Yeah, "SECTION 7.  This Act shall take effect on July 1, 2050." 

Is this what passes for legislation by what passes for legislators in this state? Is this supposed to be "funny"?  It is a joke, but it's not funny.

You can see the amended version of the bill (which would reduce the number of visits to the police station to no more than two... big f-ing whup... what year would they put on a bill that did something overturning their seriously unconstitutional laws? 2400?) here: http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2014/bills/SB2938_SD2_.HTM

Contradictions?

Section 2. (c)  No later than July 1, 2015, the department of the attorney general, in collaboration with the county police departments, shall establish and operate a statewide online registration process for registering firearms that generally requires no more than two visits to the respective county police station per registration.  Any funds received from county firearm registration fees shall be used to pay for costs incurred by the registering county and online registration processing costs incurred by the department of attorney general.

SECTION 4.  The department of the attorney general shall work with county police departments to create and implement a statewide online firearms registration process pursuant to this Act by July 1, 2015, and shall submit a report to the legislature, no later than twenty days prior to the convening of the regular session of 2016, on the status of the statewide online registration process.

And, of course SECTION 7.  This Act shall take effect on July 1, 2050.

There is no video of the committee meeting, only audio, and people (unidentifiable to me by voice alone) are laughing and making jokes about how surprised the attorney general will be because he wasn't at the meeting. There is no discussion of the bill by the legislators at all, though Espero does make what sounds like a snide/sarcastic remark when reading the names of those submitting supporting testimony by saying something along the lines of (paraphrase) "some of these names might sound familiar" (i.e. "the gun nuts"?) because many of the same people submitted supporting testimony for another bill that would lessen the unconstitutional burdens on gun owners of the great fascist state of Hawaii. Espero simply announced without any discussion that he amended the bill to the 2050 date and recommended acceptance with that date. They seem to think this is a joke. If there's any joke, it's them and their total disrespect for the "people" whom they supposedly "serve". 

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot pretty much sums it up....   Is this man a total idiot???

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot pretty much sums it up....   Is this man a total idiot???

Yup.

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot pretty much sums it up....   Is this man a total idiot???

And I thought them amending the "no waiting period for previously registered firearms owners" bill (SB2050 SD1) until July 1, 2020 was preposterous and absurd! I honestly think it's POSSIBLE it's an example of their legislative "sense of humor". Vote for a bill that wouldn't take effect until long long after they are all dead. Pretty f***ing funny, huh, voters and citizens? Be sure to CONTINUE to re-elect us so as committee chairmen, etc. we can make jokes (or be cynical useful idiots) at your expense.

Section 4 - Article 16 - Oath of Office

All eligible public officers, before entering upon the duties of their respective offices, shall take and subscribe to the following oath or affirmation:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Hawaii, and that I will faithfully discharge my duties as _____________ to best of my ability."

As used in this section, "eligible public officers" means the governor, the lieutenant governor, the members of both houses of the legislature, the members of the board of education, the members of the national guard, State or county employees who possess police powers, district court judges, and all those whose appointment requires the consent of the senate.

That's a LOT of people who have falsely sworn (or affirmed) their support and defense of the Constitutions of the United States and Hawaii. Apparently there is no penalty for such false swearing or affirming. Obviously. Of course I'd like to see the "best of my ability" loophole be removed. You know, just some common sense legislative safety and integrity regulations, because, the children.

It's not unusual to have those type of far in the future dates placed in the bills as "place holders." They'll be amended as they pass thru the process and before they get voted on in the full House and Senate.

It's not unusual to have those type of far in the future dates placed in the bills as "place holders." They'll be amended as they pass thru the process and before they get voted on in the full House and Senate.

Thanks for that information!  I wouldn't go so far as to say it restores my faith in these legislators, but at least it gives another possible explanation for the amendment that could make sense. Could you explain to me why that kind of amendment (effective date many years in the future) is necessary as a "place holder"? Why does there have to be a "place holder"? What is a "place holder"? Anywhere I can read about that and what other options might be available to accomplish the same end? Thanks.

.

Bills have to identify an, "Effective Date."

As a bill moves through the various committees, a committee may intentionally opt not to identify the bill's actual Effective Date, leaving such task to another committee, or to the Conference Committee Meetings.

Until the Effective Date is finally decided upon, a "placeholder date" (like 2050) is inserted into the bill, with the understanding that this will be revised, at a later date.

www.capitol.hawaii.gov/docs/cg/1.pdf

www.capitol.hawaii.gov/citizensguide.aspx

Thanks. In searching the urls you provided as well as using the hawaii.gov website search function, including the "Legislative Glossary", there is no mention anywhere that I can find of "placeholder".

Since any part of a bill may be amended at any stage of the processes through committees, why would a "date effective" (or any other part or language of a bill) that is, or may be, changed in the future be changed in the first place and then be called a "placeholder"? The original date could serve just as well as a "placeholder", right? Is the 2020 date for SB2050 a "placeholder"? Are you saying that any date other than the coming year or next year is a placeholder? I'm not trying to be obtuse, I just don't understand what purpose a particular kind of change ('effective date") serves, since the bill can be amended in any number of ways, including and in addition to "effective date", prior to final vote. If the bill is passed out of committee and still amendable by future committees, what difference does it make what the effective date is one way or the other? Why not have the "real" date on there and let the other committees consider whether that is an appropriate effective date and only amend it if they think it needs to be changed?

Oh, maybe the answer is: that's just the way they do it?

.

Yes.

Unless you have had the personal misfortune of actually "doing time" at the Leg, the process, along with the practices and traditions (both good and bad) can seem like one big 

Honestly, even if you are a glutton for punishment and spend more than one session at the Leg, the process can still seem like one big 

To your question:  When a bill is introduced, it may have been drafted by a third party, and sent to a particular Representative/Senator for introduction.

The original drafter may have identified a desired Effective Date.

In such a case, as the bill moves along, the good Representatives and good Senators may have reasons (some justifiable, others... not so much) to revise the Effective Date of the bill.

It is also possible that the original drafter may not have identified a desired Effective Date.

In this case, the effective date is assigned some date in the future (a "place holder date"), and many committees will "punt" and let either the next committee or the Conference Committee decide upon the Effective Date.

So can this "punting" continue forever until the bill is taken up?

.

Brief explanation of "defective dates":

www.lrbhawaii.org/par/pub/nl0409.pdf

Thx for that.     So the date really doesn't mean anything until the two chambers agree on the final version of the bill.  Until then every aspect of the bill is open to negotiation.

Thx for that.     So the date really doesn't mean anything until the two chambers agree on the final version of the bill.  Until then every aspect of the bill is open to negotiation.

remember that during conference committee, everything is up for negotiation
you could even change a bill about saving the whales into an assault weapons ban
of course, you would catch hell for it later, but it is within the rules

Yes.

Unless you have had the personal misfortune of actually "doing time" at the Leg, the process, along with the practices and traditions (both good and bad) can seem like one big 

Honestly, even if you are a glutton for punishment and spend more than one session at the Leg, the process can still seem like one big 

To your question:  When a bill is introduced, it may have been drafted by a third party, and sent to a particular Representative/Senator for introduction.

The original drafter may have identified a desired Effective Date.

In such a case, as the bill moves along, the good Representatives and good Senators may have reasons (some justifiable, others... not so much) to revise the Effective Date of the bill.

It is also possible that the original drafter may not have identified a desired Effective Date.

In this case, the effective date is assigned some date in the future (a "place holder date"), and many committees will "punt" and let either the next committee or the Conference Committee decide upon the Effective Date.

Thanks for taking the time to explain all that  .    I'm prone to seeking the logically consistent and rational basis for human decisions and regulations/rules, so I get pretty disoriented when dealing with legislators (and other "politicians") and the legislative process.

remember that during conference committee, everything is up for negotiation
you could even change a bill about saving the whales into an assault weapons ban
of course, you would catch hell for it later, but it is within the rules

Yeah, I'm guessing the whales will be pretty upset if their assault weapons are taken away. 

I'm gonna ask my doctor to up my blood pressure meds. Either way they are laughing at us. I take this seriously. To them we are a joke. to bad.

It seems the 'Legislative Process' here is far to Machiavellian for my simple mind to understand...   

It seems the 'Legislative Process' here is far to Machiavellian for my simple mind to understand...   

Who or what would be served by making the process of passing laws as arcane, convoluted, and complex as possible? If the average citizen doesn't have the time and/or legal knowledge/vocabulary required to understand how he became subject to the laws and (il?)legal penalties attached thereto, how does that square with any notion of "democracy" or "representation" or "the will of the people" or the concept of politicians as "public servants"?

Whatever the intricacies (and lack of ethics or outright corruption) of the "political" process, everything was made clear to me with Senator Espero's snide/snarky/sarcastic derogatory comment re the names of citizens who actually had the gall to submit testimony in favor of TWO bills that would in the most minuscule ways lessen the preposterous unconstitutional burdens on Hawaii firearms owners. Yeah, that's really funny Senator. 

.

.