdemeanor of violence, BUT I am willing to comply because I'm a responsible adult and though I may argue with my wife from time to time, we haven't had any altercations that would require law enforcement to get involved. If you aren't responsible enough to control yourself with your family, then you probably shouldn't be carrying a weapon around people you don't even know in the case that someone makes you angry. The bill says you must be 23. I disagree. I'd be far happier with the age limit of 21 although I personally think 18 is the wiser choice. Those in the military who are 18 can and do carry pistols, assault rifles, machine guns, etc. If you think those people don't have issues, look up PTSD. Does that mean I don't think they should carry firearms? NO. They should and they do carry firearms. It's their job to defend our country. It's our job to defend ourselves. If you're worried that you wont be able to pull the trigger if the time comes, then that's your personal problem. You can't judge everyone based on how you might react. I've not yet been put in a position like that, but I'm fairly confident I could judge the likelihood of possibly hurting someone else should I need to shoot a criminal who is threatening my life or the lives of those around me. If you do accidentally kill an innocent person while trying to defend yourself, standby because you should and will be held accountable. There's no excuse for a mistake with a firearm. The individual should be held responsible, not the community of concealed weapons carriers. It's a heavy burden to carry a weapon responsibly, but it should be your right if you choose to do so.
-
Some states allow exceptions for military members as "training" for a CCW. Most Marines' training on handguns (from what I've seen) are laughably terrible. So far, little incidents.
-
Anyone from a well trained professional to a beginner has the capacity to make mistakes, use poor judgement, or go completely nuts because of some event in their lives that causes them to lose their sense of responsibility. I say if an applicant has already been diagnosed with some mental problem that is sufficient enough to make them a serious liability, then don't issue them a ccw permit. I don't believe that a person should have psychological screening done. If the problem hasn't arisen by the time they're 21, then its doubtful to exist. Everyone has issues from time to time. I don't need my mental capacity to be judged by a doctor who is likely anti-gun and whose personal opinions are far different than mine. I don't like the idea of being restricted based on if I've been convicted of a misdemeanor of violence, BUT I am willing to comply because I'm a responsible adult and though I may argue with my wife from time to time, we haven't had any altercations that would require law enforcement to get involved. If you aren't responsible enough to control yourself with your family, then you probably shouldn't be carrying a weapon around people you don't even know in the case that someone makes you angry. The bill says you must be 23. I disagree. I'd be far happier with the age limit of 21 although I personally think 18 is the wiser choice. Those in the military who are 18 can and do carry pistols, assault rifles, machine guns, etc. If you think those people don't have issues, look up PTSD. Does that mean I don't think they should carry firearms? NO. They should and they do carry firearms. It's their job to defend our country. It's our job to defend ourselves. If you're worried that you wont be able to pull the trigger if the time comes, then that's your personal problem. You can't judge everyone based on how you might react. I've not yet been put in a position like that, but I'm fairly confident I could judge the likelihood of possibly hurting someone else should I need to shoot a criminal who is threatening my life or the lives of those around me. If you do accidentally kill an innocent person while trying to defend yourself, standby because you should and will be held accountable. There's no excuse for a mistake with a firearm. The individual should be held responsible, not the community of concealed weapons carriers. It's a heavy burden to carry a weapon responsibly, but it should be your right if you choose to do so.
This
-
I don't think the goal should be that everyone is carrying, it should be just enough so that if the 4'7". 90 lb grandma gets attacked there is a good chance that someone near by is, and can assist in defending her. Just my 2 cents? You really think 4'7" 90lb and probably 9- year old grandman would be able to draw and take a safe shot at her attackers before she got beat down anyway?
I doubt she would even have enough time to react. I dont think attackers come at you straight on and will say ma'am in about 10 seconds I am going to attack you and steal your bag, so you might want to take your gun out of your purse first so you can defend yourself?
Attacks happen in a split second, and are by surprise. Most normal people wouldnt be able to draw and defend in time, must less an older woman who probably carries in her purse.
It is her RIGHT to defend herself if she chooses. Why would you put a restriction on her because YOU feel she cannot handle the situation. I know plenty grandmas that can handle most any situations, maybe physically not fair so well, but mentally hard as rocks.
-
It is her RIGHT to defend herself if she chooses. Why would you put a restriction on her because YOU feel she cannot handle the situation. I know plenty grandmas that can handle most any situations, maybe physically not fair so well, but mentally hard as rocks.
Im not arguing with you. If she can physically and mentally handle the situation, can properly handle a firearm and wants to take on the responsibility, by all means go for it. I just dont see a stereotypical 90lb, 4'7" grandma (whose probably 90 years old) be able to do so reasonably and responsibly is all. You said it yourself, she may physically not fair so well. That to me is a liability.
It's just like letting an 90 year old man whose sight may be going, drive a large semi (to further exaggerate my point). Yes they may be able to physically drive and mentally want to drive, but in old age, sight goes, reaction time slows down and fine motor skills go, all a bad combination when doing things like driving, or in the case were discussing, shooting a gun. At some point in everyones life we become more of a liability than anything else in certain situations like driving.
Would you trust that same person who is no longer able to drive shoot a gun? This is really common with surgeons and pilots and their careers. Would you allow that same person who is physically so-so perform open heart surgery on you? Mentally they could be sharp as hell and they could have performed the operation a million times, but one wrong twitch due to getting old and Heavies be dead.
Believe me im all for carrying and i do believe its everyones right to own and carry a gun - but regardless, there are some people, no matter their willingness to, that shouldn't be allowed to carry for liability reasons.
-
So you know about LE training enough to assume that a rookie would not be competent enough to stop a threat in a situation? Or are you just talking out your ass? LE training involves at least 40 hours of basic firearms handling and qualifications. Then they go through scenario based training that is pass or fail. When its all done and complete they (LE) have likely completed at least 200 + hours of firearm based training. So do you still think a 8 hour handgun safety class is sufficient? I think not!
So you'd put your son or daughter, assuming you have one, next to the targets on the police range during live fire? Let them use her as a prop during a live-fire room clearing exercise? If not, are rookie cops really up to the standard you want? The point is that very few people are qualified to take the shot you described. I have no idea what HPD's firearms qualification requirement is, but since the whole academy course of training comprises about 880 hours, I rather doubt they spend a quarter of their time training with their service pistols.
Really!!! So you think that a guy that beats the shit out his wife and, or kids should be able to get a gun? A guy that has a history of stalking, threatening, choking, hitting, a family member should be able to get a gun? Why! So the next time he flips out he can get that gun and kill his whole family and potentially kill the officers responding to the call. You still think the Lautenberg amendment is a POS? If you do, then I truly believe that you don't deserve to carry concealed because something is seriously wrong with your logic.
Calm down with the hysterics. If the guy is so awfully evil as you describe, he should have been tried for felony assault. You paint a graphic picture, but a domestic violence charge is on the table any time a pissed-off partner calls the cops. If they show up and you admit, "She yelled at me to giver her her keys, so I threw them to her and they hit her in the face when she missed the catch," you're screwed. No more guns for you, ever. Misdemeanors are minor crimes, genius. That's why misdemeanor domestic violence is usually taken care of with a fine. You still think the Lautenberg amendment is a good law? If you do, I truly believe that you don't deserve to carry concealed because you have no comprehension of human rights.
-
Some states allow exceptions for military members as "training" for a CCW. Most Marines' training on handguns (from what I've seen) are laughably terrible. So far, little incidents.
This, except the Navy. We had a guy who completely missed the target from the 3yd line. I took him aside and spent fifteen minutes with him, and then he qualified. That's not to say I'm a super instructor, it's to underscore how pathetically low the Navy sets the bar for handgun qualification.
-
I have no idea what HPD's firearms qualification requirement is,
Exactly, NO IDEA, yet you assume.
That's why misdemeanor domestic violence is usually taken care of with a fine.
Obviously you have no clue what domestic violence is and the penalty associated with it...
-
Im not arguing with you. If she can physically and mentally handle the situation, can properly handle a firearm and wants to take on the responsibility, by all means go for it. I just dont see a stereotypical 90lb, 4'7" grandma (whose probably 90 years old) be able to do so reasonably and responsibly is all. You said it yourself, she may physically not fair so well. That to me is a liability.
It's just like letting an 90 year old man whose sight may be going, drive a large semi (to further exaggerate my point). Yes they may be able to physically drive and mentally want to drive, but in old age, sight goes, reaction time slows down and fine motor skills go, all a bad combination when doing things like driving, or in the case were discussing, shooting a gun. At some point in everyones life we become more of a liability than anything else in certain situations like driving.
Would you trust that same person who is no longer able to drive shoot a gun? This is really common with surgeons and pilots and their careers. Would you allow that same person who is physically so-so perform open heart surgery on you? Mentally they could be sharp as hell and they could have performed the operation a million times, but one wrong twitch due to getting old and Heavies be dead.
Believe me im all for carrying and i do believe its everyones right to own and carry a gun - but regardless, there are some people, no matter their willingness to, that shouldn't be allowed to carry for liability reasons.
You are agreeing then disagreeing. Liability would be on any person who would take on the responsibility to carry. Doesn't matter age, size, or physical stature. Who is to make the determination of who is 'fit' to have the 'honor' of a CCW? You can either believe it is every Americans right to protect themselves, barring the obvious restrictions that criminals and mentally ill are not allowed, but a old person, a physically disabled person, a 'nomal' person... How can you make that determination?
-
Exactly, NO IDEA, yet you assume.
Bravo, good catch.
Obviously you have no clue what domestic violence is and the penalty associated with it...
Obviously you need an education. First off, your wild word picture about homicidal maniacs throttling their wives nearly to death is specifically covered by Hawaii state law, and wouldn't need the Lautenberg amendment to bar firearms ownership. HRS 79-906 states: "Where the physical abuse consists of intentionally or knowingly impeding the normal breathing or circulation of the blood of the family or household member by applying pressure on the throat or the neck, abuse of a family or household member is a class C felony." That means that choking out the Mrs. would have barred you from ownership even if Lautenberg hadn't written his horrible amendment. Let's look a little further at the penalty associated with it: "For the first offense the person shall serve a minimum jail sentence of forty-eight hours; and (b) For a second offense that occurs within one year of the first conviction, the person shall be termed a "repeat offender" and serve a minimum jail sentence of thirty days." Holy hell, look out. Two days in jail! You're right, misdemeanor domestic violence is a horrific crime that the legislature takes very seriously.
-
Earlier you stated:
That's why misdemeanor domestic violence is usually taken care of with a fine.
And now you posted:
HRS 79-906 states: "Where the physical abuse consists of intentionally or knowingly impeding the normal breathing or circulation of the blood of the family or household member by applying pressure on the throat or the neck, abuse of a family or household member is a class C felony. Let's look a little further at the penalty associated with it: "For the first offense the person shall serve a minimum jail sentence of forty-eight hours; and (b) For a second offense that occurs within one year of the first conviction, the person shall be termed a "repeat offender" and serve a minimum jail sentence of thirty days." Holy hell, look out. Two days in jail!
Sounds like you needed to educated earlier and now you did the research, so my mission is accomplished.
The Lautenberg amendment was passed to prevent the escalation of violence in the home, and a tool for the abused to separate themselves from the abuser. In all domestic violence cases a 24 hour stay away order is given to the aggressor so the victim can obtain a TRO. Also the state automatically becomes the complainant so the aggressor can't intimidate the victim into not prosecuting.
-
Proposed shall issue carry law for Illinois, 'cause the Federal Court has said that not issuing carry permits is unconstitutional:
http://onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com/2013/01/shall-issue-concealed-carry-bill.html (http://onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com/2013/01/shall-issue-concealed-carry-bill.html)
I could live with that.....
-
Really!!! So you think that a guy that beats the shit out his wife and, or kids should be able to get a gun? A guy that has a history of stalking, threatening, choking, hitting, a family member should be able to get a gun? Why! So the next time he flips out he can get that gun and kill his whole family and potentially kill the officers responding to the call. You still think the Lautenberg amendment is a POS? If you do, then I truly believe that you don't deserve to carry concealed because something is seriously wrong with your logic.
I do have experience with domestic violence, over 25 years, seeing the aftermath of some of these people. But, that being said, there are three issues that make the Lautenberg Amendment a problem from my perspective:
First, for what other misdemeanor can you loose, forever, a core Constitutional right? None. So why is the Second Amendment subject to such strict scrutiny?
Second, there have been cases where sposes were convicted of "domestic violence" for rather trivial things, such as throwing car keys (not at, but to) their spouse during an argument. Or, two brothers, 17 and 18, are residing together and get into a shoving match. The police intervene and in court one or the other is convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence. There are many cases of similar nature that really shouldn't rise to the level of a lifetime ban of a core fundamental right.
Third, there are man, many cases where someone involved in a domestic violence case pled down to a misdemeanor based on the lawyer's recommendations (usually to avoid a long and costly court battle) and based on the fact that a misdemeanor wouldn't impact their life 20 years later. However, after passage of the Lautenberg Act, those convicted years earlier, who had no knowledge that their misdemeanor conviction would cause impact them in this manner, were immediately deemed ineligible to own firearms? How is this fair?
As to training, please remember that given the opportunity, government officials will make the training as difficult and costly as possible. Look at what the State AG did when formulating the regulations for retired officers to qualify under the LEOSA act: yearly retraining, available only on the Big Island at a cost of $500.00, Qualification tests that were more difficult than active duty cops.....
Do you really want someone who doesn't want you to won, let along carry firearms, determining what level of training is necessary to exercise your Constitutional rights? What other Constitutional rights require training? Heck, you don't even need to show an ID when voting.....
-
I do have experience with domestic violence, over 25 years, seeing the aftermath of some of these people. But, that being said, there are three issues that make the Lautenberg Amendment a problem from my perspective:
First, for what other misdemeanor can you loose, forever, a core Constitutional right? None. So why is the Second Amendment subject to such strict scrutiny?
Second, there have been cases where sposes were convicted of "domestic violence" for rather trivial things, such as throwing car keys (not at, but to) their spouse during an argument. Or, two brothers, 17 and 18, are residing together and get into a shoving match. The police intervene and in court one or the other is convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence. There are many cases of similar nature that really shouldn't rise to the level of a lifetime ban of a core fundamental right.
Third, there are man, many cases where someone involved in a domestic violence case pled down to a misdemeanor based on the lawyer's recommendations (usually to avoid a long and costly court battle) and based on the fact that a misdemeanor wouldn't impact their life 20 years later. However, after passage of the Lautenberg Act, those convicted years earlier, who had no knowledge that their misdemeanor conviction would cause impact them in this manner, were immediately deemed ineligible to own firearms? How is this fair?
Fourth, there have been thousands (dozens that I know of) cases where women lie and fabricate the occurrence of domestic violence just to spite their men.
I've seen many times where some poor schmuck just accepts the charges because he's tired of fighting with said lying tramp.
Now the wrongly accused person is stuck never being to enjoy his constitutional right.
:tinfoil: why stop there... Lets just strip people of all their constitutional rights while we're at it.
-
+1
-
I dont think police should carry guns. There are too many accidental innocent bystanders hit by stray bullets, maybe innocent children too. Plus the fact they can hurt innocent criminals. Because you are not guilty till proven guilty? :wtf:
-
Anyone know what the requirements for ccw in other states are? How does this proposal stack up? Just curious cause if lesser restricitions yield successful ccw in other states where there is a larger population than here, why would you want more restrictions in a smaller population?
-
"well regulated" is a difficult to implement and make everyone happy.
Considering that the definition of "well regulated" in Hawaii is that this this has been a no issue CCW state our idle musings on what degree of training should be necessary are largely academic. This is not likely to change any time soon though we can hope.
Here is a handy breakdown of Ohio's shall issue CCW requirements. http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/ohio-ccw-application-checklist (http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/ohio-ccw-application-checklist)
The training requirements are similar in nature to the class requirements laid out by Hawaii for pistol ownership: an X-hour long class with X-hours of range time. It is the NRA, by and large, that determines the content of the classes and not the law itself.
So one way of looking at it is that while the law may dictate that the training happens it is the trainers (usually military, ex-leo, and NRA) that determine who is certified to carry the firearm.
I haven't read this CCW bill in detail, yet. My first reaction was "Holy cow, this is ridiculously detailed." It probably needs to be to have a snowball's chance in hell here, though. Its not ideal, but if there is any chance that such a bill can make it through the legislature I think it is to our advantage to wholeheartedly support it even if we disagree with aspects of it. The chances of HI being anything other than a no issue state are slim to none otherwise.
-
Good lord. Just read through the bill. Its like wading through mud.
My initial reaction is that while it is fairly specific about what the training courses should cover those courses would likely cover them anyway. By making such things explicit in the law the goal it to make it very clear to people who oppose CCW that ONLY good guys with a specific skill set laid out by the training requirements will qualify for CCW.
3 other items that drew my concern.
1) Written psychological evaluation. It is reasonable but a potentially dangerous provision. It has the taste of an all or nothing approach: if you FAIL the psych exam does that go on your record and the next time you apply for a permit to acquire will you be then turned down? I'd like this to made clearer so that people don't get caught in that trap. Still, I understand the provision and I can see that if this bill passes there will be threads here about which folks to go see for your evaluation. And which not to.
2) Specific prohibition of carry in schools. For f*ck's sake, this specifically eliminates the only part of a CCW system that has any hope of preventing something like Sandy Hook. Why is it that we DON'T want someone who passes these rigorous evaluations and trainings to be a certified "good guy" to be armed in schools filled with our most treasured little ones? That makes no sense. I understand it for the purposes of getting any CCW shall issue provision passed in this toxic climate but this is silly. I'd leave that up to the schools themselves rather than codify it in the CCW law.
3) Same thing for school admin buildings.
Part of me thinks that if we're going to do it we should do it right. Part of me thinks that there is no chance of it happening anyway so if certain concessions will allow its passage than it would be worth it. I doubt that even such concessions will have any affect, though. Too many parties in the state are against CCW for a variety of reasons.
-
Good lord. Just read through the bill. Its like wading through mud.
My initial reaction is that while it is fairly specific about what the training courses should cover those courses would likely cover them anyway. By making such things explicit in the law the goal it to make it very clear to people who oppose CCW that ONLY good guys with a specific skill set laid out by the training requirements will qualify for CCW.
3 other items that drew my concern.
1) Written psychological evaluation. It is reasonable but a potentially dangerous provision. It has the taste of an all or nothing approach: if you FAIL the psych exam does that go on your record and the next time you apply for a permit to acquire will you be then turned down? I'd like this to made clearer so that people don't get caught in that trap. Still, I understand the provision and I can see that if this bill passes there will be threads here about which folks to go see for your evaluation. And which not to.
2) Specific prohibition of carry in schools. For f*ck's sake, this specifically eliminates the only part of a CCW system that has any hope of preventing something like Sandy Hook. Why is it that we DON'T want someone who passes these rigorous evaluations and trainings to be a certified "good guy" to be armed in schools filled with our most treasured little ones? That makes no sense. I understand it for the purposes of getting any CCW shall issue provision passed in this toxic climate but this is silly. I'd leave that up to the schools themselves rather than codify it in the CCW law.
3) Same thing for school admin buildings.
Part of me thinks that if we're going to do it we should do it right. Part of me thinks that there is no chance of it happening anyway so if certain concessions will allow its passage than it would be worth it. I doubt that even such concessions will have any affect, though. Too many parties in the state are against CCW for a variety of reasons.
We all broke the rule and read the bill. were not suppose to do that until it already gets passed. :wtf:
As far as the psych test. I wonder if i would fail because i cannot spell. they would be failing people for everything. double negative connotation, fail. Gosh almost like taking the SAT tests again. hahahah. All the while the elite are saying, yes, yes, very good. I knew these couldnt put together a well structured english sentence. permit declined. Next!!!!
-
We all broke the rule and read the bill. were not suppose to do that until it already gets passed. :wtf:
As far as the psych test. I wonder if i would fail because i cannot spell. they would be failing people for everything. double negative connotation, fail. Gosh almost like taking the SAT tests again. hahahah. All the while the elite are saying, yes, yes, very good. I knew these couldnt put together a well structured english sentence. permit declined. Next!!!!
"Have you ever participated in the violent overthrow of the government?"
"Yes."
"What??"
"Not our government! :rofl:"
This guy has a sense of humor. FAIL!
-
"Have you ever participated in the violent overthrow of the government?"
"Yes."
"What??"
"Not our government! :rofl:"
This guy has a sense of humor. FAIL!
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
ho hawaiian.
-
12/18/13 SB274: Carried over to 2014 Regular Session. (http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=274&year=2014)
18 December 2013, 3:00 pm
12/18/13 SB274: Status Update
Source: SB274 Status Feed (http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=274&year=2014)