Committee noted the 100+ testimonies submitted opposing.  Seemed a bit surprised.  It was passed and amended for UH to run it versus AG.  Kong and McDermott voted with reservations noting the bill should include defensive uses of firearms.

UH doling out funds to study "gun violence prevention"? Haha. They're probably more solidly for infringing our rights than even the AG office! The results from the similar California state-funded university-based "gun violence prevention research center" has produced nothing but "studies" concluding that further infringements are what is needed. More. More. More. Is anyone surprised? Will anyone be surprised that this Hawaii UH boondoggle will produce exactly the same thing? Might as well have Giffords or Moms Demand or Violence Policy Center give out the money... or just republish their own talking points.

"Should include"? What kind of legislative nomenclature is that? How "binding" is that? Did they then include binding language in the amended bill (not available for public viewing as of this morning). I'm pretty sure I know the answer: NO. Kong and McDermott do a serious disservice if they believe that making a comment in a committee hearing about what "should" happen will bear even an ounce of weight unless it is written in stone into the bill as a requirement for any research grants. Here's a rough version of my proposal. The funds granted for any research shall be allocated with one half of the total going to researchers who in the past 10 years have predominantly produced studies concluding that stricter gun control enhances public safety, and one half of the total funds going to researchers who in the past 10 years have predominantly produced studies concluding that stricter gun control does not enhance public safety. The evaluation and determination of whether the 10 year period of studies falls into which category will be accomplished via out-of-state independent individuals having no connection to either UH nor any firearms-related organizations of any viewpoint, and having  the expertise necessary to evaluate said studies in the manner described. The independent evaluators will read all the studies submitted "blind", that is, there will be no identifying names or other indications of who produced the studies, and only independent evaluators will be selected who are not familiar with the entire field of firearms research so that they would not be able to identify the authors affiliations due to general familiarity with the field of study.

Put the lawyers on that to develop an ironclad locked down version. Otherwise, "should include" is total bullshit.

But, of course, we know that no such provision would ever be included in the law because what is being sought here is more predetermined "research" to "prove" that they really really really need to take away more guns from more people.

When I played baseball, there was 1 umpire who was known for being inconsistent when calling the pitches.  So 1 day my coach had the balls to go up to him before the game and ask "what is your strike zone?".  He answered by the book "Between the armpits and knees and over the plate".  And sure enough, that entire game, he called it by the book.

So maybe we should ask all these reps on committee's, what number is needed to prevent a bill from moving on, or to keep a bill going?  Apparently 400-40 (bump stock) isn't enough and neither is a 100-2.  Will it take a XX-0?  I guess they do what they feel and not what the people want.

When I played baseball, there was 1 umpire who was known for being inconsistent when calling the pitches.  So 1 day my coach had the balls to go up to him before the game and ask "what is your strike zone?".  He answered by the book "Between the armpits and knees and over the plate".  And sure enough, that entire game, he called it by the book.

So maybe we should ask all these reps on committee's, what number is needed to prevent a bill from moving on, or to keep a bill going?  Apparently 400-40 (bump stock) isn't enough and neither is a 100-2.  Will it take a XX-0?  I guess they do what they feel and not what the people want.

Well, I guess it wouldn't hurt to ask, as long as you don't mind not receiving an answer. But this isn't a democracy, it's a democratic republic wherein we vote for representatives who vote on the issues, meaning they can do whatever they want, totally independent of any kind of input they receive from the public which has elected them. I.e. Testimony, in any number or ratio, is irrelevant (obviously). The recourse, given that Hawaii has no recall nor term limits nor referendum nor initiative (the ONLY state in the U.S. with none of those options) means of "correction", is that they are only subject to removal from office at the next election. How's that working out for us? Plus, I'm pretty sure there is no "number" that would get these nanny-state socialists to ever voluntarily restore any of our rights, unless they could determine that it jeopardized their re-election in their particular district... ain't gonna happen in the foreseeable future.

Can't wait to see what happens today in PSM.