Please respond to it. See if they publish one of OUR letters.

How'd he know you are from Mississippi?

They asked me, and I'm representing =P.  Doesn't matter what state we are from -- this is AMERICA, not the Communist republic of Hawaii .


Of course, we are the only state left of San Francisco and right of North Korea.

I submitted a letter, but who knows if it'll get published.  Here's the letter:

Mr. Quarles' letter to the editor (Hawaii Doesn't Need More Guns, Sep. 02) shows he has little understanding of the facts and personalities involved in Mr. Baker's lawsuit.  It is my understanding that Mr. Baker has recieved plenty of self defense training, both from the Department of Defense, and privately.  The suggestion that he find a new line of work implies that Mr. Quarles would prefer to let the whims of violent criminals dictate the actions of law-abiding citizens, and is patently absurd.  Finally, all of us in Hawaii have a vested interest in keeping the island pristine to preserve the tourism-based economy, but allowing the lawful carry of firearms by the citizens of our state has little, if anything, to do with the influx of tourism.  Shall-issue permit systems have become the norm across the country, and it's time for Chief Kealoha and the State Legislature to start recognizing the natural right of Hawaiians to defend themselves from criminal predators.  Mr. Quarles' vacations are important to our economy, but not as important as the safety and security of those of us who live here full-time.

Sincerely,

Cougar

Nicely written. I hope it does get published.

I donated on behalf of SurvivalHawaii.com.

I also want to give $1 for every "Don't Tread on Me' shirt sold on SurvivalHawaii from now till it's won. We don't sell a ton of shirts but i hope every little bit will help.

http://www.survivalhawaii.com/?p=619

"They have probably been advised by counsel to not comment."

Their attorneys have probably advised them that they're treading on thin ice by denying folks their natural rights... not to mention their specifically enumerated rights as protected by the Second Amendment.

"Why was there a published letter to the editor from a person not in Hawaii?"

Because the letter reflected their anti-gun position.

I wonder what would happen if I wrote a pro-gun one from here in Colorado.

Well, on second thought, I don't wonder.  Round file for that one.

"These kinds of letters are very annoying. It's just a "drive-by" posting by, as you mentioned, someone that doesn't even fall under our laws."

If I may point this out, although I am not affected by your laws, either, I am passionately interested in your situation out there.  See?  Not all "do-gooder" types are anti gun.

Terry, 230RN

ETA:  Almost forgot:  Welcome aboard, RKBA!  Love that handle!

Update on letters to the Honolulu Star Bulletin:

Looks like they're printing some of our letters. The first pro 2A letter was printed in yesterday's paper. Here's the text:

License-to-carry law in Hawaii pointless
Why did the state Legislature even pass Hawaii Revised Statue 134-9, License to Carry? Was it just to appease those of us freedom-loving Americans who want to protect ourselves and our families (since the response time for a Level 1 call in Hawaii is seven minutes), or was it done just because almost every other state in the union has one? If the residents of Hawaii would just stand up as one and tell their elected employees that this is nonsense, and that they will be exercising their rights that are protected, not granted, by the United States and Hawaii constitutions, we sould save this state tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees.

DBS- Waialua

They also printed Cougar8045's letter posted above (although they did edit the letter and one of the sentences left out was Cougars closing statement, which I thought was a key point):

Isle residents have right to defend themselves
George Quarles shows he has little understanding of the facts and personalities involved (Hawaii Doesn't Need More Guns, Sep. 02) . The suggestion that Chris Baker find a new line of work implies that Mr. Quarles would prefer to let the whims of violent criminals dictate the actions of law-abiding citizens. This is patently adsurd. Additionally, all of us in Hawaii have a vested interest in keeping the island pristine to preserve the tourism-based economy, but allowing the lawful carry of firearms by the citizens of our state has little, if anything, to do with the influx of tourism.  Shall-issue permit systems have become the norm across the country, and it's time for Chief Kealoha and the Legislature to start recognizing the natural right of Hawaii citizens to defend themselves from criminal predators. 

Sincerely,

Cougar

All in all though, so far so good. Obviously they're not printing all the letters sent to them, but they're printing some and that in and of itself is positive news. A big Mahalo to everyone taking the time to support the cause. 

If I can take fifteen minutes to hammer out a letter to the editor, see my name in the paper, and call it supporting the cause, I'm all for it! 

If I can take fifteen minutes to hammer out a letter to the editor, see my name in the paper, and call it supporting the cause, I'm all for it! 

Is is an issue that they edited your letter before they published it? Seems shady and self serving to me.

I'm not too concerned about it.  Their guidelines say ~175 words, I sent them 186.  They chopped it a little bit, but I feel like the editing was mostly for clarity, and removing the last sentence actually made the letter better, imo.  The last sentence could be read as a little bit confrontational, and the rest of the editing was simple stuff like substituting "Honolulu Chief of Police Louis Kealoha" for "Chief Kealoha".  The letter they printed accurately conveyed my sentiments, so it's all good.

I'm not too concerned about it.  Their guidelines say ~175 words, I sent them 186.  They chopped it a little bit, but I feel like the editing was mostly for clarity, and removing the last sentence actually made the letter better, imo.  The last sentence could be read as a little bit confrontational, and the rest of the editing was simple stuff like substituting "Honolulu Chief of Police Louis Kealoha" for "Chief Kealoha".  The letter they printed accurately conveyed my sentiments, so it's all good.

Just checking.

 
Is That it???
No more interest on this topic after 7 Sept??
How about more on the plaintiff, the lawyers, when we might see this in court./
Where does the HRA stand? They have been kinda quiet. Has the NRA gotten involved?
GOA? SAF? My guess is that we could use this kind of horsepower.
This is a really big opportunity that must not be wasted.
The entire gun rights community needs to be behind it 100%

Is That it???
No more interest on this topic after 7 Sept??
How about more on the plaintiff, the lawyers, when we might see this in court./
Where does the HRA stand? They have been kinda quiet. Has the NRA gotten involved?
GOA? SAF? My guess is that we could use this kind of horsepower.
This is a really big opportunity that must not be wasted.
The entire gun rights community needs to be behind it 100%

The whole thing has kind of teleported over to HawaiiCCW's facebook group.  The state's reply to Chris's lawsuit is due by the 21st of this month, and the hearing on the injunction request is as follows: NOTICE of Hearing on Plaintiff's MOTION for Preliminary Injunction set for Court Hearing on 1/17/2012 at 10:00 AM before JUDGE ALAN C KAY. (lls, ).  There's been quite a bit of interest, but I think that it's been developing more on the facebook page, probably because facebook is a more dynamic platform for discussion and whatnot.  PM me the email you use for your facebook and I'll add you to the group, so you can get updates in real-time. 

Well it's good to have those dates posted here as well. Not all of us use facebook

I'm anxiously awaiting the 21st. That's not even that far away.

Roger that. ^^
I do not use facebook. Or any other of the like.
Thanks for the updates.

I have got email updates from the HDF. Sign up for them at the HDF website, and also a reminder to support by donation if possible. 

HRA has been very supportive of Chris' efforts, long before he ever filed this lawsuit. Both LIFE and HRA have contributed financially to the fund and will continue to find and solicit contributions to the cause. HRA recently voted to support not only this suit, but other suits that may be brought foward either by Chris, other individuals and those that could be initialted by HRA itself.

Sorry, I will need peoples help to make sure everything gets updated here and various other places lol.

I can help you with your security settings on facebook if you are worried about that.   Things like Google + and Facebook are not going away anytime in the next 5-10 years at least. Embrace the change . 

HRA and Life support all of these efforts so far.  While I think initially there was some significant hesitation, I think they finally came around due to the relationships Bill and I have developed.  In fact, I met with the HRA President just last week for some super secret squirel stuff .

Thanx all of you for the response. I was afraid that this issue had dried up and gone the way of so many great idaes in Hawaii.
Death by apathy.
I feel much better now that I have some background, and that the HRA is behind this.
I will be following closely and a donation will be forthcoming.
Like so many of our generation Facebook is not my medium, but as said it is not going away soon.
Guess I Gotta Roger up.
Never forget. The world is run by those who show up!

It's far from dried up, we are just getting started.