At some point, it's possible that we in Hawaii will have to deal with our legislators determining "sensitive places" that may be deemed "gun-free zones". I'm wondering what their logic, arguments and evidence will be, and what arguments and evidence we will be able to use to have the broadest possible "right to carry" for self-defense outside our homes and businesses. Here is a video of the head of Ceasefire Oregon, Penny Okamoto, telling her audience about the purpose of gun-free zones, and acknowledging that it really has no intent nor capacity whatsoever to deter criminal activity, but exists solely to enhance law enforcement capability. I don't recall seeing any other person argue this point of view... others have seemed to argue that the legal CCW carriers themselves are the danger, because, you know, "gun nuts". Or some criminal will steal their gun and use it in the sensitive place.

Her comments are the first 40 seconds of the video. I've included a transcription of her comments, in case you're like me and couldn't believe your ears.



“Gun-free zones is...is...I'm gonna explain gun-free zones. People always say “why... what's the thing with gun-free zones?” Criminals aren't gonna, you know, say “Oh, there 's a piece of paper, can't bring my gun here.” Everyone knows that, of course. The issue with gun-free zones is it gives police officers... law enforcement the right to, um, have a... to be able to do different things if they see someone with a weapon in a gun-free zone. That's all it is. It, it, of course it doesn't prevent criminals from coming in there. That's not the case, that's not the point of a gun-free zone.”

And the only thing landmines in other country's have in common with my firearms is that they too will be passed on to my children, grandchildren, great grandchildren etc.. 

That was a complete and total waste of words. How can that even be considered a definition or explanation? She said nothing.

yup...seen it once b4...
a gun free zone will transform 1st responders into ....



and even if it has no effect on criminals...
Let's do it for the children...


cuz they don't know any better

I could see a possible useful bit in her comments, like an additional charge if someone were to bring a gun in certain areas. We see this in some drug laws, where if someone sell a drug on a school campus they can get charged with a higher level crime or additional crime. This could target criminals who carry firearms to certain places that you really don't want to have firearms. That is of course based on our current laws which prevent everyone from carrying in public anyway. On the other hand many crimes are already bumped up if someone has a firearm on them while they are committing a separate crime, so perhaps we have that basis covered already?

If/when Hawaii gets CCWI am pretty sure we will see gun free zones. Courts and prisons of course, airports as well I would assume, thought these are already 'gun free zones"

I'd one up them and create "crime-free zones". 1000% better.

Oahu <--> A Liberal-Free zone!

That should fix it!  I know I would feel much, much safer!!

This is by far, the most ignorant, moronic crap I've read or watched in the last month or so. I feel soiled by it.

"of course it doesn't prevent criminals from coming in there. That's not the case, that's not the point of a gun free zone."
Then apparently gun free zones have no point. Much like pissing up a rope. All you end up with is piss on your shoes.