And now under new HI law, a firearms misdemeanor will cost you your 2a right for 20 years.  Carrying in a senstiive place or anywhere without permission is a misdemeanor and not a felony.  Where before SB1230 passed, a firearms misdemeanor doesn't forfeited your 2a right.

Too bad not enough gun owners cared about this bill.

You keep harping on that point -- that more people speaking up would have somehow kept this law from being signed.

There is no way in hell this middle finger salute to the Bruen decision was ever going to be defeated.  The state was unconstitutionally refusing to issue CCW licenses until then.  They were pissed the Supreme Court ended that BS.  This law was a retaliatory action, just like a little kid in the toy isle of a store throwing a tantrum because they  can't have the toy they want.  They'll yell, cry, sit, lie down, go limp, ... anything to keep from being dragged from the aisle before they get what they want.

1230 was a government-fueled temper tantrum.  Stop blaming the rest of us for something that was inevitable. All the arguments against it were plainly presented by those who did testify, and many of those arguments are manifesting in formal legal challenges -- exactly what Green said the state's lawyers were gearing up for.  He knew the law was weak with regard to compliance with Bruen, but he didn't give a crap.

The little kid doesn't listen to reason -- they just know what they want, and if the tantrum doesn't get it for them, they'll make sure the parents (or the people of the state) suffer for it.

You keep harping on that point -- that more people speaking up would have somehow kept this law from being signed.

There is no way in hell this middle finger salute to the Bruen decision was ever going to be defeated.  The state was unconstitutionally refusing to issue CCW licenses until then.  They were pissed the Supreme Court ended that BS.  This law was a retaliatory action, just like a little kid in the toy isle of a store throwing a tantrum because they  can't have the toy they want.  They'll yell, cry, sit, lie down, go limp, ... anything to keep from being dragged from the aisle before they get what they want.

1230 was a government-fueled temper tantrum.  Stop blaming the rest of us for something that was inevitable. All the arguments against it were plainly presented by those who did testify, and many of those arguments are manifesting in formal legal challenges -- exactly what Green said the state's lawyers were gearing up for.  He knew the law was weak with regard to compliance with Bruen, but he didn't give a crap.

The little kid doesn't listen to reason -- they just know what they want, and if the tantrum doesn't get it for them, they'll make sure the parents (or the people of the state) suffer for it.

So to not try at all is better?  I've heard many people grumble and never do anything. I also heard a few grumble who I've told them to submit and when/how all who didn't submit.  So the saying "no vote, no grumble" comes to mind.  Then they also ask me when HIFICO is going to sue HI.  So my reply is, you got $50,000 for a lawsuit?

It's unknown if HI would have killed the bill or maybe even amend it to just make it a  CCW bill.  But I'm going to assume that 100 testimonies compared to 5,000 would have done something.  And then I would have nothing to complain about if thousands submitted and HI passed it as is anyways.  We have seen 1500 testimonies submitted before, which is what I base my menial 100 testimonies to.


We have seen bills die because a hundred people from BI called their rep and she voted no.  We also have seen things removed from bills due to hundreds of testimonies.

SB1230 is perhaps the most imporatnt bill in years and we got minimal oppose testimonies.

Pretty much it's everyone else wants someone to do the work and then they reap the benefits.

So to not try at all is better? I've heard many people grumble and never do anything. I also heard a few grumble who I've told them to submit and when/how all who didn't submit.  So the saying "no vote, no grumble" comes to mind.  Then they also ask me when HIFICO is going to sue HI.  So my reply is, you got $50,000 for a lawsuit?

It's unknown if HI would have killed the bill or maybe even amend it to just make it a  CCW bill.  But I'm going to assume that 100 testimonies compared to 5,000 would have done something.  And then I would have nothing to complain about if thousands submitted and HI passed it as is anyways.  We have seen 1500 testimonies submitted before, which is what I base my menial 100 testimonies to.


We have seen bills die because a hundred people from BI called their rep and she voted no.  We also have seen things removed from bills due to hundreds of testimonies.

SB1230 is perhaps the most imporatnt bill in years and we got minimal oppose testimonies.

Pretty much it's everyone else wants someone to do the work and then they reap the benefits.

Did I say that?

I'm saying if you are facing a futile challenge with the chance of victory being close to zero, arguing more people would have changed the outcome is just as futile -- and wrong.

i understand you wish the law had been defeated, but wishing doesn't change the fact that this state government hates guns and gun owners.  They think the average citizen is too irresponsible to carry a firearm in public.  Period. 

Sometimes you have to accept reality and not tilt at windmills.  Put that effort toward the things you can change.

i'm not saying no one should try.  What I am saying is it's counterproductive to blame others for an outcome that was predetermined. 

Maybe your argument would hold more water if it involved a bill that could have actually been defeated had there been thousands of opposing testimonies.  This was not that bill.

Did I say that?

I'm saying if you are facing a futile challenge with the chance of victory being close to zero, arguing more people would have changed the outcome is just as futile -- and wrong.

i understand you wish the law had been defeated, but wishing doesn't change the fact that this state government hates guns and gun owners.  They think the average citizen is too irresponsible to carry a firearm in public.  Period. 

Sometimes you have to accept reality and not tilt at windmills.  Put that effort toward the things you can change.

i'm not saying no one should try.  What I am saying is it's counterproductive to blame others for an outcome that was predetermined. 

Maybe your argument would hold more water if it involved a bill that could have actually been defeated had there been thousands of opposing testimonies.  This was not that bill.

There is no way to know if thousands would or would not help. But all one can do is try. Because if no one/little tries, then it's more likely to pass.  Like if you don't ask the girl for her number, it's an automatic no. But if you ask, you may still get a no, but at least it's not a 0.  How many people that I talk to and their reply is "my test won't do anything".  On average per bill, it's like 5 2a guys that I contact.  So now multiply this by others who have the same philosophy.  Vs. spending 15 seconds to log in and enter the bill number and click on oppose and submit.  But also there are those who tell me they don't submit as they don't obey unconstitutional laws.  So I guess I give them more of a break.  They put their money where their mouth is.

I do not accept the reality of this would have passed as is.  Maybe it's because I'm still relatively new to the game.  But I did come on when testimonies on average was like only 8 and the same few people showed up to the hearings.

Then comes my other point that we can control, "no vote, no grumble".  With exceptions for some people of course.  Which is why I also posted in other threads that the people calling me to complain and ask for lawsuits have zero excuse not to submit.

I put in the effort in hopes that we all put in some effort. If each person tells a few people, the numbers grow. This is where the anti 2a are good at.  They have people willing to not only write testimonies, but recruit more toward their cause.  We saw for the first time that AOAO's; retail orgs; domestic abuse org; all got involved to want to pass this bill.  They were silent when the mag ban, semi auto rifle/shotgun ban, bump stocks, tasers, etc...And these bills too would affect them as "high capacity magazines cause more damage" or "assault weapons cause more damage", etc...

So in the end, I understand your POV on the matter and I will have mine.  Looks like we won't be agreeing on this one.

4got to add where I got my reasoning from.

Over the last few years, we would get from 200-400 testimonies for moderately important bills.  The high end was 1500 for the mag ban.  So when I only see 80-140 testimonies for such an important bill is why I bring it up.

WHere did everyone go?

I always shake my head when I think about how many people submitted testimonies on hearings vs. how many people attended the gun shows.

But I do tell myself interest in gun shows doesn't always equate to being a 2a advocate.

4got to add where I got my reasoning from.

Over the last few years, we would get from 200-400 testimonies for moderately important bills.  The high end was 1500 for the mag ban.  So when I only see 80-140 testimonies for such an important bill is why I bring it up.

WHere did everyone go?

I appreciate all the work you, zippiz, London and some others do to advance 2A rights in this communist state. I really do and have contributed to couple of the fundraisers that was posted here.  You guys are young compared to me. I am 73 and I know a few guys in my age group who said F it, I just going carry anyway.  One guy is going on 15 years carrying.  Unless you have to use it, if you are a law abiding citizen, the chance of getting caught carrying is virtually zero.  If that unfortunate situation did arise, you will probably wish you had a firearm regardless of the law. A lot of old guys don't think much about spending the rest of their life in prison.   If I make it to 80, 6.5 years from.  I REALLY wouldn't give a shit.  I can't even imagine how dangerous I would be at 90. Us old guys don't have the luxury of seeing this play out in court.  We didn't put ourself in this situation,  the government did by ignoring the constitution which they took an oath to uphold.

I appreciate all the work you, zippiz, London and some others do to advance 2A rights in this communist state. I really do and have contributed to couple of the fundraisers that was posted here.  You guys are young compared to me. I am 73 and I know a few guys in my age group who said F it, I just going carry anyway.  One guy is going on 15 years carrying.  Unless you have to use it, if you are a law abiding citizen, the chance of getting caught carrying is virtually zero.  If that unfortunate situation did arise, you will probably wish you had a firearm regardless of the law. A lot of old guys don't think much about spending the rest of their life in prison.   If I make it to 80, 6.5 years from.  I REALLY wouldn't give a shit.  I can't even imagine how dangerous I would be at 90. Us old guys don't have the luxury of seeing this play out in court.  We didn't put ourself in this situation,  the government did by ignoring the constitution which they took an oath to uphold.

I agree 100% and I believe there's quite a bit of people out there who feel the same.

The ainokea and ainotell license.  The under the radar gang.

There is no way to know if thousands would or would not help. But all one can do is try. Because if no one/little tries, then it's more likely to pass.  Like if you don't ask the girl for her number, it's an automatic no. But if you ask, you may still get a no, but at least it's not a 0.  How many people that I talk to and their reply is "my test won't do anything".  On average per bill, it's like 5 2a guys that I contact.  So now multiply this by others who have the same philosophy.  Vs. spending 15 seconds to log in and enter the bill number and click on oppose and submit.  But also there are those who tell me they don't submit as they don't obey unconstitutional laws.  So I guess I give them more of a break.  They put their money where their mouth is.

I do not accept the reality of this would have passed as is.  Maybe it's because I'm still relatively new to the game.  But I did come on when testimonies on average was like only 8 and the same few people showed up to the hearings.

Then comes my other point that we can control, "no vote, no grumble".  With exceptions for some people of course.  Which is why I also posted in other threads that the people calling me to complain and ask for lawsuits have zero excuse not to submit.

I put in the effort in hopes that we all put in some effort. If each person tells a few people, the numbers grow. This is where the anti 2a are good at.  They have people willing to not only write testimonies, but recruit more toward their cause.  We saw for the first time that AOAO's; retail orgs; domestic abuse org; all got involved to want to pass this bill.  They were silent when the mag ban, semi auto rifle/shotgun ban, bump stocks, tasers, etc...And these bills too would affect them as "high capacity magazines cause more damage" or "assault weapons cause more damage", etc...

So in the end, I understand your POV on the matter and I will have mine.  Looks like we won't be agreeing on this one.

"There is no way to know if thousands would or would not help. But all one can do is try. Because if no one/little tries, then it's more likely to pass. "

Is it really more likely to pass?  There is so much evidence showing the powers that be don't care about opposition testimonies if it's an issue they want passed.  Unless there is actual evidence in the record saying the members voted with the majority of those giving testimony, then there is no "more likely to pass" conclusion to be drawn.

I'm not saying the testimony has no impact on other bills, but as far as gun control bills, there's nothing I can see that shows the people voting, whether it's state, city or county level, care at all what the people say.  There may be one or two voters who agree with the opponents, but you'll never get the staunch anti-gunners to vote based on reason and the Constitution.

"There is no way to know if thousands would or would not help. But all one can do is try. Because if no one/little tries, then it's more likely to pass. "

Is it really more likely to pass?  There is so much evidence showing the powers that be don't care about opposition testimonies if it's an issue they want passed.  Unless there is actual evidence in the record saying the members voted with the majority of those giving testimony, then there is no "more likely to pass" conclusion to be drawn.

I'm not saying the testimony has no impact on other bills, but as far as gun control bills, there's nothing I can see that shows the people voting, whether it's state, city or county level, care at all what the people say.  There may be one or two voters who agree with the opponents, but you'll never get the staunch anti-gunners to vote based on reason and the Constitution.

Nakashima stated for the mag ban that overwhelming oppose testimony along with HI not needing any more gun laws caused him to defer the mag ban bill.  He didn't say what the specific number is as he was head of the house committee and was going based on the senate hearing numbers.  The bill didn't get a house hearing.  But to be fair, testimonies wasn't his sole basis of not hearing the bill.

Since there is no set X amount of testimonies and we will vote Y way, I'm using my logic that a bill that gets 100 oppose vs. 5000 oppose is much easier to pass or at least reduce language.  Unless maybe this only makes sense to me.  This could go for anything. Say you're a store and get  a few complaints vs now getting hundreds, then you are more likely to address it and make changes.  I'm scaling down due to testimonies get more input at 1 time than a restaurant gets complaints int the same period.

Buenaventura who at the time was anti 2a, had hunters from her district also call her when the loaning a rifle/shotgun was to be reduced from 15 days to 2 days a few years ago.  She stated that she got a call from a bunch and they were concerned when she asked HPD Major Neilson questions during hearing.  She voted nay.  Although this is separate from submitting testimonies, it shows the power of getting a lot of calls.  Same with Acasio, which I mentioned above that she changed her mind and voted nay on a few anti 2a bills.

IDK exactly how many hunters called her, but I'm going to assume it was more than 1 or 2 or 5.  It would have to be enough to get her to change her anti 2a posture.  Ever since that hearing, she is still  anti 2a, but at least now votes aye with reservations, instead of just aye.

On a related note, Foodland put up no guns allowed signs when SB1230 took effect. People wrote emails and called and they removed the sign.  Again, I have no proof of how many contacted them, but it has to be more than a few.  Foodlands policy already bans firearms and has banned them prior to SB1230. But they chose to put up the sign that isn't required to ban them as it was directed solely toward legal CCW holders.

Now take all those real examples and say only a few called.  I highly doubt any positive outcomes in our favor would have taken place.  But since you rely on proof, there is no way of me proving that it takes X amount to accomplish this.

The above are some of the reasons why "I feel" and "my logic" is the way it is.  It appears that your reasoning is different from mine and will remain as is. 

And due to my XP getting many complaints from people who have no excuse not to submit, is why I have the "no vote, no grumble" mentality.  Which you don't have.  But it's all G, we all think a different way from time to time.  I will end this here as we kind of went off topic.

Nakashima stated for the mag ban that overwhelming oppose testimony along with HI not needing any more gun laws caused him to defer the mag ban bill.  He didn't say what the specific number is as he was head of the house committee and was going based on the senate hearing numbers.  The bill didn't get a house hearing.  But to be fair, testimonies wasn't his sole basis of not hearing the bill.

Since there is no set X amount of testimonies and we will vote Y way, I'm using my logic that a bill that gets 100 oppose vs. 5000 oppose is much easier to pass or at least reduce language.  Unless maybe this only makes sense to me.  This could go for anything. Say you're a store and get  a few complaints vs now getting hundreds, then you are more likely to address it and make changes.  I'm scaling down due to testimonies get more input at 1 time than a restaurant gets complaints int the same period.

Buenaventura who at the time was anti 2a, had hunters from her district also call her when the loaning a rifle/shotgun was to be reduced from 15 days to 2 days a few years ago.  She stated that she got a call from a bunch and they were concerned when she asked HPD Major Neilson questions during hearing.  She voted nay.  Although this is separate from submitting testimonies, it shows the power of getting a lot of calls.  Same with Acasio, which I mentioned above that she changed her mind and voted nay on a few anti 2a bills.

IDK exactly how many hunters called her, but I'm going to assume it was more than 1 or 2 or 5.  It would have to be enough to get her to change her anti 2a posture.  Ever since that hearing, she is still  anti 2a, but at least now votes aye with reservations, instead of just aye.

On a related note, Foodland put up no guns allowed signs when SB1230 took effect. People wrote emails and called and they removed the sign.  Again, I have no proof of how many contacted them, but it has to be more than a few.  Foodlands policy already bans firearms and has banned them prior to SB1230. But they chose to put up the sign that isn't required to ban them as it was directed solely toward legal CCW holders.

Now take all those real examples and say only a few called.  I highly doubt any positive outcomes in our favor would have taken place.  But since you rely on proof, there is no way of me proving that it takes X amount to accomplish this.

The above are some of the reasons why "I feel" and "my logic" is the way it is.  It appears that your reasoning is different from mine and will remain as is. 

And due to my XP getting many complaints from people who have no excuse not to submit, is why I have the "no vote, no grumble" mentality.  Which you don't have.  But it's all G, we all think a different way from time to time.  I will end this here as we kind of went off topic.

"... is why I have the "no vote, no grumble" mentality.  Which you don't have. "

You're misjudging me.  I never said anything close to that.

I've been looking at the 1st amendment, and i can't find anything that says, "...the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances -- but only for those who bothered to vote or submit testimony during hearings."

People can still complain about bad laws even if they chose to let their elected representatives do the sometimes difficult job of deciding what bills merit passing or not.

Most people are not well versed on current gun laws (yes, even many who visit this site).  Getting everyone educated is the first and most difficult step.  Blaming them for not being as involved as you or others isn't going to change that.

i'm getting the feeling you believe this is another America's Got Talent contest, where the performance is secondary to how many people you can get to call in and vote for your favorite.

If democracy has come down to a numbers game, we are all screwed.   That's the very definition of "mob rule."

Nakashima stated for the mag ban that overwhelming oppose testimony along with HI not needing any more gun laws caused him to defer the mag ban bill.  He didn't say what the specific number is as he was head of the house committee and was going based on the senate hearing numbers.  The bill didn't get a house hearing.  But to be fair, testimonies wasn't his sole basis of not hearing the bill.

So testimony may have had no effect whatsoever.

Since there is no set X amount of testimonies and we will vote Y way, I'm using my logic that a bill that gets 100 oppose vs. 5000 oppose is much easier to pass or at least reduce language.  Unless maybe this only makes sense to me.  This could go for anything. Say you're a store and get  a few complaints vs now getting hundreds, then you are more likely to address it and make changes.  I'm scaling down due to testimonies get more input at 1 time than a restaurant gets complaints int the same period.

Because profit motive.  What motivates politicians?  Re-election.  Unless we can convince our elected officials that voting for an anti-2A bill will actually endanger their re-election, the phrase “pissing in the wind” comes to mind.

Buenaventura who at the time was anti 2a, had hunters from her district also call her when the loaning a rifle/shotgun was to be reduced from 15 days to 2 days a few years ago.  She stated that she got a call from a bunch and they were concerned when she asked HPD Major Neilson questions during hearing.  She voted nay.  Although this is separate from submitting testimonies, it shows the power of getting a lot of calls.  Same with Acasio, which I mentioned above that she changed her mind and voted nay on a few anti 2a bills.

IDK exactly how many hunters called her, but I'm going to assume it was more than 1 or 2 or 5.  It would have to be enough to get her to change her anti 2a posture.  Ever since that hearing, she is still  anti 2a, but at least now votes aye with reservations, instead of just aye.

How many votes did the measure fail by?  If it was likely to fail even if she voted for it, there’s no political downside for her to appease her hunting constituents by voting nay.

On a related note, Foodland put up no guns allowed signs when SB1230 took effect. People wrote emails and called and they removed the sign.  Again, I have no proof of how many contacted them, but it has to be more than a few.  Foodlands policy already bans firearms and has banned them prior to SB1230. But they chose to put up the sign that isn't required to ban them as it was directed solely toward legal CCW holders.

So… still no can carry in Foodland, regardless of whether they put up that sign.  Zero effect to the lawful concealed carrier, but maybe Foodland saves a little business from a small fraction of their customer base.  See “profit motive” comment above.

Now take all those real examples and say only a few called.  I highly doubt any positive outcomes in our favor would have taken place.  But since you rely on proof, there is no way of me proving that it takes X amount to accomplish this.

In your examples, I don’t see any actual, meaningful positive outcomes that can reasonably be attributed to 2A activist involvement.

I’m not saying people SHOULDN’T get involved, but I don’t think they should have any illusions about the likely outcome (or lack thereof) of their involvement.  IN MY OPINION, the way we’re going to get meaningful change is 1) through litigation in the short term, and 2) by electing better representatives in the longer term.  That takes $$$ and hard work, and sadly still might not have any effect.  At least not while any of us are alive.