Hawaii: Hearing on Legislation to Allow Military Pistol Training to Satisfy Handgun Training Requirements
Tomorrow, February 12, the House Committee on Veterans, Military, & International Affairs, & Culture and the Arts is scheduled to hear House Bill 2148 at 8:30 a.m., in House conference room 312.  Introduced by state Representative Clifton K. Tsuji (D-2), HB 2148 would widen the available avenues for satisfying the handgun permit training qualifications in Hawaii.  In addition to the currently accepted training and education methods, HB 2148 would expand acceptable instruction to include military pistol training.

I thought this was already allowed?   Oh well
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2014/bills/HB2148_.htm
Submit your testimony.  http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=HB&billnumber=2148&year=2014

From NRA email...

I thought this was already allowed?   Oh well
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2014/bills/HB2148_.htm
Submit your testimony.  http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=HB&billnumber=2148&year=2014

It is allowed service members just need a memorandum that states that they were trained in accordance with the requirements in the HRS and on the HRS, then have the memo signed by their commander and notarized and they should be good to go. I have personally used this method in the past.

So, before you start calling me "anti-military" or something, let me start by saying I would/will support this bill, but my criticisms of it are the same as allowing Hunter's Ed to substitute for the affidavit.

That being said, doesn't anyone find it somewhat hypocritical and illogical that on one hand you must have a mandated discussion of Hawaii laws pertaining to firearms (HRS 134) and the use of deadly force (HRS 703) yet this bill does nothing to provide that requirement in this particular path toward legal gun ownership?

I trained people on the M9 in the military, and given what I have experienced with some of the most retarded people to ever be given a pistol, I personally feel that EVERYONE should be required to take at least some sort of instruction to at least learn state laws.

I thought I knew everything I needed to know, and was quite pissed off when they wouldn't accept my training records or certificates demonstrating that I taught people how to use and fire their pistols. But when I took the HDF pistol course, I learned a lot of information about stuff I didn't know.

Just because someone is in the military and has qualified or somehow obtained an affidavit from their commander does not mean they necessarily know what they are doing with their weapon. I mean, come on; you only need 23 shots out of 40 to qualify for rifle marksman in the Army; 26 if its a paper qual. Pistol is even worse, with I think with 26 out of 50 on paper targets, and 16 out of 30 for the combat pistol course. And none of these qualifications really require that you know how or why your weapon system functions, or any other additional information that might be vital to the safe operation and utilization of the firearm. Trust me, I've seen some of the dumbest shit you thought you only see in the movies with nearly every qualification range I've been to.

And speaking specifically for the Army, I can wholeheartedly say that most soldiers, who's only weapon training came from the military, probably don't know jack shit about state law unless they study it themselves or take a training course.

And speaking specifically for the Army, I can wholeheartedly say that most soldiers, who's only weapon training came from the military, probably don't know jack shit about state law unless they study it themselves or take a training course.

Like I said, I thought I was hot shit and knew everything about everything before the handgun safety class, and I was proven dead wrong.

What are your criticisms of hunters ed?  Mine is that doesn't do anything to teach you to actually shoot.  At least for the military one they have to pull the trigger on a gun without killing someone lol.

I would love to see the requirement go away in total, but then have a plan implemented that you need some proof of basic training to use the range.  That's what I would do; if the city went public private at Kokohead - I wouldn't be surprised to see something like that or to have some sort of qualification (i.e. demonstrate load, unload, rack, clear malfunction, shoot, safe / stow).

you only need 23 shots out of 40 to qualify for rifle marksman in the Army; 26 if its a paper qual. Pistol is even worse, with I think with 26 out of 50 on paper targets, and 16 out of 30 for the combat pistol course. And none of these qualifications really require that you know how or why your weapon system functions, or any other additional information that might be vital to the safe operation and utilization of the firearm.

Yeah I believe this just a courtesy.  Of course, if we have police, I guess we could argue that we are a law enforcement agency.