Not sure if this has been discussed, but I couldn't find a thread on this proposed senate bill:

Tracking: http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=2257&year=2014
Text: http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2014/bills/SB2257_.pdf

At the very least, it makes provisions for properly licensed gunsmiths.  But, from what I comprehended, it goes as far as criminalizing having/selling/building something like a 3D printed gun looking object, or a gun part looking thing. 

I can just imagine someone hitting print on a gun §134(a)(1) or ammo §134(a)(2) looking thing on their 3D printer, and getting hit with a class C felony.  This is a steep jump from something like Honolulu ordinance 03-24 regarding displaying of firearm replicas in public, which results in a $1000 fine.

You could probably stretch this law to cover a effective ban on gun looking toys and airsoft guns as well §134(b)(1), §134(b)(2) .  They sure as heck look like guns, and they're all manufactured with a process which definitely involved a computer for design/simulation/injection mold design and digitally assisted injection molding technique with plastic!  not to mention any molds for die cast parts, or for high end airsoft guns: CNC'ing of metal.  Hell, even generic screws used for firearms were digitally designed and used some sort of digitally controlled machine to facilitate or run the mass production 'recipe'.

I am a bit confused as to why the HRA endorsed the bill.  Perhaps HRA overlooked the prohibition on gun part or ammo shaped things?  HRA's name does carry the weight of all its members, but I'm glad to see an overwhelming majority of opposers in the testimony who were concerned well before I learned about this. 
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/Session2014/Testimony/SB2257_TESTIMONY_PSM_02-04-14.PDF

I am a bit confused as to why the HRA endorsed the bill.  Perhaps HRA overlooked the prohibition on gun part or ammo shaped things?  HRA's name does carry the weight of all its members, but I'm glad to see an overwhelming majority of opposers in the testimony who were concerned well before I learned about this. 

I'm only addressing the part of your comment quoted above. HRA has supported several bills that even the NRA-ILA has opposed the past couple of legislative sessions. HRA doesn't respond to my email inquiries asking them for their rationale for supporting irrational bills that place greater burdens on law-abiding gun owners and do absolutely nothing to enhance "public safety". Go figure. I know that during testimony for one of the bills supported by HRA (and all the police departments) this past session, which was opposed by virtually all the individual testimony, HRA laughingly (that's what it sounded like to me on the recording) noted to the committee chair that they had changed their position from their written testimony supporting it, and now opposed the bill. It might have been this one. I wish you luck in attempting to ameliorate your "confusion" about HRA support for this and other bills opposed by gun owners, as they don't seem to be interested in providing any answers to me.

Not sure if this has been discussed, but I couldn't find a thread on this proposed senate bill:

Tracking: http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=2257&year=2014
Text: http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2014/bills/SB2257_.pdf

At the very least, it makes provisions for properly licensed gunsmiths.  But, from what I comprehended, it goes as far as criminalizing having/selling/building something like a 3D printed gun looking object, or a gun part looking thing. 

I can just imagine someone hitting print on a gun §134(a)(1) or ammo §134(a)(2) looking thing on their 3D printer, and getting hit with a class C felony.  This is a steep jump from something like Honolulu ordinance 03-24 regarding displaying of firearm replicas in public, which results in a $1000 fine.

You could probably stretch this law to cover a effective ban on gun looking toys and airsoft guns as well §134(b)(1), §134(b)(2) .  They sure as heck look like guns, and they're all manufactured with a process which definitely involved a computer for design/simulation/injection mold design and digitally assisted injection molding technique with plastic!  not to mention any molds for die cast parts, or for high end airsoft guns: CNC'ing of metal.  Hell, even generic screws used for firearms were digitally designed and used some sort of digitally controlled machine to facilitate or run the mass production 'recipe'.

I am a bit confused as to why the HRA endorsed the bill.  Perhaps HRA overlooked the prohibition on gun part or ammo shaped things?  HRA's name does carry the weight of all its members, but I'm glad to see an overwhelming majority of opposers in the testimony who were concerned well before I learned about this. 
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/Session2014/Testimony/SB2257_TESTIMONY_PSM_02-04-14.PDF

geeze, LD
up at 3 am and reading legislative bills from january?

https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=13353.0
https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=13266.0

geeze, LD
up at 3 am and reading legislative bills from january?

https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=13353.0
https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=13266.0

ahh, there they are, thanks!  yea, just some late night reading, haha.  I guess I'm just starting to get familiar with how laws are written and considered.  Thankfully a lot of folks spoke up and shot this thing down.  Looks like it got deferred, but not killed.  Guess we might have to deal with a comeback.

I'm only addressing the part of your comment quoted above

Thanks punaperson, that's good to know that the HRA does try to update their position on their testimony when they have a better understanding.  It would definitely make sense if they tried to update it on this one.  I'll have to pay more attention to the next legislative session so I can add in my own testimony to bills that need it.

I'm only addressing the part of your comment quoted above. HRA has supported several bills that even the NRA-ILA has opposed the past couple of legislative sessions. HRA doesn't respond to my email inquiries asking them for their rationale for supporting irrational bills that place greater burdens on law-abiding gun owners and do absolutely nothing to enhance "public safety". Go figure. I know that during testimony for one of the bills supported by HRA (and all the police departments) this past session, which was opposed by virtually all the individual testimony, HRA laughingly (that's what it sounded like to me on the recording) noted to the committee chair that they had changed their position from their written testimony supporting it, and now opposed the bill. It might have been this one. I wish you luck in attempting to ameliorate your "confusion" about HRA support for this and other bills opposed by gun owners, as they don't seem to be interested in providing any answers to me.

yes, this is the bill that they changed their stance

ahh, there they are, thanks!  yea, just some late night reading, haha.  I guess I'm just starting to get familiar with how laws are written and considered.  Thankfully a lot of folks spoke up and shot this thing down.  Looks like it got deferred, but not killed.  Guess we might have to deal with a comeback.

the leg is on a 2 year cycle
deferred bills get carried over to the second year
this is the second year, so there is no carry over

we still have to be vigilant that they can introduce it again
the cycle means it is not automatically carried over

Thanks punaperson, that's good to know that the HRA does try to update their position on their testimony when they have a better understanding.  It would definitely make sense if they tried to update it on this one.  I'll have to pay more attention to the next legislative session so I can add in my own testimony to bills that need it.

pay attention to this subforum
the mods and some members keep the members updated continuously

This is so vague it's scary!

This is so vague it's scary!

The more vague, the better to allow the enforcer bureaucrats to subjectively determine what it means, when it means it, and who they want to apply it to in whatever situation. Or not. We already see daily instances of perfectly clear laws (apparently) not applying to cops and politicians and the like. They get laws passed exempting them from civil and criminal liability if they work for the monopoly of coercive violence (aka "government"). As you say, scary.

The time is fast approaching to try and get these types of politicians out, and get rights friendly politicians in!

https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=15194.0

The time is fast approaching to try and get these types of politicians out, and get rights friendly politicians in!

https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=15194.0

a couple of us were at tracy arakaki's campaign kick-off last night...

a couple of us were at tracy arakaki's campaign kick-off last night...

Nice!  sorry going off topic, but how was it?  any interesting conversation?

I was trying to make it but I had a job run long. By the time I drove in everyone was leaving.

Nice!  sorry going off topic, but how was it?  any interesting conversation?

Was me and mr/mrs lickins
Ed case and will espero showed up to support Tracy
They said all it will take is 1-2000 votes to win the election