Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - BRU

Pages: [1] 2
1
Why does the MPD online application requirements say that the Hawaii Hunter Education card needs to be issued within the last 4 years for long gun permit applications? I thought the Hawaii Hunter Ed was reverted back to being valid for life for long gun permits to acquire.

“ For long gun permits: Hawai‘i Hunter Education card (issued within the last 4 years);”
2
Strategies and Tactics / Re: Official Hawaii CCW Thread
« on: May 12, 2025, 05:23:23 PM »
What county and when was this?

Maui and the renewals were issued a couple of months ago.

I should clarify the situation. I received a couple of licenses shortly after the counties started issuing them so they were under the one year expiration timeframe and each license had its own unique number. I then applied for another license for a third pistol after the state changed it to a four year expiration and was issued a third license card with another unique license number. The previous two were up for renewal because of the one year expiration and upon approval, they were added under the license number of my third card. Now all three cards have the same expiration date of my third license but the date wasn’t extended. It kept the same expiration so my two renewals didn’t get the four years and were shorted about one year. Sorry if this is a bit confusing.
3
Strategies and Tactics / Re: Official Hawaii CCW Thread
« on: May 12, 2025, 12:24:08 PM »
Make sure they also update the expiration date when you add a gun on.  They might short change you.

Do you know if the expiration is handled differently with each county? I added another pistol to my license but the expiration date wasn’t extended.
5
When will we know more? What's the next step?

https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/sessions/session2025/orderoftheday/SOD_04-08-25_.htm

I believe all bills between H.C. 562 through H.C. 620 have the same status as SB401. Everything under this section. “ Returning the following Senate Bills which passed Third Reading in the House on April 4, 2025, in an amended form:”
6
Ah.. ok there it is... thanks! Is this mean a grandfather clause?


This subsection shall not apply to a person's possession of an assault rifle, an assault shotgun, or a .50 caliber firearm registered to the person before July 8, 2025, pursuant to 134-3.
     A person authorized under this subsection to possess an assault rifle, an assault shotgun, or a .50 caliber firearm shall possess that weapon only:
     (1)  On private property owned or immediately controlled by the person;

     (2)  On private property that is not open to the public with the express permission of the person who owns or immediately controls the property;

     (3)  While on the premises of a licensed firearms dealer or gunsmith for the purpose of lawful repair;

     (4)  While engaged in the legal use of the assault rifle, assault shotgun, or .50 caliber firearm at a properly licensed firing range or sport shooting competition venue; or

     (5)  While traveling to or from the locations listed in paragraphs (1) through (4); provided that the assault rifle, assault shotgun, or .50 caliber firearm is unloaded in an enclosed container, as defined in section 134-24.

Some of my issues with this bill:
1. They didn’t even make an exemption to be able to use these semi rifles and shotguns for hunting.
2. Their definition of assault shotgun uses the characteristic of having a max capacity of five rounds. Okay, well what type of shells because there’s no language to support the type? A shotgun that is advertised for four 2 3/4” shells could probably also hold six 1 3/4” mini shells. Being able to hold six shells now bans a lot more shotguns based on the bill’s language.
3, Their 10 round mag capacity is not the end game. If it was then there would be no justification to limit shotguns to five. They’re already projecting what the next push could be.
7
What’s the reason why SB1230 went through the JHA and FIN House committees last year versus SB3196 just being referred to only JHA this session?
8
Yes. I think the deadline is 3/29 as they need to give the usual 24hrs notice.  Someone can confirm this as I'm not 100% sure.

According to the legislative calendar, it sounds like the bill would need to be at the final committee by tomorrow but it wasn’t scheduled in the first committee as of today. I’m not sure how many committees are involved in the House.

MAR 21  SECOND LATERAL FILING (BILLS) – Filing Deadline for Second Lateral Bills.
MAR 22  SECOND LATERAL (BILLS) – All bills with multiple referrals must move to their final referral committee in the non-originating chamber by this date.
9
Political Discussion / Re: Comrade Karl uses whataboutism
« on: March 19, 2024, 06:54:35 PM »
Very hypocritical for him to speak of immunity when he himself abuses it and pushes unconstitutional state laws hoping they will stick. Maybe he should reform Hawaii lawmaking by opening themselves up to personal lawsuits by being a bill’s sponsor or make whoever votes in favor of bills that are later found to be unconstitutional liable for damages.
10
just FYI, possession of an illegal mag is a misdemeanor. only if inserted into a firearm its a felony.
also, due to last years sb1230, any criminal violation related to firearms means you lose your right to possess firearms and ammo for 20 years, so the misdemeanor might as well be a felony.

Lets all get on the same page here, If you are not a gunsmith, you are not "handy"(qualified probly better term) enough to modify magazines. or better yet, just state it isnt possible to block your magazines. throw in a "already own", some "law abiding citizens", and "making into criminals by passing this bill".

best case the bill gets killed, worst case it gets passed but they add grandfather for everything.

I think if HB2342 also passes and gets signed into law, having an illegal mag (which would be a misdemeanor) could easily turn into a Class C felony especially as a CCW license holder.

"§134-     Carrying of a firearm in the commission of a separate misdemeanor; penalty.  (a)  It shall be unlawful for a person to knowingly carry on the person or have within the person's immediate control a firearm while engaged in the commission of a separate misdemeanor offense, whether the firearm was loaded or not, and whether operable or not; provided that a person shall not be prosecuted under this section when the separate offense is an offense otherwise defined by this chapter or is the offense of criminally negligent storage of a firearm under section 707-714.5.

     (b)  A conviction and sentence under this section shall be in addition to and not in lieu of any conviction and sentence for the separate misdemeanor; provided that the sentence imposed under this section may run concurrently or consecutively with the sentence for the separate misdemeanor.

     (c)  Any person violating this section shall be guilty of a class C felony.
11
If this bill passes as is, then you cannot teach your kid to shoot a rifle as it would be illegal to transfer the posession of an "assault weapon accessory" to them.  I mean, I guess you could remove the handguard, pistol grip, and flash hider, and buttstock.  And give your kid a big oven mitt so they don't burn their hand.
I don’t recall reading any wording that states the attachments need to be installed on the firearm to be prohibited so I assume just the mere possession of it would be a felony.
12
My bolt action rifle has a threaded barrel and flash suppressor.  Came with two 10-rd mags.

Is this an assault weapon?

Because if it is then this whole fiasco is a circus and total BS.

This is my current understanding of the bill as it is written. I could be wrong.
“Assault rifles” are being defined as semiautomatic rifles so no to the bolt action question.
My concern would be more on the bolt rifle’s attachments and whether they’re interchangeable and could be installed on something like an AR platform. The bill currently prohibits “assault weapon attachments”.
13
Not clear if someone currently possessing a rifle with one or more of the 8 “attachment” characteristics would be grandfathered or even be able to pass them down to someones kid or would their firearms become illegal to own under this bill, exception being antique firearms under their definition? I get the .50 cal, pistols and mags not being grandfathered but the attachment part is somewhat ambiguous, to me at anyways. Seems like an attempt to accomplish what the original bill had but wordsmithing intentionally to confuse other legislators in order to accomplish his original objective....essentally a assult weapons ban and a lot of semi-auto other weapons to boot. just not clear to me.

I read it as not being able to possess the attachments alone. Doesn’t even need to be attached to a firearm.

Ownership, etc., of automatic firearms, silencers, etc., prohibited; penalties.  (a)  The manufacture, possession, sale, barter, trade, gift, transfer, or acquisition of any of the following is prohibited:  assault pistols, except as provided by section 134-4(e); .50 caliber rifles, except as provided by section 134-4(f); assault weapon attachments; automatic firearms; rifles with barrel lengths less than sixteen inches; shotguns with barrel lengths less than eighteen inches; cannons; mufflers, silencers, or devices for deadening or muffling the sound of discharged firearms; hand grenades, dynamite, blasting caps, bombs, or bombshells, or other explosives; or any type of ammunition or any projectile component thereof coated with teflon or any other similar coating designed primarily to enhance its capability to penetrate metal or pierce protective armor; and any type of ammunition or any projectile component thereof designed or intended to explode or segment upon impact with its target.

(e)  Any person who intentionally or knowingly violates subsection (a) or (b) shall be guilty of a class C felony and shall be imprisoned for a term of five years without probation.
14
"a form letter signed by more than one hundred individuals; and more than two hundred eighty individuals." - Numbers seem off, but never seen it broken down like this before.

"No .50 caliber rifle or assault weapon attachment shall be sold or transferred on or after July 8, 2024"
Ummmmm so I'm guessing an AR15 being sold when this law takes effect cannot have any of the 8 features on it, nor can you buy it separately. 

Looks like Rhoads either did a slick move to still have a "assault rifle/shotgun" ban in different terms.  Or he changed his mind after the hearing.

Not sure if Senator San Buenaventura got backstabbed by Rhoads to get her vote and didn't know, or if she went along with it.

Doesn’t 134-8(a) just straight out prohibit possession of the attachments which would basically prohibit most semis by default?
15
This revised bill is confusing but it sounds like anyone in possession of an “assault weapon attachment” is guilty of a class C felony. I’m assuming the attachments are what they’re using as the “characteristics“ that make an “assault rifle” which includes a threaded barrel that a lot of semi rifles have.
17
Legal and Activism / Re: SB2845
« on: February 20, 2024, 04:53:12 PM »
Looked at the amendments again removing the ban on possession and control and still banning sales and transfer.

HRS 134-5 states under 21 can "may carry and use ... suitable ammunition while actually engaged in hunting or target shooting..."

So they can use ammunition they already have.  However no one can sell, distribute, or transfer ammunition to them.  So they can use what they got now, but can't get anymore once the law goes into effect.  Still messed up.

What’s meant by “distribute, or otherwise transfer”? If I’m at the range or hunting with a minor, am I prohibited from handing a box of ammo to the minor because it’s a transfer? Seems like these scenarios in combination with HB2342 would make the person a class C felon.

SB2845
"§134-    Sale of ammunition to a person under the age of twenty-one; prohibition; penalty.  (a)  No person shall knowingly sell, offer to sell, distribute, or otherwise transfer ammunition for any firearm to any person who is under the age of twenty-one.
     (b)  It is a defense to a prosecution for the sale of ammunition to a person under the age of twenty-one that the defendant sold the ammunition to the person under the age of twenty-one with the belief, which was reasonable under the circumstances, that the person under the age of twenty-one had attained the age of twenty-one.
     (c)  Any person violating subsection (a) shall be guilty of a misdemeanor."

HB2342
“~134- Carrying or use of a firearm in the commission of a separate misdemeanor; penalty. (a) It shall be unlawful for a person to knowingly carry on the person or have within the person’s immediate control or intentionally use or threaten to use a firearm while engaged in the commission of a separate misdemeanor offense, whether the firearm was loaded or not, and whether operable or not; provided that a person shall not be prosecuted under this section when the separate offense is an offense otherwise defined by this chapter or is the offense of criminally negligent storage of a firearm under section 707- 714.5.
(b) A conviction and sentence under this section shall be in addition to and not in lieu of any conviction and sentence for the separate misdemeanor; provided that the sentence imposed under this section may run concurrently or consecutively with the sentence for the separate misdemeanor.
(c) Any person violating this section shall be guilty of a class C felony.”
18
General Discussion / Re: Worst 2A decision ever!? Hawaii Supreme Court
« on: February 19, 2024, 02:46:49 PM »
Darryl Perry, recently retired police chief of Kauai, talks about why repealing 2A is the right thing to do

More tyranny hiding under a word salad of caring and kindness

https://www.civilbeat.org/2024/02/sanctity-of-life-and-the-second-amendment/

And then Civil Beat also posts this on the same day

https://www.civilbeat.org/2024/02/danny-de-gracia-we-need-to-start-talking-about-threats-to-hawaiis-security/
19
Legal and Activism / Re: SB2845
« on: February 11, 2024, 11:10:27 PM »
It’s a bit ridiculous that a child can obtain their hunter’s ed card at 10 yrs old but wouldn’t be able to do anything with it until 11 years later. Can’t even shoot at a range.
20
Legal and Activism / SB2845
« on: February 11, 2024, 10:28:32 PM »
Please correct me if I’m wrong but it sounds like SB2845 would prohibit people under 21 from rifle and shotgun hunting if they are not allowed to posses or control any ammunition for any firearm.
Pages: [1] 2