2aHawaii
General Topics => General Discussion => Topic started by: Jl808 on February 22, 2013, 01:07:46 PM
-
Posted at legal / activism section of site. http://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=6790
Hearing set on
Comm Room Date/Time
JUD 325 2/26/2013 2:05 PM
SUPPORT!!!!
-
Testimony submitted.
Come on guys and gals. SUBMIT THAT TESTIMONY ! Even if you can't be at the hearing.
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=HB&billnumber=603&year=2013 (http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=HB&billnumber=603&year=2013)
:shaka:
-
submitted :thumbsup:
-
Done! :thumbsup:
-
Submitted! Anyone gonna show up?
-
Is that like castle doctrine?
What are you guys saying in your testimony?
-
Is that like castle doctrine?
What are you guys saying in your testimony?
Mine was a simple two sentence, and went somewhere along the lines of:
I support this bill and I believe it will reduce crime. Criminals would be more apt to think twice of invading a home if they feel they may be harmed.
-
Wait... we were supposed to support this?
Guys! You need to include that information when you put out the call! I just assume everything bill-related falls in the "oppose" category!!
Nah, I went and read the bill and made up my own mind. But as i was in the process of that, it did occur to me to wonder if anyone would have that knee-jerk reaction.
-
Wait... we were supposed to support this?
Guys! You need to include that information when you put out the call! I just assume everything bill-related falls in the "oppose" category!!
Nah, I went and read the bill and made up my own mind. But as i was in the process of that, it did occur to me to wonder if anyone would have that knee-jerk reaction.
^True...we should specify when posting.
-
maybe he can edit the title and put a :thumbsup: or thumbs up or something.
I might be able to make it down for this hearing. doesnt the recess come up soon for these guys?
-
Relevant in the sense that if if the King could not enter, neither should any intruder of lesser nobility be able to.
Quote from William Pitt, 1st Earl of Chatham, 17 Dec 1762, in a speech to Parliament:
The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail — its roof may shake — the wind may blow through it — the storm may enter — the rain may enter — but the King of England cannot enter — all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement.
IMAGE FROM WIKI
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/File:Elderpitt.jpg (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/File:Elderpitt.jpg)
-
Supported!!!
-
testimony submitted and link forwarded
-
Support and shared! Would be good to not have to worry so much when these crackheads try and bust into your house. As long as they dont take your means to resolve the problem.
-
IMO if someone is in my house I should be allowed to do whatever is needed to remove them from said house..and not need to worry about prison/fines and whatever else comes along with something like that.
-
Done!
-
Done baby... Done!!! :thumbsup:
-
Done. Gladly.
Here's the testimony I put together. I like to write out the testimony and attach it as a .doc. That way its a little more than just [OPPOSE] or [SUPPORT] in the testimony list. Might get read by the folks who should be reading it.
"Aloha,
I am writing to voice my support for HB 603.
Hawaii has a good balance of laws that make it difficult for potentially dangerous people to legally acquire firearms. This bill closes a hole that our current laws leave open: the unpleasant fact that criminals know they have the legal upper hand should a victim chose to defend themselves with a firearm – the most effective defense and deterrent.
As the law currently stands a single mother, for example, could be sued by a would-be rapist if she used a gun, even if she doesn't shoot the intruder, to keep him from raping her. Since the violent felony did not occur the mother is in the extremely unfortunate position of being held liable for use of deadly force due to the success of her self defense.
No one wants to shoot an intruder. What we want is for the intrusion to never happen in the first place. Removing the ambiguity around whether a home owner is protected from civil liability when using a firearm for defense in their own home will have the effect of reducing home break ins and related violent crime because such crimes will become orders of magnitude more dangerous for the criminals.
For this reason I strongly support this bill and urge you to do the same.
Mahalo for your time and service,"
-
Submitted again thru our business.... Self Defense Solutions Hawaii... :shaka:
-
Submitted...."Aloha, I would like to voice my support for HB603. I believe that while we enjoy a largely idyllic life here in hawaii I believe that it is only a matter of time before we start to see crime patterns that mirror major cities on thr mainland. I hope this doesn't happen for many years, or even decades, we as good citizens deserve the right to defend ourselves and our families. Some might argue that this is what the police are for - to protect us from crime. I would argue that the police can't be there to stop every crime from happening. As law abiding citizens without the ability to defend ourselves in our own homes, and with the threat of liability hanging over our heads we are merely sheep hoping the wolf picks another hapless sheep. I would like to thank you for your time and hope that you will all vote to support this bill."
-
Submitted:
I support this bill because I believe it will make Hawaii safer and reduce the number of home invasion robberies which occur on this Island. Criminals can break into a home and rob the home even threaten the owner with non deadly force and the home owner is powerless to stop them. Allowing a home owner to defend their home will level the power between the law abiding citizen and the criminal. This is particularly important with woman and the elderly members of our community
-
Submitted:
"I support this bill--in the situations for which it is written, legal uncertainty should not work to force the law-abiding to hesitate to act."
-
this is what I wrote:
I am in support of HB603 as it gives the homeowner the ability to protect home and family from criminals without hesitation. It will also reduce home invasions because criminals can no longer have the upper hand against the homeowner.
-
Bump to the top. More testimony needed in support of this one.
-
Testimony submitted
-
didn't Lingle put a bill through just like this before she left office?
-
This will be very interesting if it gets passed.... How many or who will it have to go thru to become law? This would be a huge leap forward if we could pass this law. I'll spread the word on social media site I frequent. Other should do the same. This would simply mean we would not get sued or charged even if a robber gets hurt on our property while trying to rob it!!! :thumbsup:
-
I miss Lingle being in office. here are two bills she signed off on.
http://www.infowars.com/2nd-amendment-rights-protected-during-emergency-in-hawaii/ (http://www.infowars.com/2nd-amendment-rights-protected-during-emergency-in-hawaii/)
-
Submitted my support.
-
Bump. Deadline for online testimony is 2:00pm today.
-
How come we can't view any testimony yet. Shouldn't it already be posted ?
-
.
-
So many testimonies marked LATE!!!
-
LIFE opposed and HRA opposed as too broad.
-
Hmm I see their points. But wouldn't they want to go "support but amend"?
-
Delete
-
Interesting.
All but one of the organizations who wrote in opposed the bill.
All but 4 of the individuals who wrote in supported it; three offered comments only, one opposed.
See, this says to me that there's a lack of clear communication on our side, which is a bit problematic.
-
Interesting.
All but one of the organizations who wrote in opposed the bill.
All but 4 of the individuals who wrote in supported it; three offered comments only, one opposed.
See, this says to me that there's a lack of clear communication on our side, which is a bit problematic.
That's exactly what I was thinking.
-
LIFE opposed and HRA opposed as too broad.
They only opposed because it was too broad? Or was there more to it than that?
-
Interesting.
All but one of the organizations who wrote in opposed the bill.
All but 4 of the individuals who wrote in supported it; three offered comments only, one opposed.
See, this says to me that there's a lack of clear communication on our side, which is a bit problematic.
That's exactly what I was thinking.
I agree as well.
Although I don't think the current law is OK as written where I have to determine if the perp is committing a class A or B felony or is committing bodily harm to someone in my house before I can defend myself or them.
They only opposed because it was too broad? Or was there more to it than that?
What's the theory BUD ? Don't leave us guessing.
-
No theory, just curious.
-
I agree. Things that make you go HMMMMMMM.
-
They only opposed because it was too broad? Or was there more to it than that?
While the testimonies from LIFE and HRA are both brief, the other organizations testifying against the bill are pretty detailed. The premises fall along two lines:
1. This law would be redundant, as there is already a Castle Doctrine law in place here, and
2. The wording is too vague. You could, for example, shoot your landlord if you didn't want him in the house you were renting from him.
Personally, the vague wording doesn't trouble me. We all like to tell the lawmakers that we're intelligent and responsible individuals, right? So why are we afraid of proving it? Do we actually think that there will be a rash of shootings just because the law changes, or isn't that exactly the kind of thinking we spend so much time mocking?
Regardless of my view, it would have been nice to have had a discussion on it, and then present a unified front to the lawmakers. What we've done in this case is demonstrate that HRA and LIFE (and numerous other organizations) do not speak for the people they claim to represent. At least, that's a perception a senator could easily infer from the submitted testimonies.
-
What bill is next lol
-
While the testimonies from LIFE and HRA are both brief, the other organizations testifying against the bill are pretty detailed. The premises fall along two lines:
1. This law would be redundant, as there is already a Castle Doctrine law in place here, and
2. The wording is too vague. You could, for example, shoot your landlord if you didn't want him in the house you were renting from him.
Personally, the vague wording doesn't trouble me. We all like to tell the lawmakers that we're intelligent and responsible individuals, right? So why are we afraid of proving it? Do we actually think that there will be a rash of shootings just because the law changes, or isn't that exactly the kind of thinking we spend so much time mocking?
Regardless of my view, it would have been nice to have had a discussion on it, and then present a unified front to the lawmakers. What we've done in this case is demonstrate that HRA and LIFE (and numerous other organizations) do not speak for the people they claim to represent. At least, that's a perception a senator could easily infer from the submitted testimonies.
ditto... demonstrates that the organizations clearly do not represent the interests of Hawaii gun owners, and therefore, pose no organized opposition. It can be spun either way the lawmakers want now. They can use written testimony to do whatever they want, if they so desire. They can say the vast majority or Hawaii firearm organizations support our view, or the vast majority of Hawaii gun owners support our view based on written testimony, and either way they can legitimately justify their vote.
-
Again, my testimony was not inserted into the list. ??? I did, at least, get my support logged. However, my testimony, that was uploaded via the web site, was not entered. This is starting to piss me off! :grrr: Perhaps this is why there are so many comments only posts?
-
Does anyone know what type of format is required to upload testimony?
-
Does anyone know what type of format is required to upload testimony?
i can't find anything online. I'd recommend trying to stay with PDF or word if you can. just to be on the safe side.
-
Wait so should we support a bill like this or not?
How does our castle doctrine law work now?
-
Does anyone know what type of format is required to upload testimony?
It uses their form?
-
What went wrong here was a lack of communication.
The organization (HRA) that was representing us collectively, did not represent out views in its testimony,nor did it communicate with us it's position on this bill.
I think that unless HRA can improve its ability to communicate with its members and represent us collectively, I'd rather lean towards making up my own mind in issues that are this important instead of waiting and doing nothing.
We really need to continue making people more aware of the things happening locally and I think that 2ahawaii is it.
At the very least, 2ahawaii can give the various firearm groups a place to communicate so we can act more cohesively or at least have a place to have a good discussion on these things.
-
i can't find anything online. I'd recommend trying to stay with PDF or word if you can. just to be on the safe side.
+1. PDF works great. You can use free PDF printers like Cutepdf or Bullzip PDF printer if you don't have one.
-
i can't find anything online. I'd recommend trying to stay with PDF or word if you can. just to be on the safe side.
I sent it in word format, and it works a few of the first times. but now, no so much.
-
+1. PDF works great. You can use free PDF printers like Cutepdf or Bullzip PDF printer if you don't have one.
Thanks! I'll look into that. Everone should be able to do PDF
-
You can use the comments section to type your message and then you don't have to worry about any format issues
Y
-
You can use the comments section to type your message and then you don't have to worry about any format issues
Y
If you have a ten page document you probably don't want to retype in the box. It probably won't accept that much anyway.
-
If you have a ten page document you probably don't want to retype in the box. It probably won't accept that much anyway.
copy paste
-
Wait so should we support a bill like this or not?
How does our castle doctrine law work now?
If I'm not mistaken, Here's the current law:
["[§663‑1.57] Owner to felon; limited liability. (a) An owner, including but not limited to a public entity, of any estate or any other interest in real property, whether possessory or nonpossessory, or any agent of the owner lawfully on the premises by consent of the owner, shall not be liable to any perpetrator engaged in any of the felonies set forth in subsection (b) for any injury or death to the perpetrator that occurs upon that property during the course of or after the commission of such felony, or when a reasonable person would believe that commission of a felony as set forth in subsection (b) is imminent; provided that if the perpetrator is injured, the perpetrator is charged with the criminal offense and convicted of the criminal offense or of a lesser included felony or misdemeanor.
(b) This section applies to the following felonies:
(1) Murder in the first or second degree;
(2) Attempted murder in the first or second degree;
(3) Any class A felony as provided in the Hawaii Penal Code, including any attempt or conspiracy to commit a crime classified as a class A felony;
(4) Any class B felony involving violence or physical harm as provided in the Hawaii Penal Code;
(5) Any felony punishable by imprisonment for life;
(6) Any other felony in which the person inflicts serious bodily injury on another person; and
(7) Any felony in which the person personally used a firearm or a dangerous or deadly weapon.
(c) The limitation on liability under this section arises:
(1) At the moment the perpetrator commences the felony to which this section applies; or
(2) At the moment the owner or agent of the owner lawfully on the premises by consent of the owner believes that a commission of a felony under subsection (b) is imminent;
and extends to the moment the perpetrator is no longer upon the property.
(d) The limitation on liability under this section applies only when the perpetrator's conduct in furtherance of the commission of a felony specified in subsection (b) proximately or legally causes the injury or death.
(e) This section does not limit the liability of an owner that otherwise exists for:
(1) Wilful, wanton, or criminal conduct; or
(2) Wilful or malicious failure to guard or warn against a dangerous condition, use, or structure; or
(3) Injury or death caused to individuals other than the perpetrator of the felony.
(f) Except with regard to [subsections] (e)(1) and (e)(3), the limitation of liability under this section shall not be affected by the failure of the owner to warn the perpetrator of the felony that the owner is armed and ready to cause bodily harm or death.
(g) For purposes of this section, "owner" means the owner, the occupant, tenant, or anyone authorized to be on the property by the owner or the occupant, including a guest or a family or household member, employee, or agent of the owner lawfully on the premises.
(h) The limitation on liability provided by this section shall be in addition to any other available defense."]
Try to figure all that out while you're trying to determine if you have LIMITED liability to defend your home and it's occupants.
" Wait, Class A or B felony ? Perp needs to be charged and convicted after the fact if I shoot ? Is he inflicting serious bodily injury ? I'm not immune from willful conduct, willful failure to guard or warn the perp from dangerous condition....... "
Head explodes before I can defend myself or my family.
I agree the bill was broad, but support with amendments would have been the appropriate response in my opinion as the current law sucks.
WE DO NOT HAVE CASTLE DOCTRINE IN HAWAII. In my opinion.
Now back to the unified front and communication discussion. :thumbsup:
-
If you Google castle doctrine, it will pull up the bill for Hawaii. Specifically in that bill under subsection 4 or 5 it states if you are in your home you have no duty to retreat if you are not the agressor or something like that. Can't quote it now cause I'm on my phone and I forget which hrs it is.
-
Correct, we have a Castle Doctrine in the sense that there is no duty to retreat. However, you would need to go through a 20 point checklist ( I'm exaggerating...maybe ) before you can use physical or deadly force.
"Castle Doctrine
Hawaii adopted a castle law in 2010. While the law isn’t as broad as many other states’ castle laws, it removes the duty of residents to retreat when they’re confronted by a criminal inside their home or on their property. The law removes the liability of citizens who use physical or deadly force against criminals who are in the act of committing a list of felonies, including any Class A or Class B felony involving physical violence under Hawaii’s penal code, as well as any felony involving the use of a firearm, involving serious bodily injury or punishable by life in prison."
From : http://civilliberty.about.com/od/guncontrol/a/Hawaii-Gun-Laws.htm (http://civilliberty.about.com/od/guncontrol/a/Hawaii-Gun-Laws.htm)
Try to decipher the list of felonies applicable before using physical or deadly force when seconds count.
The proposed bill was overly broad, I agree. But the current law is overly complicated/restrictive. Could have supported with amendments. That's still my position. And in my opinion should have been HRA's and LIFE's.
But I am not a lawyer ;D
P.S. Hats off to Sen. Sam Slom to get the current version passed. That was a battle in itself.
In some ways, I guess we should be thankful for what we have.
-
I think the HRA and LIFE were right to oppose this bill. It was never going to pass, and supporting it would have allowed the anti's to paint gun owners as absolute loons. "Without invitation"? That's ludicrous, even by my standards. It would have literally made it perfectly ok to blow your neighbor's head off if he knocked on your door and cracked it open to step inside and say, "Anybody home?".
Sometimes bills are so extreme that it's better for an organization to just steer completely clear and oppose the whole thing than to risk being associated with what would clearly be a wildly unpopular proposal.
-
I think the HRA and LIFE were right to oppose this bill. It was never going to pass, and supporting it would have allowed the anti's to paint gun owners as absolute loons. "Without invitation"? That's ludicrous, even by my standards. It would have literally made it perfectly ok to blow your neighbor's head off if he knocked on your door and cracked it open to step inside and say, "Anybody home?".
Sometimes bills are so extreme that it's better for an organization to just steer completely clear and oppose the whole thing than to risk being associated with what would clearly be a wildly unpopular proposal.
The real question/concern is why wasn't this bill thoroughly vetted among 2a members and HRA/LIFE leadership and why was there no communication/discussion between HRA/LIFE and 2a members? Everyone should be unified in their testimony and in sync. This effort was fragmented at best and that's no way to successfully achieve the objective.
-
The real question/concern is why wasn't this bill thoroughly vetted among 2a members and HRA/LIFE leadership and why was there no communication/discussion between HRA/LIFE and 2a members? Everyone should be unified in their testimony and in sync. This effort was fragmented at best and that's no way to successfully achieve the objective.
Indeed. That is a question I cannot answer, other than to say that I think HRA/LIFE did a good job of representing the best interests of their members. We just need to figure out how to get the word out to all the individuals writing in.
-
Indeed. That is a question I cannot answer, other than to say that I think HRA/LIFE did a good job of representing the best interests of their members. We just need to figure out how to get the word out to all the individuals writing in.
Agree! I wrongfully assumed some people on this forum were interfacing with these organizations but now I realize that is not the case. That surely needs to be rectified and it's in everyones best interest, both 2a members and the organizations.
-
HRA is good for Hawaii gun owners. However, communication with the HRA is very difficult at best. I have an older coworker the has been a HRA member since forever, and he had no clue that all these anti bills where coming out, untill I told him about it. The way things move so fast these days, those without computer access or do not have interest in checking this forum or FB are pretty much out of the loop. By the time they receive a HRA news letter it is much too late to do anything.
-
Hi all -- I received this email from HRA today.. Just wanted to pass this along
-------------------------
HRA Leg Report, 2/28/2013
The Senate Ways And Means money committee (WAM) gave decision and took a vote to pass SB69, SD1, which started out as a gun buyback bill, but ended up stuffed with other issues by Sen.Will Espero’s Public Safety Committee. We haven’t seen the actual Senate Draft 2 (SD2) yet, but Chair David Ige announced his recommendations, removing reference to gun buybacks, mental health background checks, and police gun safety programs from the bill. The $200,000 earmarked appropriation for these is deleted, but a blank line for an appropriation to the county police was left in the bill for further discussion. The bill will authorize the county police to do NICS (National Instant Checks System) checks (supported by HRA) on firearms owners who are already required to register firearms they bring in from out of state, and collect the FBI fee for fingerprints if the registrant has none on file. The 3-day window to register guns brought in is increased to 5 days, compatible with the registration requirement for guns acquired in state, and allowing for 3-day weekends. Sen. Sam Slom voted “no” as did WAM Vice-Chair, Senator Michelle Kidani, who said the counties should fund their own county police programs. Sen. Suzanne Chun Oakland expressed her concern about the Chair’s recommendation to extend the registration window. Go to:
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=69&year=2013 (http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=69&year=2013)
in a few days, when the clerks catch up, for the actual SD2 language crossing over to the House where the whole process repeats.
HB603, amending the Hawaii self-defense statutes, was heard Tuesday in House Judiciary Committee. Although this complicated section of Hawaii statute could be improved, HRA believes the current statute, only recently passed in 2010, is sufficient, and the legislative climate this year is too volatile, so recommended in testimony that the bill be deferred indefinitely (dead for the year). Chair Rhoads announced that as his intention. There will be no HB1 draft generated.
The Legislature is at its half-way point March 7, 2013. The worst gun bills are already dead for the year. A big mahalo to all you activists who support our gun rights during this difficult legislative session. Don’t let up before it’s over, May 2!
Dr Maxwell Cooper
HRA Legislative Liaison