The record of HPD in the legislature of proposing and submitting testimony for firearms laws, and enforcing firearms laws, is strictly in line with the "anti" position. There may be some rank and file officers who oppose unconstitutional infringements of citizens' rights to keep and bear arms, but I see no record of them testifying or speaking out against the infringing bills and laws (on matters of principle, not "we don't have the money to do that")..

BETTER results will come by swaying those who "don't really care one way or the other".  This is the majority,  and where the power to change things lie.

I don't buy it, EEF.

If HPD wished for the waiting period to have been removed with crapback, they would have included it in the crapback bill they asked Espero to introduce.

Funny they blame HRA for it.  What a frackin load of bull rap.

Do you live in an alternative universe?  This bill was proposed by Major Robinson.  Will Espero took it up for him.  This is the same Major Robinson that does not want you to have a gun at all but a really big dog.

I don't buy it, EEF.

If HPD wished for the waiting period to have been removed with crapback, they would have included it in the crapback bill they asked Espero to introduce.

Funny they blame HRA for it.  What a frackin load of bull rap.

...they would see rap back as a good tool to do their job more effectively.

In a way I can see how this is sort of a difficult position. Consider that if the firearms division didn't deny a permit to an individual and then the individual went and killed someone, HPD would be the first to get sued. They have to walk the balance between making sure rights aren't denied too much and making sure they are denied when justified. Unfortunately there are people who should be denied firearms and it is their job to try and pick them out. I can sympathize with that difficult task and understand why they would see rap back as a good tool to do their job more effectively.

In a way I can see how this is sort of a difficult position. Consider that if the firearms division didn't deny a permit to an individual and then the individual went and killed someone,

I don't think the sergeant was speaking for the department when he made that comment but what he would have liked to seen done. I took it as him saying he wished the HRA had participated in the issue so at least they could have input some good ideas, like eliminating the 14 day waiting period. I doubt a lowly sergeant had any input in the final version of the law.

In a way I can see how this is sort of a difficult position. Consider that if the firearms division didn't deny a permit to an individual and then the individual went and killed someone, HPD would be the first to get sued. They have to walk the balance between making sure rights aren't denied too much and making sure they are denied when justified. Unfortunately there are people who should be denied firearms and it is their job to try and pick them out. I can sympathize with that difficult task and understand why they would see rap back as a good tool to do their job more effectively.

HPD cannot be sued in such a case.  Just as they can't be sued by denying CCW permits and that unarmed person is killed or injured because they are defenseless.

That's the same lame excuse they used to reason not selling old service pistols to the public or even their own officers.

Once it is out of their review, they have no liability in the matter.

Consider that if the firearms division didn't deny denies a permit to an individual and then the individual went and got killed by someone because the individual was defenseless.  HPD would be the first last to get sued.

Consider that if the firearms division didn't deny denies a permit to an individual and then the individual went and got killed by someone because the individual was defenseless.  HPD would be the first last to get sued.

Fortunately or unfortunately (depending on how you look at it) there were no cases in which that happened.

Please cite your source for that claimed fact.

I mean, of course I don't want anyone to be killed or seriously hurt but it did happen it would be something that we could take to lawmakers and HPD and the media to help make out point.

I'd be willing to wager a fairly large sum that if tomorrow, on Christmas Day, every single person in the state who applied for a CCW license in 2016 was murdered as they took one step off their private property into "public space" that not one single difference in law or the applied interpretation of the law as it stands would be enacted.

My point here is not to debate the legality but to see the thin line they have to balance on.

Yeah? What's the "thin line"? Constitutional or unconstitutional? "Public servant" or "fascist enforcer of civilian disarmament"? You didn't respond to my question above. Why not? I'll repeat it for you, maybe you "forgot": What "job" is it they have that warrants them denying the right to lawfully "bear arms" (which according to the constitutions may not be infringed) outside the home for self-defense to every single law-abiding citizen of Hawaii?

Here's my revision/version:

Consider that if the firearms division didn't deny denies a permit to an individual and then the individual went and got killed by someone was victimized by a criminal in any way because the individual was defenseless,  HPD couldn't be the first last to get sued care less because they are virtually immune from any negative consequences for their decision to uniformly ban any law-abiding Hawaii citizen from exercising their constitutionally-guaranteed right to bear arms outside the home for self-defense.

For those who claim "HPD can be sued for anything." and "Police are always worried about getting sued.", please tell us what negative consequences any member of the Washington, D.C. police force experienced after their policy of "no issue" was ruled unconstitutional and overturned. And why you believe that the "no consequences" result there would be any different here.

Fortunately or unfortunately (depending on how you look at it) there were no cases in which that happened.

Please cite your source for that claimed fact.

I mean, of course I don't want anyone to be killed or seriously hurt but it did happen it would be something that we could take to lawmakers and HPD and the media to help make out point.

I'd be willing to wager a fairly large sum that if tomorrow, on Christmas Day, every single person in the state who applied for a CCW license in 2016 was murdered as they took one step off their private property into "public space" that not one single difference in law or the applied interpretation of the law as it stands would be enacted.

My point here is not to debate the legality but to see the thin line they have to balance on.

Yeah? What's the "thin line"? Constitutional or unconstitutional? "Public servant" or "fascist enforcer of civilian disarmament"? You didn't respond to my question above. Why not? I'll repeat it for you, maybe you "forgot": What "job" is it they have that warrants them denying the right to lawfully "bear arms" (which according to the constitutions may not be infringed) outside the home for self-defense to every single law-abiding citizen of Hawaii?