The question has come up if we should introduce a CCW bill again this year or withdraw it.  The benefit of not pursuing CCW is that we can focus on and better defend against the anti-gun bills coming up.  I feel we should pass on it because it's not winnable and that we need a lot of people to support and push it which I don't see happening.  No one's been working on it for the past year.

Punaperson's stun gun ban repeal has a better chance of getting through and we should focus on that for now.

The question has come up if we should introduce a CCW bill again this year or withdraw it.  The benefit of not pursuing CCW is that we can focus on and better defend against the anti-gun bills coming up.  I feel we should pass on it because it's not winnable and that we need a lot of people to support and push it which I don't see happening.  No one's been working on it for the past year.

Punaperson's stun gun ban repeal has a better chance of getting through and we should focus on that for now.

introduce it
it won't make it out of committee anyways
if we withdraw it, it looks like we no longer support it
and we can always point to it whenever there is violence that could have been prevented

introduce it
it won't make it out of committee anyways
if we withdraw it, it looks like we no longer support it
and we can always point to it whenever there is violence that could have been prevented

THIS

THIS

YES!

My understanding is that the bills are still "alive" because all the bills introduced in 2017 that were not acted upon are "carried over" into the 2018 session.

As for the CCW bill introduced by Senator Gabbard, SB212, early last year I posted the email and phone information for all the committee chairs and vice-chairs and the committee members so people could "encourage" them to at least schedule a committee hearing on the bill(s) so that public testimony could be entered into the record. Obviously they ignored any such requests they got. I suspect they will do the same, and am waiting to see what bills get introduced this week that will impact our already heavily restricted ability to lawfully exercise our supposedly constitutionally-protected rights.

https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=212&year=2018

SB212     

Measure Title:   RELATING TO FIREARMS.
Report Title:   Firearms; Concealed Carry License
Description:   Authorizes the chief of police from each respective county to issue licenses to carry a concealed firearm. Specifies processes for license applications, renewals, revocations, and record keeping. Strictly prohibits carrying concealed firearms under certain circumstances. Makes various conforming amendments.
Companion:   
Package:   None
Current Referral:   PSM, JDL
Introducer(s):   GABBARD

Sort by Date       Status

1/20/2017   S   Introduced.
1/20/2017   S   Passed First Reading.
1/20/2017   S   Referred to PSM/JDL, WAM.
1/25/2017   S   Re-Referred to PSM, JDL.
11/30/2017   D   Carried over to 2018 Regular Session.

My understanding is that the bills are still "alive" because all the bills introduced in 2017 that were not acted upon are "carried over" into the 2018 session.

As for the CCW bill introduced by Senator Gabbard, SB212, early last year I posted the email and phone information for all the committee chairs and vice-chairs and the committee members so people could "encourage" them to at least schedule a committee hearing on the bill(s) so that public testimony could be entered into the record. Obviously they ignored any such requests they got. I suspect they will do the same, and am waiting to see what bills get introduced this week that will impact our already heavily restricted ability to lawfully exercise our supposedly constitutionally-protected rights.

https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=212&year=2018

SB212     

Measure Title:   RELATING TO FIREARMS.
Report Title:   Firearms; Concealed Carry License
Description:   Authorizes the chief of police from each respective county to issue licenses to carry a concealed firearm. Specifies processes for license applications, renewals, revocations, and record keeping. Strictly prohibits carrying concealed firearms under certain circumstances. Makes various conforming amendments.
Companion:   
Package:   None
Current Referral:   PSM, JDL
Introducer(s):   GABBARD

Sort by Date       Status

1/20/2017   S   Introduced.
1/20/2017   S   Passed First Reading.
1/20/2017   S   Referred to PSM/JDL, WAM.
1/25/2017   S   Re-Referred to PSM, JDL..
11/30/2017   D   Carried over to 2018 Regular Session.

Our best bet is the Hudson bill that just went to the US senate.
Then legally switch your residence to a Shall issue state, get a CCW there,
but stay here.
Hawaii is a loss. You can't talk to these people.  They can't even get
the Nuke warnings right.

Our best bet is the Hudson bill that just went to the US senate.
Then legally switch your residence to a Shall issue state, get a CCW there,
but stay here.
Hawaii is a loss. You can't talk to these people.  They can't even get
the Nuke warnings right.

I was optimistic of Hudson before, but I expected more democrats to vote for it and no repubs against.  I was wrong.   I don't expect it to pass the senate.

Email rep Nishimoto to reintroduce his HB36 bill (vegas copy)

I confirmed the reason for pulling the CCW bills this year is to focus our meager efforts to fight the ban bills.

Taser bill is still alive tho.

I confirmed the reason for pulling the CCW bills this year is to focus our meager efforts to fight the ban bills.

Taser bill is still alive tho.

Can't we multi task? 

When will we know and be able to read any infringement bills?

I confirmed the reason for pulling the CCW bills this year is to focus our meager efforts to fight the ban bills.

Taser bill is still alive tho.

What do you mean by "pulled"? Technically the bills are all carried over from last session. Is "pulled" a formal legal term? If so, or even if not, what exactly does it mean? Who exactly is responsible for the decision to "pull"?

I asked Senator Gabbard to introduce a repeal of the stun gun ban, not the TASER ban, as SCOTUS's unanimous per curiam addressed a stun gun ban, not a TASER ban.

Can't we multi task? 

When will we know and be able to read any infringement bills?

I've searched the legislature's search option using terms like "firearm", "firearm 2018" and "bump", etc. and get nothing but the older 2017 bills, of which there are over a hundred generic "firearm" responses, and none for 2018. There are hundreds of new bills already introduced for 2018, but hell if I'm going to click on each of those by number (I did start...) and try to find the infringing ones. I suspect they haven't been introduced just yet, but must be introduced by January 24, so we won't have too much longer to wait. I'm sure someone in the legislature has the bills in hand and could publicly announce their specifics if they wanted to, as could the attorney general's and governor's offices who wrote/asked for/approved the bills.

How much more effort does it take to submit testimony FOR a few (shall issue CCW, suppressor legalization, handgun mag liimit change to 17) bills to expand our rights, versus submitting testimony AGAINST the bills to further infringe our rights? Or even to call committee chairs and members to express our preferences? What am I missing that requires "pulling" several pro-rights bills?

I meant pulling as to pull new CCW bills out of the queue to be introduced and to pull support of bringing back the 2017 bills.

Most people think of stun guns as tasers, I was referring to the stun gun ban repeal.

There are limited resources.  If we ask people to write testimony for 15 different bills, for multiple hearings, they won't do it.  If we can focus on a few bills then it's an easier sell.   It sounds easy to do, but very difficult in reality as we've seen in the past years.  Even doing the Koko Head improvements petition, I thought it would be easy getting thousands of signatures in no time.  Just post it on social media, put flyers, talk to people at the gun show, etc.  I was totally wrong.  You need an enormous amount of resources to get one thing done.  Succeed at a few things or fail at many?

Can't we multi task? 

When will we know and be able to read any infringement bills?

The bills are circulating through the legislature right now.  The bills are passed around to different senators and representatives for signatures to see how much support there is for them.  Then the rep who created the bill determines if they will submit it to the legislature and if they do it'lll be posted online.  Last day to introduce bills is next week wednesday so we'll have an idea of what we're facing at the end of next week.

https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=30081.msg266912#msg266912

S 1/19/2018: Introduced.   https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2018/bills/SB2067_.pdf   SB2067   Firearms; Concealed Carry License   RELATING TO FIREARMS.   Authorizes the chief of police from each respective county to issue licenses to carry a concealed firearm. Specifies processes for license applications, renewals, revocations, and record keeping. Strictly prohibits carrying concealed firearms under certain circumstances. Makes various conforming amendments.      GABBARD

S 1/19/2018: Introduced.   https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2018/bills/SB2068_.pdf   SB2068   Electric Gun; Ban; Repeal   RELATING TO ELECTRIC GUNS.   Repeals ban on electric guns.      GABBARD

I just called senator Gabbard's office to thank him for introducing the repeal of the stun gun possession ban bill, and asked about why a new bill was introduced for shall issue concealed carry when a very similar bill, SB212, was still held over from last session. I don't have the time to go line by line through the 27 pages or each to compare right now, so the person I talked to said they would have someone knowledgeable about the bill contact me. I'll post when I get that info.

Just got the call back from senator Gabbard's office re the new version of shall issue concealed carry SB 2067 versus the held over version from last session SB212. I was told 1. They "sent it [SB212] down to the lawyers" and it came back with some [unspecified] very minor changes to language, but nothing substantive, and 2. another reason was that bills held over from the previous session, even though technically "still active" are 99.9% of the time not looked at by committee chairs to even consider having a hearing.

So we at least have an "active" shall issue bill that will at least get assigned to a committee (Public Safety) to possibly schedule a hearing.

The question has come up if we should introduce a CCW bill again this year or withdraw it.  The benefit of not pursuing CCW is that we can focus on and better defend against the anti-gun bills coming up.  I feel we should pass on it because it's not winnable and that we need a lot of people to support and push it which I don't see happening.  No one's been working on it for the past year.

Punaperson's stun gun ban repeal has a better chance of getting through and we should focus on that for now.

I say push for CCW in trade for our support to ban bump fire stocks.

Just got the call back from senator Gabbard's office re the new version of shall issue concealed carry SB 2067 versus the held over version from last session SB212. I was told 1. They "sent it [SB212] down to the lawyers" and it came back with some [unspecified] very minor changes to language, but nothing substantive, and 2. another reason was that bills held over from the previous session, even though technically "still active" are 99.9% of the time not looked at by committee chairs to even consider having a hearing.

So we at least have an "active" shall issue bill that will at least get assigned to a committee (Public Safety) to possibly schedule a hearing.

Committees will rarely bring back old bills unless something has changed like there's more support for something, new data, new committee chairs, etc.  But it's still a longshot.  Important bills will have duplicate bills introduced in the House and the Senate.

I say push for CCW in trade for our support to ban bump fire stocks.

Except that their ban isn't on just bump stocks, and so vague it could ban everything....