The following is just a random day's thoughts while on break at work so I hope it doesn't incite any flaming or thread bashing.

Anyway as it stands Hawaii is still considered one of the prominent anti-gun states; probably after California and New York. Are things going to change 2nd Amendment wise in a positive direction? Probably not with a Democratic Liberal Anti-gun Governor...but the weak economy more or less protects us since politicians are scrambling around to try and look good before next election cycle without invoking the ire of a specific voting demographic. (i.e a politician seen going after guns during a weak economy is more often than not going to be perceived as wasting time and resources on something that doesn't make new jobs)

So I was thinking...Hawaii's gun registration and sales numbers have been in the local papers numerous times recently due to the large increases in both areas. What are your thoughts on adding an extra charge/fee (within reason) to allow certain items into to Hawaii like removing the "Assault Pistol" ban and SBR's for example? I'm not talking about something like the $200 NFA tax but say I wanted to bring in a AK Draco pistol, upon registering it, I'd pay an added fee of say $25.00 which could go to the state and police department. Doesn't sound like much but with so many new registered owners and buyers, it could add a fair amount of revenue.

Truth be told I wouldn't mind paying a small fee for a firearm types we normally can't have here. The whole idea is politicians don't/won't change things unless they feel they get something out (i.e the unions etc). I hope this doesn't sound like a defeatist post or anything, but Hawaii is very, very, very stubborn and it that can be a good thing sometimes, like in regards to over-development, but at the same time Hawaii isn't very welcoming in terms of changing long established views or beliefs and that doesn't help our ongoing 2nd Amendment fight.

So, anyway, just wondering what you guys think; would you mind spending a little extra to get certain banned things unbanned?

Hey did Vladimir Klitscho win today?

Hey did Vladimir Klitscho win today?

He won but whats this got to do with firearms lol.

Quote from: Kingkeoni on July 02, 2011, 05:51:40 PM

Hey did Vladimir Klitscho win today?

He won but whats this got to do with firearms lol.

 

Quote from: Vladimir on July 02, 2011, 06:21:57 PM

Quote from: Kingkeoni on July 02, 2011, 05:51:40 PM

Hey did Vladimir Klitscho win today?

He won but whats this got to do with firearms lol.

 

I suppose every forum has a troll. 

Quote from: Kingkeoni on July 02, 2011, 08:28:12 PM

Quote from: Vladimir on July 02, 2011, 06:21:57 PM

Quote from: Kingkeoni on July 02, 2011, 05:51:40 PM

Hey did Vladimir Klitscho win today?

He won but whats this got to do with firearms lol.

 

I suppose every forum has a troll. 

Troll?

I've been involved with shooting for over 35 years.

I'm an endowment life member of the NRA since 1989.

I've competed in shooting competitions.

I'm an avid hunter (with firearms)

I'm a registered voter who consistently exercises my right to vote as a tool to stop the tyranny of anti gun oppressors.

If you ask me, someone who is lobbying firearm owners to want to pay money for their second amendment right to own firearms is a troll. 

I'm not willing to pay. I think the $200 NFA fees need to go away too! I'm tired of asking for permission to exercise my god given rights to protect myself in the manner that I feel is required.

Quote from: Vladimir on July 02, 2011, 08:52:59 PM

Quote from: Kingkeoni on July 02, 2011, 08:28:12 PM

Quote from: Vladimir on July 02, 2011, 06:21:57 PM

Quote from: Kingkeoni on July 02, 2011, 05:51:40 PM

Hey did Vladimir Klitscho win today?

He won but whats this got to do with firearms lol.

 

I suppose every forum has a troll. 

If you ask me, someone who is lobbying firearm owners to want to pay money for their second amendment right to own firearms is a troll.

This.

No compromise. What freedoms are we going to pay extra for next? You may be willing to give up, most of us are not.

If you are going to throw the troll card, check a members posts first  and see where they are coming from.

Once carry is written in case law as a right to keep and bear outside of the home, you will start to see SAF and others move onto Federal Gun Laws, rosters, magazine capacities, etc.  We have about two years (at most) before SCOTUS defines carry to be outside of the home; maybe the 9th can come to that conclusion a little faster.  I'd be willing to pay; I would support legislation that asked people to pay.  It would setup nicely for some equal protection arguments in the future.

You're not going to convince the other crowd to jump on your side over night. We believe in constitutional carry, but demanding it won't change minds. It took years/decades of ignorance to get where we are today. It's going to take just as long to fix and completely snap people out of their slumber. It happened inch by inch.

If one of the strategies is to require a fee for a decade before completely abolishing the arbitrary bans we have in place, or to be that much closer to doing as such, then so be it.

Have a wonderful day =Op

...I'd be willing to pay; I would support legislation that asked people to pay.  It would setup nicely for some equal protection arguments in the future.

...If one of the strategies is to require a fee for a decade before completely abolishing the arbitrary bans we have in place, or to be that much closer to doing as such, then so be it.

To you folks saying a fee would be a stepping stone or a temporary foot in the door solution, Knowing how the government works now, and how unpopular and demonized firearms and "assult weapons" are with the general voting public, how likely do you think it is that this hypothetical "fee" on firearms would ever be reduced or even abolished in the near or distant future?  What politician, even a popular pro-gun conservative would be willing to push for this?  Now, knowing how the government works now, and how unpopular and demonized firearms and "assult weapons" are with the general voting public, how likely is it that the government would see firearm fees as an easy revenue and increase the fee?   

Edit: spelling 

That's a great observation.

I think the issue here is a matter of taking a series of calculated risks. My personal opinion is, at this point, any progress is better than no progress. We can have no "assault" pistol (worst misnomer ever) and be angry about not being able to have it. Or we can push to be able to own and use them again, with the compromise of a charge, if it has to be. Some years down the road, when everyone can't immediately recall the feeling of not having the choice of owning and using it, we can be angry about having to be charged to excercise the right. Then push to get that removed.

Even if the push to remove the charge fails initially, we'd still have the choice to own and use what we want. Which would be light years ahead of what would have happened if nothing had been pushed in the first place; which would be nothing. Same place we've been for years.

As for the question of what I think the chances are the government at it's current state, or politicians worried about their own careers, will abolish or repeal anything regarding "assault" weapons, my answer is - extremely small. I agree we have little chance politically. Liberal Hawaii will not voluntarily budge on the "assault" pistol issue. Though we have experienced some victories politically the last few years, which is great.


The legislative weather has been leaning toward the Constitution and restoring rights on the 2a front. After more pass, it would be a matter of wrangling Hawaii into compliance and reminding them they can't pick and choose to grant which Right and which exclusive club to grant it to.



Ideally, abolishing the ban on "assault" pistols from the get-go is favorable. However, I think that's one giant leap we're unlikely to win. There would probably be less risk and better outcome by taking a series of likely-successful moves.

I'm not actively doing anything but speculating, but this is just my humble opinion.

The question itself is hypothetical since it doesn't seem likely in our current political climate in Hawaii. Dregs pretty much nailed it on the head. Any progress is better than no progress. Pardon the firearm analogy but just like many of us are taught when we first get to shoot guns, start off small then gradually work on up to bigger calibers. Small steps to chip away at the established foundation of restrictive firearm laws can be just as effective if not more effective than going for the big win. A small setback or defeat won't sting as much as a major court battle loss.

The question itself is hypothetical since it doesn't seem likely in our current political climate in Hawaii. Dregs pretty much nailed it on the head. Any progress is better than no progress. Pardon the firearm analogy but just like many of us are taught when we first get to shoot guns, start off small then gradually work on up to bigger calibers. Small steps to chip away at the established foundation of restrictive firearm laws can be just as effective if not more effective than going for the big win. A small setback or defeat won't sting as much as a major court battle loss.

The whole chipping away at the glacier theory? One step forward, two steps back (or sideways).

IANAL, but  we will probably need a big 2A win in the 9th or SCOTUS to support a founded lawsuit here. I highly doubt that when a lawsuit is filed, it will be for some miniscule wants or a compromise. It should be for the big win and we (the pro 2A community) had better be ready to help back it in full force.  Dregs did hit the nail on the head, this populous is not ready for OC/CC or any form thereof. 

If you are scared of what you may lose before you take the fight on, then you have most likely already lost.

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."

-- Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491

Quote from: Vladimir on July 07, 2011, 09:09:51 PM

The question itself is hypothetical since it doesn't seem likely in our current political climate in Hawaii. Dregs pretty much nailed it on the head. Any progress is better than no progress. Pardon the firearm analogy but just like many of us are taught when we first get to shoot guns, start off small then gradually work on up to bigger calibers. Small steps to chip away at the established foundation of restrictive firearm laws can be just as effective if not more effective than going for the big win. A small setback or defeat won't sting as much as a major court battle loss.

The whole chipping away at the glacier theory? One step forward, two steps back (or sideways).

IANAL, but  we will probably need a big 2A win in the 9th or SCOTUS to support a founded lawsuit here. I highly doubt that when a lawsuit is filed, it will be for some miniscule wants or a compromise. It should be for the big win and we (the pro 2A community) had better be ready to help back it in full force.  Dregs did hit the nail on the head, this populous is not ready for OC/CC or any form thereof. 

If you are scared of what you may lose before you take the fight on, then you have most likely already lost.

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."

-- Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491

I don't mind the idea of going for a big win, I'll support it, but "aim small, miss small". You may laugh at this but when I buy parts or firearms online and encounter a private seller or even a dealer with a shop, who won't sell to Hawaii because of our anti-gun laws I email them the link to our laws and explain that "Yes we can legally own that <insert firearm name>." Yeah it's a tiny personal win but I purchased what I wanted and it wasn't denied because of the stigma that our anti-gun laws.

I admire the Miranda quote; studied it extensively for my law enforcement and criminal justice courses but time and time again we've seen politicians literally throw the Constitution to the side and govern according to their own misguided beliefs. This is what really plagues Hawaii; electing the same people over and over into office and expecting something to change. Abercrombie will probably have a second term if no strong opponent arises, then when he's reached his limit, Brian Schatz is next in line and so forth; revolving door of anti-gun politicians.

"This is what really plagues Hawaii; electing the same people over and over into office and expecting something to change. Abercrombie will probably have a second term if no strong opponent arises, then when he's reached his limit, Brian Schatz is next in line and so forth; revolving door of anti-gun politicians."


I agree completely.

Quote from: Funtimes on July 02, 2011, 10:04:50 PM

...I'd be willing to pay; I would support legislation that asked people to pay.  It would setup nicely for some equal protection arguments in the future.

Quote from: Dregs on July 06, 2011, 03:19:16 PM

...If one of the strategies is to require a fee for a decade before completely abolishing the arbitrary bans we have in place, or to be that much closer to doing as such, then so be it.

To you folks saying a fee would be a stepping stone or a temporary foot in the door solution, Knowing how the government works now, and how unpopular and demonized firearms and "assult weapons" are with the general voting public, how likely do you think it is that this hypothetical "fee" on firearms would ever be reduced or even abolished in the near or distant future?  What politician, even a popular pro-gun conservative would be willing to push for this?  Now, knowing how the government works now, and how unpopular and demonized firearms and "assult weapons" are with the general voting public, how likely is it that the government would see firearm fees as an easy revenue and increase the fee?   

Edit: spelling

You can't tax a fundamental right. You can't regulate it to the point where the poor cannot exercise the right. In about six - seven months the case in New York against Bloomberg will be done, and also San Francisco just opened a huge can of "please sue my ass for taxing a right" as well.  The government *will* not, be profiting off of firearms; but we can make them think its a good idea to begin with .