Testimony submitted.

SB2050 removal of 14 day wait period - supported
Get rid of inefficiency with the process.

SB2257 digitally manufactured firearms - opposed.
This makes no sense.  Does it ban anything that uses computers to manufacture?

SB2938 online firearm registration - opposed.
1. Writes about charging a fee for county registration.  So does that mean we have to pay every time we register a firearm?
2. Also it is costly to implement.
3. Lastly, I'd rather not have my data online where someone messing up will get that data released on the Internet.

SUBMIT YOUR TESTIMONY if you haven't yet! 

You have 30 minutes left to submit a testimony for it to be counted by tomorrow's meeting (1:45pm).

SB 2257 line 21: unless the person possesses a license to manufacture firearms

Correct me if I'm wrong, but won't this allow modern firearms though the manufactures or other places of buisiness that have the license?  My understanding that this bill is addressing an issue that a current law already covers.

This bill looks to be a feeble attempt to address 3D printing.  IMO there is a lack of understanding of how parts are manufactured in general.  Does anyone know what existing law covers this.  For example:  a AR-15 lower assembly (80%), what law dictates that it will be serialized upon assembly?

Any type of homemade firearm do NOT require registration or serial numbers by federal laws (BATF) . Under the GCA 68'. In hawaii all types of firearm must be registered by state law only under HRS.
Making homemade firearms do not require any type of license or permits state or federal.

The committee meeting is at 3.45 tomorrow (tues) 2/4/14  in Conference Room 204

Any type of homemade firearm do NOT require registration or serial numbers by federal laws (BATF) . Under the GCA 68'. In hawaii all types of firearm must be registered by state law only under HRS.
Making homemade firearms do not require any type of license or permits state or federal.

This part of the bill I find ridiculous.

It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly or
intentionally use any firearm, ammunition, or any piece or part
thereof, manufactured through the use of digital manufacturing
technology, that:
-(1) When fully assembled or in pieces or parts, resembles
or depicts the shape or nature of a firearm,
ammunition, or any piece or part thereof;

(e) For purposes of this section, "digital manufacturing
technology" means the use of an integrated, computer-based
system comprising simulation,, three-dimensional visualization,
analytics, and various collaboration tools to create product and
manufacturing process definitions simultaneously. "Digital
manufacturing technology" includes but is not limited to
computer numerical control mills, three-dimensional printers,
and laser cutting machines.

So if I used a 3d printer to make some home made snapcaps I'm doing something illegal since it resembles ammunition.
If I used a digital Silhouette Electronic Cutter to make a gun sticker since I'm doing something illegal since it the sticker resembles the share or nature of a firearm and was manufactured digitally.

This bill is so bad it could even affect airsoft folks.

Testimony is available online for SB2050 (ending waiting period for already registered firearm owners) to be heard in PSM committee this afternoon.

Fifty-four (54) pages. All FOR 2050, with ONE prominent exception. The first page is from HPD stating their OPPOSITION. They imply that 2050 would preclude them from performing a background check. It, of course, does no such thing. It would merely make it so that Hawaii would be like the vast majority of states in the United States that perform the checks via the NICS system. Other states do not have higher crime rates due to using the NICS system. I don't know why HPD would imply that they could not perform an adequate background check if 2050 is implemented. Why misrepresent the bill? I don't get it. Or maybe I do.

Thanks to all who took the time to send in comments/testimony. The people have clearly spoken. Now let's see what "our" legislators do!   

Testimony is available online for SB2050 (ending waiting period for already registered firearm owners) to be heard in PSM committee this afternoon.

Fifty-four (54) pages. All FOR 2050, with ONE prominent exception. The first page is from HPD stating their OPPOSITION. They imply that 2050 would preclude them from performing a background check. It, of course, does no such thing. It would merely make it so that Hawaii would be like the vast majority of states in the United States that perform the checks via the NICS system. Other states do not have higher crime rates due to using the NICS system. I don't know why HPD would imply that they could not perform an adequate background check if 2050 is implemented. Why misrepresent the bill? I don't get it. Or maybe I do.

Thanks to all who took the time to send in comments/testimony. The people have clearly spoken. Now let's see what "our" legislators do!   

the scarier one we need to hit HARD is that one about the mental health professional check needed every year or two

Just read submitted testimony for SB2257 and can't understand why HRA supported it. Did they even read the bill? Only the HRA and Maui PD supported this bill.

the scarier one we need to hit HARD is that one about the mental health professional check needed every year or two

Josh Green's bill (SB2957, not yet scheduled for a hearing) has it down to every 90 days (required exam within 90 days prior to EACH permit application). I'm guessing soon it'll be a required chip implant that will constantly send data... and if it looks borderline at any time, they'll come and get you and your guns. (What about knives and blunt objects?) Of course they'll have no evidence that the "chip" actually evaluates anything that can factually predict that you are, or are not, about to do something bad, but hey, they don't care about that. Because now they don't have any test to give that can reliably indicate that you won't do something bad in the next 90 days, and they still want that to be a "law". But they don't care. At least they are trying to do SOMETHING. For the children. Or something.

Just read submitted testimony for SB2257 and can't understand why HRA supported it. Did they even read the bill? Only the HRA and Maui PD supported this bill.

Probably for the same reason that they went against the NRA-ILA now with SB2257, as they did against the NRA-ILA last year with SB69 wherein the HRA encouraged our legislators to require registration by someone bringing in an "unusable, unserviceable" (my dictionary says "unrepairable") firearm. Now, don't ask me what that reason would be, but it's probably the same reason.

Just read submitted testimony for SB2257 and can't understand why HRA supported it. Did they even read the bill? Only the HRA and Maui PD supported this bill.

wow, we're screwed
legislators put a lot of weight into what the HRA says

wow, we're screwed
legislators put a lot of weight into what the HRA says

Perhaps someone from HRA could inform us as to how they reach decisions about supporting or opposing proposed legislation, and how many people (and what percentage of their membership that is) are involved in those decisions. Also if there is any polling of HRA members as to their preferences for legislation or agreement, or lack thereof, with HRA positions (assuming the HRA positions are not democratically decided by a vote of all members). Just curious.

Perhaps someone from HRA could inform us as to how they reach decisions about supporting or opposing proposed legislation, and how many people (and what percentage of their membership that is) are involved in those decisions. Also if there is any polling of HRA members as to their preferences for legislation or agreement, or lack thereof, with HRA positions (assuming the HRA positions are not democratically decided by a vote of all members). Just curious.

I was severely disappointed in their testimony for SB2257. Maybe there is some strategical maneuvering going on, but that testimony doesn't even reflect federal law correctly.

I was severely disappointed in their testimony for SB2257. Maybe there is some strategical maneuvering going on, but that testimony doesn't even reflect federal law correctly.

Well, if there is some "strategical maneuvering" going on, that's not the kind of thing we "little people" are privy too. We'll just have to trust that our "betters" are doing what's best for us, right?   

Expressed my disappointment on their Facebook page... It's as if they didn't even read the bill.

I was listening to the Mike Buck show the other day, not sure but I think he was talking to David Chang of the GOP.  The subject of pro gun legislation came up and the guy said basically there is no real push for the pro gun agenda.

Expressed my disappointment on their Facebook page... It's as if they didn't even read the bill.

Was at the committee meeting.  HRA switched positions and opposed the bill.   Committee deferred the bill (which places it in limbo if I understand the process right)

Was at the committee meeting.  HRA switched positions and opposed the bill.   Committee deferred the bill (which places it in limbo if I understand the process right)

interesting
i wonder why they changed positions

Update on committee meeting:

SB2050 - passed with amendments to add budgeting and require the attorney general to set the system up
SB2257 - Deferred
SB2938 - passed with amendments

Next bill that has a scheduled hearing is SB2590 (Espero, etc).

SB2590 Firearms; LEO; Alcohol; Prescription Medicine
Prohibits LEO from carrying when consuming alcohol and prescription drugs

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=2590

Public hearing 2/7/2014 1:00pm Conf Room 225