So the last committee hearing, the bill was deferred.  Usually this means that it has major concerns/issue.

Here is what I think:

It would have gotten a no vote from Awa and Gabbard.  Elefante and Rhodes are automatic yes votes.  Buenaventura might have voted no.  She voted no a few years ago for the bill that would have reduced the loaning of a rifle from 15 days to 3 days.  And made them look dumb in the process.  At this time, hunters from Big Island who she represents made lots of calls to her office.  So this brings my guess that same happened for this bill and she was going to vote no.  Which would have killed the bill.  But our good friend Marx instead is delaying the vote till next week so he can negotiate to see what she is Ok with.  I have no clue as to what portions there's infighting about.  My guess is that it's not the obvious flaws, but something more.

So now no new testimonies are accepted. But you can EMAIL EACH SENATOR to oppose this and why.

sengabbard@capitol.hawaii.gov

senrhoads@capitol.hawaii.gov

senelefante@capitol.hawaii.gov

sensanbuenaventura@capitol.hawaii.gov

senawa@capitol.hawaii.gov

Just a friendly suggestion to help us all be more effective .... we should post a link to the bill and/or list the basic topic, which I think might be obtained in the bill's summary.  I admit, I'm lazy and would often not even look up what this bill is about.  But these are the people, who we need to get involved, and for who we need to make the entry/participation point/process easier.

Just a friendly suggestion to help us all be more effective .... we should post a link to the bill and/or list the basic topic, which I think might be obtained in the bill's summary.  I admit, I'm lazy and would often not even look up what this bill is about.  But these are the people, who we need to get involved, and for who we need to make the entry/participation point/process easier.

This one is the omnibus. The atrocities start with restricting locations for carry and continue for page after page of vague conditions that would disqualify anyone if a prosecutor was motivated enough.

https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/sessions/session2023/bills/HB984_.htm

Here is the summary from https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=HB&billnumber=984&year=2023

Prohibits firearms in certain locations and premises and provides for enhanced sentencing.

Requires possession and disclosure of a license to carry.
Prohibits leaving an unsecured firearm in a vehicle unattended.
Prohibits consuming or being under the influence of alcohol, an intoxicating liquor, or a controlled substance when carrying a firearm.
Prohibits carrying or possessing firearms on certain private property open to the public without express authorization.
Requires annual reports from the Department of the Attorney General on carry licenses.
Amends the requirements for, and revocation of, firearms permits and licenses.
Amends the disqualification of persons from owning, possessing, or controlling a firearm.
Expands the qualified immunity for health care providers who provide information on firearms applicants to include physician assistants and advanced practice registered nurses. (SD1)

that's deceiving
it basically changes most of HRS 134
changes the permit to acquire/safety class aspect to eliminate all current instructors and makes them subject to some mysterious approval process
and on and on

Here is the summary from https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=HB&billnumber=984&year=2023

Prohibits firearms in certain locations and premises and provides for enhanced sentencing.

Requires possession and disclosure of a license to carry.
Prohibits leaving an unsecured firearm in a vehicle unattended.
Prohibits consuming or being under the influence of alcohol, an intoxicating liquor, or a controlled substance when carrying a firearm.
Prohibits carrying or possessing firearms on certain private property open to the public without express authorization.
Requires annual reports from the Department of the Attorney General on carry licenses.
Amends the requirements for, and revocation of, firearms permits and licenses.
Amends the disqualification of persons from owning, possessing, or controlling a firearm.
Expands the qualified immunity for health care providers who provide information on firearms applicants to include physician assistants and advanced practice registered nurses. (SD1)

The way I interpret the current HB984, Qualified Retired Law Enforcement Officers (QRLEOs) as established under the US Federal Title 18 USC 926 C (LEO Safety Act or LEOSA), cannot carry in the listed "restricted locations" (that is, only with the mere exception of around their vehicle to secure their gun).

Quote of Current Bill
§134-A  Carrying or possessing a firearm in certain
locations and premises prohibited
...
        (b)  It shall be an affirmative
        defense to any prosecution under this
        section that a person is:
...
                (7)  Is carrying or possessing
                a firearm pursuant to a license issued
                under section 134-9 [prior/current "articulated
                fear of injury" CCW]or in accordance with
                Title 18 United States Code section 926B or
                926C in the immediate area surrounding
                the person's vehicle within a parking area
                for the limited purpose of storing or retrieving the firearm;

Similarly, are only 134-9 [prior/current "articulated fear of injury" CCW] and LEOSA the only ones that are allowed to carry in the "immediate area surrounding the person's vehicle within a parking area for the limited purpose of storing or retrieving the firearm" in the restricted/sensitive locations?  It does not seem, at least to me, that the new Bruen-inspired License-to-Carry is included in this exemption (unless 134-9 includes the new Bruen-inspired License-to-Carry)

-----------------------------

Quote of Current Bill:
§134-F  Carrying or possessing a firearm on
private property open to the public without authorization;
...
     (d)  For purposes of this section, carrying a firearm
     includes carrying a firearm pursuant to a license
     issued under section 134-9 [prior/current "articulated
     fear of injury" CCW] and carrying a firearm in
     accordance with Title 18 United States Code
     section 926B or 926C [LEOSA].

As far as on private property, there needs to be exceptions around your vehicle, like there is for restricted places.  I do not see any, not for 134-9 [prior/current "articulated fear of injury" CCW], Bruen-inspired License-to-Carry, nor LEOSA.  The only exemption here are current LEO’s (134-11(a)).

Similarly, are only 134-9 [prior/current "articulated fear of injury" CCW] and LEOSA the only ones that are allowed to carry in the "immediate area surrounding the person's vehicle within a parking area for the limited purpose of storing or retrieving the firearm" in the restricted/sensitive locations?  It does not seem, at least to me, that the new Bruen-inspired License-to-Carry is included in this exemption (unless 134-9 includes the new Bruen-inspired License-to-Carry)

Non-ccw holders cannot bring their guns to these places in the first place due to place to keep laws.

-----------------------------

As far as on private property, there needs to be exceptions around your vehicle, like there is for restricted places.  I do not see any, not for 134-9 [prior/current "articulated fear of injury" CCW], Bruen-inspired License-to-Carry, nor LEOSA.  The only exemption here are current LEO’s (134-11(a)).

Private property rights, the owner has the right to completely ban guns on their property if they want.

So if I have LTC,

 

So if I have LTC, I must have it unloaded in my vehicle.
If I go out to my car carrying, I must now unload in view of public and case firearm as required and upon arriving to my destination must get out of car, un-case firearm and load in public view ?

Seems like it.  The criminals are drooling.

We all know the purpose of all this legislation. smh

So if I have LTC, I must have it unloaded in my vehicle.
If I go out to my car carrying, I must now unload in view of public and case firearm as required and upon arriving to my destination must get out of car, un-case firearm and load in public view ?

You have it backwards.  You can carry your loaded gun on you while driving.  When you get to a sensitive place destination, you unload and store the gun in a locked case placed hidden in the car. 

You have it backwards.  You can carry your loaded gun on you while driving.  When you get to a sensitive place destination, you unload and store the gun in a locked case placed hidden in the car.

Still yet.  You still unload and reload when you are at a designated "sensitive" place.  You still run the chance someone is watching you.

You have it backwards.  You can carry your loaded gun on you while driving.  When you get to a sensitive place destination, you unload and store the gun in a locked case placed hidden in the car.

  Might have been in early version of HB984 or maybe even proposed changes to 134-9

There was a proposed condition that LTC was unable to maintain/possess loaded firearm in vehicle and it had to be "transported" in a hard sided lockable case.
Did that not pass ?
  Might have been in early version of HB984 or maybe even proposed changes to 134-9

That was if you don't have. LTC.

Private property rights, the owner has the right to completely ban guns on their property if they want.

.  Yeah, I do realize that this is what this stupid bill states.  To offer a counter argument .... Just because you own private property, it does not give you the right to revoke the constitutional rights of people on your property.  For example, if I come one some liberal's property, do they have the right to revoke my right to life (i.e., murder me), .... to liberty (i.e., kidnap me), ... to freedom of religion (i.e., I would need to renounce my faith in Jesus) ... to privacy (i.e., see my private parts)?  Property owners can not violate my rights to privacy and demand that I disrobe, weather it is to see my private parts or if I am concealing a weapon.  If I drive my car only private property, the property owners do not have right to search my car.  For all these reasons, they should not have the right to violate my 2nd Amendment right to self-defense and carry a gun on their property.

By not allowing Bruen-Inspired concealed carry to be stored in one's vehicle on private property, in effect, you inhibit the person's ability to carry while driving to that location on public streets.  This is like a back-door ban on carrying on public streets, because if one of your stops is at private property, then you need to leave your gun at home.

.  Yeah, I do realize that this is what this stupid bill states.  To offer a counter argument .... Just because you own private property, it does not give you the right to revoke the constitutional rights of people on your property.  For example, if I come one some liberal's property, do they have the right to revoke my right to life (i.e., murder me), .... to liberty (i.e., kidnap me), ... to freedom of religion (i.e., I would need to renounce my faith in Jesus) ... to privacy (i.e., see my private parts)?  Property owners can not violate my rights to privacy and demand that I disrobe, weather it is to see my private parts or if I am concealing a weapon.  If I drive my car only private property, the property owners do not have right to search my car.  For all these reasons, they should not have the right to violate my 2nd Amendment right to self-defense and carry a gun on their property.

By not allowing Bruen-Inspired concealed carry to be stored in one's vehicle on private property, in effect, you inhibit the person's ability to carry while driving to that location on public streets.  This is like a back-door ban on carrying on public streets, because if one of your stops is at private property, then you need to leave your gun at home.

The constitution is so the government doesnt censor u. So yes, libs  can ban u cause ur X or Y religion.

U just shouldnt be arrested over it. Which is what this bill is doing.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

.  Yeah, I do realize that this is what this stupid bill states.  To offer a counter argument .... Just because you own private property, it does not give you the right to revoke the constitutional rights of people on your property.  For example, if I come one some liberal's property, do they have the right to revoke my right to life (i.e., murder me), .... to liberty (i.e., kidnap me), ... to freedom of religion (i.e., I would need to renounce my faith in Jesus) ... to privacy (i.e., see my private parts)?  Property owners can not violate my rights to privacy and demand that I disrobe, weather it is to see my private parts or if I am concealing a weapon.  If I drive my car only private property, the property owners do not have right to search my car.  For all these reasons, they should not have the right to violate my 2nd Amendment right to self-defense and carry a gun on their property.

By not allowing Bruen-Inspired concealed carry to be stored in one's vehicle on private property, in effect, you inhibit the person's ability to carry while driving to that location on public streets.  This is like a back-door ban on carrying on public streets, because if one of your stops is at private property, then you need to leave your gun at home.

The Constitution (and Bill of Rights) is the contract between the Government and the people, not people to people.  So the Bill of Rights do not apply on private property.  On private property not open to the public, like your home, you can prohibit anyone for any reason.  For private property open to the public, like a store,  the owner has lesser power but can still prohibit freedom of speech, practice of religious activities, and other things.  Owner still has to abide by laws, so they can't murder anyone unless for self-defense.  But they can revoke permission for you to be there and kick you out.  They can kick you out by force if necessary or through law enforcement.

There are laws on discrimination for sex, race, etc but that's a whole other thing.

At least got canned response from Mike Gabbard


Aloha e _______,

Mahalo nui for reaching out regarding opposition to HB984 HD2 SD1…I appreciate your detailed input. The measure was deferred at our 3/31 hearing to decision making on 4/06; you can find more info on the measure here Measure Status (hawaii.gov). BTW, I’m planning on voting no on this measure.

 

 

Best wishes to you and your ‘ohana.   

Me ke aloha pumehana,

 



Senator Mike Gabbard

Chair, Agriculture and Environment Committee

 

Hawai’i State Capitol, Room 201

Honolulu, Hawai`i  96813

Ph: 586-6830 

 

P.S. Click HERE to check out my Senate webpage

 

A‘ohe hana nui ke alu ‘ia. “No task is too big when done together by all.” 

At least got canned response from Mike Gabbard


Aloha e _______,

Mahalo nui for reaching out regarding opposition to HB984 HD2 SD1…I appreciate your detailed input. The measure was deferred at our 3/31 hearing to decision making on 4/06; you can find more info on the measure here Measure Status (hawaii.gov). BTW, I’m planning on voting no on this measure.

 

 

Best wishes to you and your ‘ohana.   

Me ke aloha pumehana,

 



Senator Mike Gabbard

Chair, Agriculture and Environment Committee

 

Hawai’i State Capitol, Room 201

Honolulu, Hawai`i  96813

Ph: 586-6830 

 

P.S. Click HERE to check out my Senate webpage

 

A‘ohe hana nui ke alu ‘ia. “No task is too big when done together by all.” 

Doesnt matter as long as hes voting no.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

BILL IS DEAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No just gotta worry about SB1230 which passed FIN committee yesterday.