I was right! I predicted that if they let the legislators talk one of them would utter "wild, wild west". Even I didn't suspect that they'd publish only 5 sentences and one would be the wild, wild west stupidity...
You can't make this shit up people. This is the level of stupid/evil that we are dealing with. Unless NPR's Hawaii's affiliate doctored the interview audio tapes to make these people's utterances sound like they are dumber than rocks... and we all know HPR is a total lefty slanted media so they'd have no reason the intentionally try to make their fellow leftists sound dumber than they already are (which might not even be possible anyway). More Hawaii idiot politicians garnering some national public attention.
Ugh.
http://www.hawaiipublicradio.org/post/firearms-open-carry-consequences-hawaiiFirearms Open Carry: Consequences for Hawai'iState Senator Karl Rhoads is chair of the Judiciary Committee.
“Current law does allow for open carry but has been interpreted very narrowly. Narrowly in the sense that they don’t give it to very many people. You really have to demonstrate a serious need to have a weapon. But, I don’t know if the law itself needs to be changed, it’s just the interpretation that might change because of the litigation.”
State Representative Chris Lee, chair of the House Judiciary Committee, says the state’s firearms law requires
a balance. [See quote below from
Heller re the very concept of "interest balancing"... unequivocally "NO" by SCOTUS.]
“I think there is gonna be legislation from some of our colleagues and some from outside groups that are gonna look at what we can do to prevent gun violence. I think it’s important for us to make sure we
balance and protect the rights given people by the 2nd Amendment but also ensure that we ultimately do what we can in Hawai’i to protect our citizens and to prevent guns from falling into the wrong hands.”
Senator Rhoads says there’s a chance more licenses will be issued in the future but he would like Hawai’i’s current process upheld.
“
The open carry states are ones where everybody gets shot so I think we have a very good record in Hawai’i for gun safety protection and and the fourth lowest gun violence in any state in the union. It’s a combination of things but one of most important parts of it is that we have strict gun laws.”
Representative Lee says it could be years before the Young case is settled but the top priority for Hawai’i lawmakers is public safety.
“I’ve owned guns in the past; I don’t today but we have an obligation on our part in Hawai’i to make sure that we have the adequate legal protections in place to make sure that it’s not gonna be
the wild, wild west and guns fall into the hands of criminals where they can just walk around wherever they want.”
* * * * *
“
We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding "interest-balancing’ approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government – even the Third Branch of Government – the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad. We would not apply an “interest-balancing” approach to the prohibition of a peaceful neo-Nazi march through Skokie. See National Socialist Party of America v. Skokie, 432 U. S. 43 (1977) (per curiam). The First Amendment contains the freedom-of-speech guarantee that the people ratified, which included exceptions for obscenity, libel, and disclosure of state secrets, but not for the expression of extremely unpopular and wrong-headed views. The Second Amendment is no different. Like the First, it is the very product of an interest-balancing by the people-which JUSTICE BREYER would now conduct for them anew.
And whatever else it leaves to future evaluation, it surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.” (62-63) [Emphasis NOT in original.]