State Affiliate of the National Rifle Association - Founded in 1857
 
Feb 9, 2015

 

 

 

 

The Senate hears two bills Thursday afternoon, 2/12/15.

 

 

 

The worst bill of the decade, SB 783, is heard in a Joint Hearing of the Senate Committees on Transportation and Public Safety starting at 2:45pm.

 

Senator Maile Shimabukuro (Southwest Oahu) has introduced this terribly restrictive anti-Second Amendment bill.  Please submit testimony, and come to the hearing and deliver it if you can. See the hearing notice for bill language, history, and to send testimony at:

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2015/hearingnotices/
HEARING_TRA-PSM_02-12-15_.HTM

SB783 requires that when you apply for a firearms permit you must swear in writing that neither you or any of your family or household has now or in the past "certain mental disorders."

 

If you don't swear so, you must lock up and secure or turn in all firearms and ammunition within 48 hours or pay a fine of $50 per day. 

 

SB783 requires that failure to pay child or spousal support is cause for revocation of a firearm permit (which means also turn in all firearms and ammunition that you already have).

 

If you are ever arrested and refuse a breath, blood, or urine test, you must turn in or dispose of all your firearms within 48hrs.

 

Law enforcement officers are exempted from all provisions.

 

 

HRA STRONGLY OPPOSES.  There are already sufficient laws in Hawaii on safe storage of firearms, mental health background checks, and ways to go after "dead-beat dads," and drunk drivers without such severe infringements on individual civil rights.

 

 

 

 

 

 

SB674.   Ban on Ivory sales in Hawaii

The Senate Energy and Environment and Commerce and Consumer Protection Committees have scheduled a joint hearing on

SB 674,  a ban on Ivory sales in Hawaii (Same as HB837 heard in the House today and passed with amendments).  Please submit testimony.  If you sent in on HB837, you may update it and send it again to this hearing.  Come to the hearing and deliver it if you can, please.  Take your pick, both hearings start at 2:45pm.  See the hearing notice at:

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2015/hearingnotices/
HEARING_ENE-CPN_02-12-15_.HTM

HRA OPPOSES .  Elephant populations in sub-equatorial
Africa in areas with good habitat development and game
management policies are healthy and increasing in
numbers according to the World Wildlife Fund web site,
2015.       

In impoverished African areas with no political stability elephant populations are threatened with extinction. This bill will not alter poaching in those areas.  Bans are price supports for illegal activity there.  Confiscated ivory and ivory harvested to protect subsistence farming and habitat degradation should be and is marketed to fund habitat improvement and anti-poaching enforcment.

 

This bill makes criminals of anyone with antique gun grips or sight beads, musical instruments, scrimshaw, hatpins, or jewelry bearing small amounts of ivory from any source harvested long ago and offered for sale or transfer other than by inheritance.  Appraisal as an antique, produced before 1989, or lawfully harvested, should be exemptions or represent an affirmative defense.

 

 

 

Mahalo,

 

Dr. Maxwell Cooper,

 

HRA Legislative Liason

Please submit you testimony quickly and attend the hearings if possible!

Oppose SB783
This goes WAY too far in infringement of your rights.  This bill MUST NOT BE PASSED

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=783&year=2015

Oppose SB674

It is already illegal to sell or trade in ill got ivory.

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=674

SB783. I like how the cops get a pass on mental illness, refusal to submit to breath, blood or urine tests, and failure to pay child or spousal support. They ARE special! You and me? Not so much. So what else is new? [Profanity deleted]

Done.

Here is a sample of what I submitted, If you think it good, please use it for your inspiration...

SB783


Failure to submit to a test is not a valid nor sufficient reason for removing ones civil rights.  Why is the police exempt from this proposed amendment? 
Is the police above the law?  The current climate of distrust between the public and the police force will be further stressed by the implementation of
such a measure, and the right of the people is not of a lesser value than that of the rights of the force charged to protect the interest of the state.


In the second portion of the proposed amendment requires individual citizens to swear to the mental health of others in the household. 
This is not valid as well, in that, unless that person is a physiological doctor, trained in the diagnosis of such afflictions, how can one swear to the
mental health or well being of any persons?  This is a huge overreach in the law, that will most definitely serve to incriminate otherwise innocent citizens
and impose more infringements on their civil rights.  Furthermore, again, law enforcement exemption will further be stressed by implementation.


In the third proposal, failure to pay child support is a whole differing category of law, this should not even be in this bill as it is not related. 
Recoup of unpaid child support must be effectively acquired by other more effective and constitutional means.


In conclusion, I urge all members to OPPOSE this bill, in it’s entirety.  The bill will overly infringe on the rights of the citizens, and be gravely
detrimental to the relationship of the public and law enforcement.


Thank you very much.

Respectfully,

Done.

completed

Done!

Testimony submitted.

.

Thank you, but too late. Hehe

Probably too late, but testimony submitted anyway.

Ridiculous bill!

UPDATE: Emailed testimony directly to committee members, thanks to Heavies' FB post.

 

Probably too late, but testimony submitted anyway.

Ridiculous bill!

UPDATE: Emailed testimony directly to committee members, thanks to Heavies' FB post.

 

Me too...

Many thanks to all who submitted testimony on SB783! I am one-quarter of the way through the 107 pages of testimony, and so far it's unanimous in opposition to SB783... even the Honolulu police department opposes it!

Way to go Team Civil Rights! 

Now let's see if the "progressive" members of the committees completely ignore the informed and interested public.

Update: I finished reading them all: One Hundred and Seven (107) pages of unanimous opposition to SB783! Okay, one submission had "Comments Only" as "Testifier Position", but their text comments were clearly in opposition and they called the bill "disgraceful", so I'm counting that as "Opposed" and saying unanimous!

Update #2: Testimony is here: http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/Session2015/Testimony/SB783_TESTIMONY_TRA-PSM_02-12-15.PDF

erroneous double post

Whoa, HPD opposed it?  Didnt see that coming.

Whoa, HPD opposed it?  Didnt see that coming.

Here's the core of the HPD testimony. Seems somewhat unusually pro citizen firearm rights:

The HPD opposes Senate Bill No. 783, Relating to Firearms and Ammunition.

This bill proposes that if an individual refuses to submit to a breath, blood, or urine test, he or she shall surrender their firearms and ammunition within 48 hours to the Chief of Police. Under the current law, a conviction for Operating a Vehicle Under the Influence of Intoxicants is not a disqualifying factor to obtain a firearms permit. Therefore, a refusal to submit to a breath, blood, or urine test should not be a reason to disqualify an individual from owning any firearms.

Additionally, this bill requires the applicant as well as all family and household members (as defined in Section 709-906 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes) to provide a mental health clearance before the application is approved. This could unfairly disqualify individuals who under the current law already possess firearms. The HPD feels that it is the responsibility of the gun owners to secure their weapons and prevent possession of the firearms from anyone other than the permitted owner.

Hey, thats some legit common sense from HPD.

Hey, thats some legit common sense from HPD.

Yeah, completely rational, logically consistent, and even supporting evidence available. Now, about those three trips to the office to be allowed to possess a handgun...