Hawaii Rifle Association
State Affiliate of the National Rifle Association - Founded in 1857
March 1, 2015

The House Judiciary Committee will hear two bills on our issues Tuesday 3/3/15, 1pm, Rm. 325.    This is the first hearing this year in House JUD in front of unfriendly Chair, F-rated Rep. Karl Rhoads.  Please send testimony, preferably by 1pm 3/2, and attend if you can to deliver it in person.  See the hearing notice and follow the prompts:

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2015/hearingnotices/HEARING_JUD_03-03-15_.HTM

The first and  last bills on the regular agenda are HB837   criminalizing the offer of ivory for sale and which makes it a petty misdemeanor for a person to recklessly possess a loaded firearm while the person is intoxicated.

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=HB&billnumber=837

HB837 was amended in House Public Safety Committee to exempt small amounts  of ivory (up to 20%) in knives and firearms. HRA still OPPOSES it. Its companion bill SB674 was deferred indefinitely (dead) in a Senate joint hearing. Testimony in strong opposition to the bill was received from antique dealers and Hawaiian Heritage supporters.  Unless the house version is amended similarly to protect the value of real antique art and heirloom items, it's theft, just as is poaching.  It is not going to affect the survival of elephant populations in Africa.  Stable governments there with effective game management will.  Elephant populations in Western and South Africa are increasing by over 6% per year.  Game biologists there are darting cows with birth control from helicopters to prevent over-population.

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=HB&billnumber=888

HB888 estabishes in statute the lowest criminal offense, a petty misdemeanor, for reckless possession of a firearm while intoxicated.  HRA offers COMMENTS.  The bill defines intoxication loosely, not as with drunk driving.  The bill includes the language "proximity" and  "intent to possess."  Perhaps "brandish" would be better than "possess."  If you are celebrating at home or away from home with a designated driver, and you know the combination to your gun safe, are you in possession?

Worst case scenario:  Rep. Rhoads could use this bill as a vehicle to insert the HB626 language, co-introduced by him, providing for a class C felony for physically possessing any firearm while consuming or under the influence of an intoxicant.

Mahalo,
Dr. Maxwell Cooper,
HRA Legislative Liason
macooper.1941@gmail.com
808 225-6944

Testimony in...

HB888....While it should be a consideration that using a firearm in commission of a crime while under the influence of an intoxicating substance should be dealt with in a more severe manner, it should not be a crime to possess or control while merely drinking or celebrating in a responsible manner.

Legislation such as this sets a dangerous precedent as it threatens to criminalize the mere presence of a firearm during a family gathering when a drink may be served. The responsible consumption of drink and the mere presence of a firearm should not be construed as a crime.

Would this legislation make a criminal if one needed to use a firearm for self protection during such an event? Will the legislation be twisted into something that would make it a crime to use of firearm in self defense at such an event?

Testimony in...

submitted
guys, we need to keep up the pressure
if we hit these bills hard now, it will hopefully make the chair and committee members less likely  to try and get other bills through

and, as dr max said, bills can be altered at any time to insert far worse language than the original
so it's better to stop these bills now

submitted
guys, we need to keep up the pressure
if we hit these bills hard now, it will hopefully make the chair and committee members less likely  to try and get other bills through

and, as dr max said, bills can be altered at any time to insert far worse language than the original
so it's better to stop these bills now

Yes, even though HRA says they are submitting 'comments', I have opposed this bill.  Too vague, as with nearly all of Hawaii's firearm law.  Leaves the door wide open for more infringement, IMO.

I wonder just how closely these committee members read the bills (let alone our testimony)? 

Seems like if they read
§134-(b)"..a person is in possession of a loaded firearm when the person has direct physical control over a loaded firearm or has both the power and the intention to exercise control over a loaded firearm...".
they would see the definition of "direct physical control" and "exercise control" are vague.  How does one determine "intention"? If/when the committee members see the wording won't work, they would  be prepared to amend or let die, and we wouldn't even be this far into the bill....

A judge is often prompted of these types of "problems" by a good clerk, as the judge is busy being a judge.
A lawyer is often prompted by a good paralegal (which is much cheaper by the hour than a lawyer).
A MD is prompted by a good nurse or secretary.

I'm pretty sure these Senators/Representatives have testimony compiled by a "clerk" of some kind. Maybe volunteers?  I'm also guessing a good clerk or aid may point out to the Senator/Rep vague wording, but that might not be a correct assumption.  If I had someone compiling and reading this stuff before I looked at it, I'd sure what them to prompt me of things they think may be problematic. As funny as it sounds, some of these elected folk may be too busy being a Senator to read all this stuff thoroughly.....

I'm a pest when it comes to testimony.  I submit via the state website, and I also FAX a copy to each and every committee member too. I'm wondering if it would be wise to have communication about my concerns with their respective clerks/aids, since these folks may be highlighting the issues they feel the elected should pay close attention to?  If I did, I'd really be a pest....but I don't being a pest if it helps.

Total submitted written Testimony re HB888: 29 comments.

Total FOR HB888: 0

Total OPPOSED to HB888: 29

Committee vote: UNANIMOUS FOR HB888. (Less three "excused absences".)

Granted, it was passed "with amendments", but those amendments are not currently (16 hours later) available on the government website detailing the bill. Anyone happen to know what the amendments were?

Total submitted written Testimony re HB888: 29 comments.

Total FOR HB888: 0

Total OPPOSED to HB888: 29

Committee vote: UNANIMOUS FOR HB888. (Less three "excused absences".)

Granted, it was passed "with amendments", but those amendments are not currently (16 hours later) available on the government website detailing the bill. Anyone happen to know what the amendments were?

That committee meeting was broadcast live on one of the O'lelo public TV channels.  Maybe one of us set their TV devices to record that broadcast, and they watched the meeting afterwords? 
Broadcast of hearing/briefing available. See: www.capitoltv.org
I bet more (late) testimony and the committee reports or amended version will be posted on the legislature website soon.

The amended bill is posted at http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2015/bills/HB888_HD1_.HTM

They clarified the lack of definitions of "possession" and "intoxicated" by writing:

 "(b)  For the purposes of this section, a person is in possession of a loaded firearm when the person has immediate physical control over a loaded firearm.

  (c)  For the purposes of this section, a person is intoxicated if the person meets the definition of "under the influence" as defined in section 291E-1."

There is still no definition of "recklessly possess a loaded firearm". I guess everyone gets to decide on their own whether a particular action is "reckless" or not.

Officer: "You're under arrest for reckless possession."
Possessor: "I wasn't being reckless."
Officer: "Yes you were."
Possessor: "No I wasn't!"
Officer: "Uh huh!"
Possessor: "Uh uh!"
Etc.

Here is the definition of "under the influence" from HRS 291E-1:

"Under the influence" means that a person:

     (1)  Is under the influence of alcohol in an amount sufficient to impair the person's normal mental faculties or ability to care for the person and guard against casualty;

     (2)  Is under the influence of any drug that impairs the person's ability to operate the vehicle in a careful and prudent manner;

     (3)  Has .08 or more grams of alcohol per two hundred ten liters of the person's breath; or

     (4)  Has .08 or more grams of alcohol per one hundred milliliters or cubic centimeters of the person's blood.

I suppose they mean to substitute "ability to operate the vehicle in a careful and prudent manner" with "ability to operate the firearm in a careful and prudent manner".

Just to nitpick a bit more, shouldn't (2) read:

 (2)  Is under the influence of any drug [to the degree that it] impairs the person's ability to operate the vehicle in a careful and prudent manner;

What if you are under the influence of some substance, that if consumed in sufficient quantity would impair a person, but haven't consumed a sufficient quantity to be impaired? Just sayin'... if the law doesn't say what it really means... which is what HB888 is really all about anyway.