Hawaii Rifle Association
State Affiliate of the National Rifle Association - Founded in 1857
Feb 21, 2015

NEW HEARING:

SB 473, SD1, proposing carry permit issue rules under the Federal retired Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA), has a hearing, Tuesday, 02-24 at 9:15AM. The Senate Public Safety Committee gutted the original version and replaced it with the language proposed by the Hawaii Attorney General's office, renewing the AG's complete authority over the administration of the permit process.  The onerous qualification requirements currently established by the AG, like a perfect score on the shooting practical examination and a complete physical examination at the expense of the applicant, are why only about 40 retired officers in the whole of Hawaii have carry licenses at present.

PLEASE GO TO THE HEARING NOTICE BELOW, SUBMIT TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION to the current bill, and ask the Senate Judiciary Committee to instead write into Hawaii Statute a reasonable qualification process that fulfills the intent of this 12 year old Federal Act.

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2015/hearingnotices/HEARING_JDL_02-24-15_DM_.HTM

More Guns, Less Crime  Dr. John Lott

RESULTS SO FAR:

SB1071 authorizing the counties to issue firearms permits to permanent resident aliens passed the Senate Committee on Tourism and International Affairs, Chaired by Sen. Gil Kahele and Senate Public Safety, chaired by Sen. Will Espero, and moves on the Senate Judiciary Committee.  MAHALO, SENATORS!  If passed it will bring Hawaii's statutes into compliance with the US District Court Decision, and in line with US Code and most other state statutes.

SB 674, criminalizing ivory transfers, was deferred indefinitely (dead) yesterday in a Senate joint hearing. Testimony in strong opposition to the bill was received earlier from antique dealers and Hawaiian Heritage supporters. The Chair of Energy and Environment Committee, Sen. Mike Gabbard, said the Senators could not agree, but pointed out that the House version, HB837_HD1 is alive.  That version moves on to F-rated Karl Rhoads' Judiciary Committee.  Rep. Rhoads introduced it.

The Legislature has finished its first quarter.  All bills referred to 2 or more committees in the originating body that have not passed to the last committee, like HB402, are dead (but can be resurrected).

So don't relax!  There are many important bills not yet heard, expecially coming up in F-rated Chair, Karl Rhoad's House Judiciary Committee.  Please help get the goods bills through the rest of the session and stop the bad ones.
 
Mahalo,
 
Dr. Maxwell Cooper,
HRA Legislative Liason
macooper.1941@gmail.com
808 225-6944

no offense, but if civilians cant get concealed carry, retired anything shouldnt either.

so personally, im not really against the current (totally BS) law until we get some action for everyone.  fair's fair.

no offense, but if civilians cant get concealed carry, retired anything shouldnt either.

so personally, im not really against the current (totally BS) law until we get some action for everyone.  fair's fair.

I have to say I agree with this. I support retired LEO's being able to carry but I don't think they should get a pass while we get nothing.

What's good for the goose is gravy for the gander.

Look at it this way  boy'z,  their trying to set a CCW president.
If LEO and retired LEO must abide by these new rules, so would civie CCW (whenever that happens  )

My reply was simple

Comments: Regarding SB 473, SD1 and it's affect on18 USC § 926B(c), and 18 USC § 926C(c) (noted below)

Unless as determined by the state of Hawaii. . .

1) shooting a perfect score is the established standard required by an HPD for a "qualified law enforcement officer",
2 ) shooting a perfect score is the established standard required by an HPD for a "qualified law enforcement officer", to regularly qualify in the use of a firearm;
3) The standards for qualification in firearms training for active law enforcement officers is at their own expense, and
4) completing a physical examination is at the expense of the officer,

your proposed Amendment SB 473, SD1, would be a violation of this 12 yr old Federal Act.
Besides, why would you not want law abiding current or retired law enforcement officers with firearm experience to carry a firearm in public?

 In 18 USC § 926B(c), "qualified law enforcement officer" is defined as an employee of a governmental agency who: is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or the incarceration of any person for, any violation of law, and has statutory powers of arrest, or apprehension under section 807(b) of title 10, United States Code (article 7(b) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice); is authorized by the agency to carry a firearm; is not the subject of any disciplinary action by the agency which could result in suspension or loss of police powers; meets standards, if any, established by the agency which require the employee to regularly qualify in the use of a firearm; In 18 USC § 926C(c),[11] "qualified retired law enforcement officer" is defined as an individual who: separated from service in good standing from service with a public agency as a law enforcement officer; before such separation, was authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or the incarceration of any person for, any violation of law, and had statutory powers of arrest or apprehension under section 807(b) of title 10, United States Code (article 7(b) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice); before such separation, served as a law enforcement officer for an aggregate of 10 years or more; or separated from service with such agency, after completing any applicable probationary period of such service, due to a service-connected disability, as determined by such agency; during the most recent 12-month period, has met, at the expense of the individual, the standards for qualification in firearms training for active law enforcement officers, as determined by the former agency of the individual, the State in which the individual resides or, if the State has not established such standards, either a law enforcement agency within the State in which the individual resides or the standards used by a certified firearms instructor that is qualified to conduct a firearms qualification test for active duty officers within that State; Respectfully yours, Rocky

Look at it this way  boy'z,  their trying to set a CCW president.
If LEO and retired LEO must abide by these new rules, so would civie CCW (whenever that happens  )

no, i get that.

i was just commenting on the general situation that pushing this through seems to imply for me.  my comment wasnt really about the law itself, but the situation that the discussion of the law leaves everything else. iots pretty crappy if you ask me, having to fight for the rights of a few just so that we can hope we wont get screwed WAY down the line in the unlikely event that the rest of us even get something. 

I totally agree with rocky. It's a step in the right direction. Not to mention, some retired LEO's have to worry about angry criminals looking for revenge.