SB2353: Shall Issue Concealed Carry, no mental health exam requirement, as introduced by Senator Gabbard. Expect it to be in the State Legislative Updates section shortly.

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=2353

PDF of text:

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2014/bills/SB2353_.pdf

Guys, lets get this thing passed! email your senators and council members, and lets voice our support!

Guys, lets get this thing passed! email your senators and council members, and lets voice our support!

Ditto. Once this gets assigned to committees I will post (on the State Legislative Updates thread) those and the members email addresses and phone numbers so we can encourage them to hold hearings (where we can submit testimony) and then get it out of committee.

Now listed on the legislative updates thread : https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=13077.0

Guys, lets get this thing passed! email your senators and council members, and lets voice our support!

Sounds good. Thanks for the update!

.

Uh...why is there even mention of a mental health exam to begin with?

Because Senator Slom's previously introduced (yesterday) Shall Issue Concealed Carry bill, SB2168, requires a written report from a state-approved psychiatrist or psychologist as part of the qualifying process.

I should say that I haven't carefully read SB2353, and won't get a chance to until this evening, but I definitely didn't notice any such requirement upon a quick reading. Someone please let me/us know if I missed it.

The bill is a good start, but read it carefully as to be acceptable, IMHO, it will have to be modified. The items in the bill that need to be changed are:

The finger print requirement: We already have to pay for fingerprints to purchase a handgun in Hawaii, why should we have to get, and pay for, obtaining and processing (two separate fees) another set?
Cannot carry in a place that serves alcohol: I could argue for not allowing you to drink while carrying, but just because the restaurant serves alcohol, and if you don't partake, carrying shouldn't be disallowed.
Applicant age must be 23
Training for the CCW would be under the auspices of HRS 134-2(g)(2), which states:

A firearms safety or training course or class available to the general public offered by a law enforcement agency of the State or of any county

That was one of the original requirements that would have resulted in a defacto handgun ban as the police had never, and probably will never, set up a training course for "us."

And, language needs to be added that would allow a CCW issued in one county to be good within the entire state.

That's what I found on the first, quick read thru....

The bill is a good start, but read it carefully as to be acceptable, IMHO, it will have to be modified. The items in the bill that need to be changed are:

The finger print requirement: We already have to pay for fingerprints to purchase a handgun in Hawaii, why should we have to get, and pay for, obtaining and processing (two separate fees) another set?
Cannot carry in a place that serves alcohol: I could argue for not allowing you to drink while carrying, but just because the restaurant serves alcohol, and if you don't partake, carrying shouldn't be disallowed.
Applicant age must be 23
Training for the CCW would be under the auspices of HRS 134-2(g)(2), which states:  That was one of the original requirements that would have resulted in a defacto handgun ban as the police had never, and probably will never, set up a training course for "us."

And, language needs to be added that would allow a CCW issued in one county to be good within the entire state.

That's what I found on the first, quick read thru....

If Hawaii treats CCW like many other states, a Carry Permit means you don't have to apply to acquire a handgun.  The CCW IS your permit! 

It makes sense to me.

If Hawaii treats CCW like many other states, a Carry Permit means you don't have to apply to acquire a handgun.  The CCW IS your permit! 

It makes sense to me.

Never assume anything in politics, especially if it seems to be a good idea.... Re-read the bill. The other, longstanding language of HRS 134 remains. So, if you got your CCW first, under the language of this bill, you would still have to go thru the training to purchase a handgun.

.

Not all states require training for concealed carry, some states have constitutional carry and you don't need any sort of permit or anything to begin with.

That said, A bill like this has a snowballs chance in hell of passing in this damn state.

The CCW would be the training. Every other state requires handgun safety class for CCW, so I don't see why this wouldn't fit the bill.

Again, read the bill....that's not what it says. Hoping and wishing don't make it so....

And the required training, per the proposed language, would never happen because the various police Chiefs will never set up the training program.

Not all states require training for concealed carry, some states have constitutional carry and you don't need any sort of permit or anything to begin with.

That said, A bill like this has a snowballs chance in hell of passing in this damn state.

True, but those states, with the exception of Vermont, had pretty good CCW laws to begin with....and yes, getting this passed will be difficult, and the odds aren't great, but you never know.....

Not all states require training for concealed carry, some states have constitutional carry and you don't need any sort of permit or anything to begin with.

That said, A bill like this has a snowballs chance in hell of passing in this damn state.

Got a Penn permit with only $25, no training  nothing

The bill is a good start, but read it carefully as to be acceptable, IMHO, it will have to be modified. The items in the bill that need to be changed are:

The finger print requirement: We already have to pay for fingerprints to purchase a handgun in Hawaii, why should we have to get, and pay for, obtaining and processing (two separate fees) another set?

I found the language a bit vague. It doesn't seem to state a fee for the "processing of fingerprints", but that the fee shall be borne by the applicant. It also says "The county police department shall provide fingerprinting service, if requested by the applicant, and may charge a fee not to exceed $5 for this service." Personally, I'd be willing to pay for another fingerprinting and processing to obtain CCW. No law is going to be perfectly acceptable to all of us, and I see this as a minor cost and inconvenience compared to what is available now (aka nothing), or undergoing a state-approved psychiatric examination.
 

Cannot carry in a place that serves alcohol: I could argue for not allowing you to drink while carrying, but just because the restaurant serves alcohol, and if you don't partake, carrying shouldn't be disallowed.

I concur. Not sure what the basis of this exemption is other than alcohol consumption can stimulate aggression so there could be some greater likelihood for congrontation, even if the person with the CCW isn't drinking or becoming agressive. Illinois's new court mandated CCW law has 23 confusing, vague and ambiguous exemptions, so we'd be getting off relatively easy.

Applicant age must be 23

Missouri just lowered their minimum age to 19, from 21. Not sure there will be any rational basis or evidence to argue soundly for one number or another other than that we trust 18-year-olds to carry fully automatic weapons, rocket launchers, etc. in the military... then they get off duty and can't carry for self-defense of themselves and their family?

Training for the CCW would be under the auspices of HRS 134-2(g)(2), which states:  That was one of the original requirements that would have resulted in a defacto handgun ban as the police had never, and probably will never, set up a training course for "us."

It says "certified instructor OR" government blah blah blah... so there would have to be some kind of (NRA?) course with certified instructors, just like the handgun course at present for handgun permit eligibility. I know such courses exist in other states, so it shouldn't be a problem here.

And, language needs to be added that would allow a CCW issued in one county to be good within the entire state.

Yeah, nothing about that at all. Seems like it needs to be added. I'm sure the bill will be open to amendments if it ever gets that far in the process.

That's what I found on the first, quick read thru....

Never assume anything in politics, especially if it seems to be a good idea.... Re-read the bill. The other, longstanding language of HRS 134 remains. So, if you got your CCW first, under the language of this bill, you would still have to go thru the training to purchase a handgun.

Yeah, nothing that I see about the CCW substituting for the training required for permit to purchase itself, but there is language that exempts the CCW license holder from the waiting period, or at least that's how I read it... see 134-2 (e)...[I think...] Somebody help me out here!

That said, A bill like this has a snowballs chance in hell of passing in this damn state.

I doubt it has THAT good a chance!  BUT, as far as I'm concerned, at this point, I'm willing to spend a little bit of time and energy asking legislators (when it gets assigned to committee(s)) to further the bill by holding hearings and taking testimony. I have had no luck in the past getting legislators to explain their reasoning, arguments and evidence as to why they vote for or against a bill, I guess that is asking too much of them... I got one to finally say "We just disagree!". Yeah (Duh!), but that's not what I asked. I asked "Why? Reasons and evidence?" So even if/when this bill is defeated via whatever means it will likely die of ideological dogma (aka "Guns are bad, and regular people having guns in public to defend themselves is extra special bad, just because."), rather than someone presenting (false) evidence that CCW increases crime, though that is exactly what the state argues. The fact that CCW holders (through many years of experience with millions of CCW holders in other states) commit fewer crimes than law enforcement officers isn't what these bureaucrats and statists want to acknowledge as reality. That or the fact that we have an inalienable natural/god-given right to defend ourselves and our families in whatever way gives us the best chance in a critical situation. The Constitution merely affirms this and clearly states that the government may NOT infringe on this inalienable natural right. I find this infuriating, but that seems to by how the "system" works.

Read through it a bit. I didn't see anything permitting you to keep your CCW firearm secured in your vehicle if you were going into a place which firearms are not allowed.
i.e school, federal building, airport. To my understanding the old methods of how and where you can transport a firearm were not altered in the bill. But I may have misread it. 

Read through it a bit. I didn't see anything permitting you to keep your CCW firearm secured in your vehicle if you were going into a place which firearms are not allowed.
i.e school, federal building, airport. To my understanding the old methods of how and where you can transport a firearm were not altered in the bill. But I may have misread it. 

My reading of it (as if I can decipher legalese) only seems to exempt one from the current limitations of WHERE (police station, range, home, place of business/sojourn, etc) one can possess, and HOW (exemption from unloaded, closed container requirement). I didn't see anything about the legality of leaving the firearm in a vehicle when needing to enter a prohibited-carry location. I did notice that you can't enter even the parking lot of a university or college campus (maybe any school campus... but I can't wade through that stuff any more tonight).

Perhaps we should make a list of all these questions and suggestions and forward them to Senator Gabbard when lots of people have had a chance to look at the bill and offer their suggestions. Hopefully before the snowball melts. 

I have only one problem with this:
Page 3, line 13 references ANY offense under partIV Chapter 712.
If this is interperted to the letter it means that a DUI, even some 30 or 40 years ago
would be a disqualifier.
How many of us are that clean?
Great stuff otherwise, I am all for it!