Star Advertiser re-reports on new firearm confiscation law (Read 2318 times)

2aHawaii

  • Administrator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3629
  • Total likes: 67
  • Sheepdog
  • Referrals: 17
    • View Profile
    • 2aHawaii
Star Advertiser re-reports on new firearm confiscation law
« on: June 14, 2010, 04:15:55 PM »
Better late than never :)

Soon after the tsunami scare in February reminded Hawaii residents of their vulnerability, Dr. Maxwell Cooper, former director of the Hawaii Rifle Association, called his state representative.

Others were calling lawmakers with concerns about faulty warning sirens, inadequate shelters and reliable access to food and water if a powerful tsunami did reach the Islands. Cooper was worried about protecting guns.

Cooper asked state Rep. Ken Ito (D, Kaneohe) to help revive a bill to prohibit the state from confiscating legal firearms and ammunition during an emergency or disaster. The bill, similar to legislation passed on the mainland after Hurricane Katrina, had been sitting in the state House for a year and was going nowhere.

"The tsunami let everybody focus on why it was a good idea," said Cooper, who is retired and splits his time between Kaneohe and Washington state.

Within weeks the bill - sponsored by state Sen. Sam Slom (R, Kahala-Hawaii Kai) - sailed through the House with little objection. Gov. Linda Lingle signed it into law in May.

The new law is a rare victory for gun-rights advocates in the islands.

Read more...
I am not a lawyer.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." - United States Constitution Amendment 2 & Hawaii State Constitution Article 1 Section 17

Buying from Amazon? Click through here

Jaydawg

Re: Star Advertiser re-reports on new firearm confiscation law
« Reply #1 on: June 14, 2010, 06:45:46 PM »
Yeah...a little late there SA.   

Tom_G

Re: Star Advertiser re-reports on new firearm confiscation law
« Reply #2 on: June 15, 2010, 08:10:23 AM »
I read this, and a couple of things bothered me.  One is that, once again, they're citing numbers from the anti-gunners.  The other is that the whole article just "felt" anti to me.  I'm not sure what it was, but while the original article seemed impartial, I finished reading this one with a bad taste in my mouth. 

I guess I need to get off my butt, re-research that whole gun death thing, and deliver a scathing letter to the editor.  Sigh. 
The difference between theory and reality is that, in theory, there is no difference between theory and reality.