The testimony is up on the .gov website: http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/Session2016/Testimony/HB625_HD1_TESTIMONY_JDL_03-30-16.PDF

For: 10
Opposed: 27

As there will be no oral testimony, that is the final ratio (almost 3 to 1 opposed) of citizen input for this committee. In my (lengthy) testimony I attempted to show, using mostly the research cited by the supporters of the bill, that in the real world, out of a random pool of 1000 (one thousand) stalkers it likely that at most two (2) who would escalate to assault with a firearm, would have legally-owned firearms to be confiscated prior to assault (the most predictive indicators of stalkers escalating their behavior to assault are 1. prior criminal history and 2. mental health issues, both of which might be serious enough to make them "prohibited persons"). (I admit that there are various suppositions in those statistics because specific statistics to stalking do not exist and I had to use the generic violent crime statistics in some cases and assume a similar rate among stalkers.) BUT, since "only" 21% of stalkers ever commit assaults, that leaves potentially 79% of stalkers who could lose their Second Amendment rights for their lifetime for something as "minor" as sending two emails or text messages, even WITHOUT any "intent" to harass, that the "victim" reports as "annoying".

Now let's see what the committee decides.

My prediction (cynical or realistic?): near unanimous passage.

My prediction (cynical or realistic?): near unanimous passage.

The committee(s) on JDL recommend(s) that the measure be PASSED, WITH AMENDMENTS. The votes in JDL were as follows: 5 Aye(s): Senator(s) Keith-Agaran, Shimabukuro, Gabbard, Kim, L. Thielen; Aye(s) with reservations: none ; 1 No(es): Senator(s) Slom; and 1 Excused: Senator(s) K.Kahele.


[Is anyone else having trouble accessing the site to due security certificate being expired?]

Had certificate problems also.  I run Linux OS so I just blew past it.
As for the gun laws in this state it would be foolish to follow any of them
and even more stupid to admit you ignore them, but the height of stupidity
to to register your stupidity.

2ahawaii is fixing the certificate issue now.

It is fixed. If you are still having problems, please try refreshing the page.

Could the refusal to hold public hearing be grounds for a legal challenge to this law?

Could the refusal to hold public hearing be grounds for a legal challenge to this law?

?

Could the refusal to hold public hearing be grounds for a legal challenge to this law?

?

Could the refusal to hold public hearing be grounds for a legal challenge to this law?

I think the fact that its obviously unconstitutional will be the grounds to challenge it.

I think the fact that its obviously unconstitutional will be the grounds to challenge it.

I don't have faith that the Hawaii courts or even the 9th circuit will come to the conclusion. Perhaps on a technicality such as the refusal to hear public testimony?

See the notice of the hearing and the phrases included:

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2016/hearingnotices/HEARING_JDL_03-30-16_DM_.HTM

NOTICE OF DECISION MAKING

THE FOLLOWING MEASURES WERE PREVIOUSLY HEARD IN THEIR RESPECTIVE STANDING COMMITTEES:

DECISION MAKING MEETING ONLY, NO ORAL TESTIMONY WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Persons wishing to submit written testimony may do so up to 24 hours prior to the hearing.

See the notice of the hearing and the phrases included:

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2016/hearingnotices/HEARING_JDL_03-30-16_DM_.HTM

NOTICE OF DECISION MAKING

THE FOLLOWING MEASURES WERE PREVIOUSLY HEARD IN THEIR RESPECTIVE STANDING COMMITTEES:

DECISION MAKING MEETING ONLY, NO ORAL TESTIMONY WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Persons wishing to submit written testimony may do so up to 24 hours prior to the hearing.

#boom

Could the refusal to hold public hearing be grounds for a legal challenge to this law?

I believe that would be a clear violation of the Sunshine Law.
http://oip.hawaii.gov/laws-rules-opinions/sunshine-law/

1. The late testimony has been posted:

For: 1
Opposed: 15

Grand totals:

For: 11
Opposed: 42

Committee vote:

Aye: 5
No: 1

Like I said, "progressive math".

2. I don't really have any idea what the "rules" are regarding the committee hearings and oral or written testimony, etc. I'm sure it's complex and ambiguous enough that any lawyer worth his/her salt could justify virtually anything they do or don't do. (As in "We don't issue CCW licenses because EVERYWHERE outside the home is a "sensitive place", which, as stated in Heller, may be regulated into non-existence", etc.). I had, for some reason, always believed that they had to give a minimum 24 hours notice to the end of accepting timely written testimony (24 hours prior to the meeting beginning). In this case it was 21 hours. If there is no legal minimum notification, they could announce the meeting 24 hours and one minute (or, hell, why not say it: one second) before the meeting, giving "the people" one minute (or one second) to submit testimony that wasn't "late" (They warn that late testimony may not be seen by committee members prior to the meeting/vote.). I give up. 

EDIT: I went back and looked at the time sent of the notice of hearing. I remember that I was on my lunch break at about 12:30 when the notice appeared in my email inbox. Looking at the notice itself it was stamped at 9:31 AM, so it was only one minute late if there is a 24 mandatory notification minimum. I guess it takes three hours for that email to get from Honolulu to Mountain View.

I believe that would be a clear violation of the Sunshine Law.
http://oip.hawaii.gov/laws-rules-opinions/sunshine-law/

I'm pretty sure the sunshine laws are not applicable to the legislative process. It was primarily intended to address meetings of government entities.