Great news!
Now can we find a judge that will rule similarly against all of Hawaii's inane unconstitutional Second Amendment-abridging laws (including the ridiculous 14-21 day waiting period to purchase a handgun)?
During the last legislative session I submitted testimony to the legislature asking them to pass SB2050 (ending the 14-21 day waiting period) out of committee. In that letter I referenced (see url in testimony below) Judge Ishii previous ruling in the case wherein he denied California Attorney General Kamal Harris's request for summary judgment on all counts of the plaintiffs arguments/grounds. Ishii firmly denied her on all counts, so the case proceeded... If you read his earlier opinion you can tell he was rather brusk in his dismissal of her arguments, and he followed through with this decision today.
Testimony in support of SB2050: Ending waiting period for previously registered firearm owners
Dear Chair and Committee Members,
Please support and advance SB2050.
1. There is no evidence that a “waiting period” decreases crime. This bill only addresses eliminating a waiting period for previously registered firearm owners. Since these people already have access to at least one other firearm, there is not even the possibility of any public safety benefit from requiring these firearm owners to undergo any waiting period.
2. The vast majority of states in the United States only require that the purchaser of a firearm undergo a background check through the National Instant Background Check System (NICS). There is no evidence that any other system of checking individuals backgrounds is superior or that use of this NICS check alone increases any kind of crime. If other states use the NICS system successfully without any untoward consequences upon public safety, then Hawaii ought to adapt the same system, as no benefit is gained by making previously registered owners wait any period of time, much less 14 to 20 days.
3. Hawaii currently has the longest waiting period (14 to 21 days) of any state having waiting periods. There is no evidence that any waiting period, much less one of two to three week duration has any positive effect on crime rates of any kind.
4. As stated in Silvester v. Harris (UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, CASE NO. 1:11CV-2137 AWI SAB
[http://ia600803.us.archive.org/13/items/gov.uscourts.caed.233362/gov.uscourts.caed.233362.44.0.pdf]
by Judge Ishii, "[Therefore,] the Court concludes that the WPL [Waiting Period Law] burdens the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms." And "Additionally, as applied to individuals who already own a gun, the Court has great difficulty envisioning how the “cooling off” rationale could pass the appropriate level of scrutiny. If an individual already possess a firearm, then nothing about this rationale would prevent that individual from acting on a sudden impulse to commit gun violence with the gun already in his or her possession." Judge Ishii also ruled that the justification for the California 10 day waiting period in order to perform an adequate background check was likely unconstitutional.
Thus, no public safety issue is served by the Hawaii waiting period to purchase a firearm, especially for prior registered owners, so the provision of SB2050 to eliminate this waiting period of 14 to 20 days for prior registered owners ought to be enacted as law. Other states have background checks that can be done instantly using the NICS system and have no public safety problems as a result.
SB2050 is rational, logical, and has all the evidence on its side. The current law requiring already registered firearm owners to wait 2 to 3 weeks to purchase another firearm is irrational, illogical, and has no evidence to support any kind of public safety efficacy. Please do the law-abiding gun owners of Hawaii, and the Constitution(s) of the United States (and Hawaii) a service and move SB2050 out of committee for consideration by the full legislature.
thank you,
[punaperson]
[Oh, needless to say, they never even allowed the bill to be heard, much less heard testimony, much less voted on it, much less passed it out of committee... they don't need no stinking Constitution!]