It's now 8:32 AM, less thirty minutes prior to the committee hearing beginning, and no testimony is posted at the HB1589 website. So I guess if a person wanted to read the testimony opposing the bill in order to submit testimony countering the arguments or evidence presented by the opposition, well, you can't. This system is so corrupt. 72 hour notice of hearings, then 24 hour notice of "on time" testimony due, then no publication of testimony prior to the hearing required. Where does it end? I spoke to a number of legislator staff members yesterday by phone, and they all basically said that it's all about "power", and those in power have no interest in making things any easier for those not in power to gain any leverage. Thus, a bill to require a minimum 5 working day notice of hearings, requirement to publish all thus far received testimony 24 hours prior to the hearing, requiring a hearing on a bill if a certain percentage of members vote to hold a hearing (rather than it being up to one single person, the committee chair), etc. would get nowhere because the committee chairs would not hold a hearing on a bill requiring them to hold hearings on bills! 

Update: 9:02 AM "No testimony available at this time."

Update: 9:16 AM "No testimony available at this time." 

At the State Capitol to support HB 1589, legalize suppressor for hunting, with Harvey from HRA, Dan from NRA ILA, and 2a enthusiast Jon.  There were about 200 testimonies in support from organizations, hunting groups and hunters, businesses, and the firearms community.  There were about 5 to 10 opposed mainly from HPD and animal rights groups.

This is the first step.  We need more testimony.  For everyone who submitted testimony, ask a friend to do the same for the next hearing.

Keep up the good work guys . Thanks for all the hard work and time put into this .

At the State Capitol to support HB 1589, legalize suppressor for hunting, with Harvey from HRA, Dan from NRA ILA, and 2a enthusiast Jon.  There were about 200 testimonies in support from organizations, hunting groups and hunters, businesses, and the firearms community.  There were about 5 to 10 opposed mainly from HPD and animal rights groups.

This is the first step.  We need more testimony.  For everyone who submitted testimony, ask a friend to do the same for the next hearing.

Did the NRA fly in special just for this hearing?

At the State Capitol to support HB 1589, legalize suppressor for hunting, with Harvey from HRA, Dan from NRA ILA, and 2a enthusiast Jon.  There were about 200 testimonies in support from organizations, hunting groups and hunters, businesses, and the firearms community.  There were about 5 to 10 opposed mainly from HPD and animal rights groups.

This is the first step.  We need more testimony.  For everyone who submitted testimony, ask a friend to do the same for the next hearing.

And... what did the committee do with the bill? (Still no testimony online at 12:13...)

says it passed with amendments ...8 ayes and 1 excused...

How do you find out what the amendments are?

says it passed with amendments ...8 ayes and 1 excused...

How do you find out what the amendments are?

I belive it now goes for a full vote, and then if it passes there to the govoner for signing. Being the dick that he is tho, he might veto it tho.

Testimony is up

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/Session2017/Testimony/HB1589_TESTIMONY_WAL_02-10-17_.PDF

Ready for some fiction.

Dear Chair Yamane and Members:
SUBJECT: House Bill No. 1589, Relating to Hunting Safety
I am David Nilsen, Acting Major of the Records and Identification Division of the
Honolulu Police Department (HPD), City and County of Honolulu.
The HPD opposes House Bill No. 1589, Relating to Hunting Safety.
This bill proposes changes to various sections of Chapter 134 of the Hawaii Revised
Statutes to allow the use of noise suppressors or silencers by hunters. This bill also authorizes
the manufacture and sale of noise suppressors or silencers in the state of Hawaii. The HPD
does not agree that the use of firearms in the act of hunting poses a threat to the hearing of the
hunter. The number of rounds fired by a hunter while engaged in the hunt will not be significant
enough to endanger the hunter's hearing. The HPD believes that allowing noise suppressors or
silencers to be legally obtained in the state of Hawaii will only make their use in the commission
of criminal acts more common. Having these dangerous items readily available will only
potentially increase gun violence.
The HPD strongly urges you to oppose this bill.

says it passed with amendments ...8 ayes and 1 excused...

How do you find out what the amendments are?

it should be posted in the next few days on the link to the bill
it may have to go to another committee or two before it gets to the floor, then even if it passes the floor vote, it needs to get combined with any companion senate bills in conference committee before it gets to the governor

it should be posted in the next few days on the link to the bill
it may have to go to another committee or two before it gets to the floor, then even if it passes the floor vote, it needs to get combined with any companion senate bills in conference committee before it gets to the governor

This bill will next go to (and face a much tougher crowd than the WAL committee) the House Committee on Judiciary (JUD), chaired by Rep. Nishimoto. Now, or early next week, would be a good time to write and call him asking him to schedule a hearing for this bill. The person I spoke to the other day said that people calling and writing could make a difference, as he hasn't decided at this point to hold a hearing or not. I'd think a thousand phone calls at the beginning of next week could be persuasive... 4, or 12, not so much. Also submit testimony again once the hearing is (if it is) scheduled.

JUD
House Committee on Judiciary

Chair
Scott Y. Nishimoto
House District 21
Hawaii State Capitol, Room 421
phone: 808-586-8515
fax: 808-586-8519
repnishimoto@Capitol.hawaii.gov

While you're at it also ask him to schedule a hearing for HB410, one of the "shall issue" CCW bils (Kong), that bill is only referred to JUD, so that is the first and only possible hearing it will get. HB410 is "shall issue", concealed and open carry, 1 year term of license, good only in county of issue, and still has the "engaged in the protection of life and property" phrase that has been interpreted to exclusively mean "security guards". Once there is a hearing amendments can be suggested in testimony.

I'll post a separate thread with the other committee chairs to contact to ask for hearing for the other CCW bills and the handgun mag limit change bill. HB36 -> PBS, then JUD; SB 212 and SB213 -> PSM, then JDL

Dan from the NRA flew in for this hearing, and also to meet with legislators and HRA.

This bill still has a long way to go.  It will probably go through more committees for hearings like judicial, public safety, etc, then it'll go to a vote, if passed it'll do a crossover from the House to the Senate for their hearings then for a Senate vote.  If amended, it'll go back to the house for another vote.  Then if everything passes up to that point, it goes to the Governor.  If he signs it then its law.  If he vetoes then it can go back to the legislature for an override.

If it does not pass or gets deferred at any point, it's dead.

This flowchart makes the process easier to understand:

I got some clarifying info on testimony...

The NRA Alert emails are directed to legislators on the committee.  The NRA says it does not go into the official testimony, I forgot what the reason was.  It's an easy way to show support.

Phone calls to legislators do not get tallied into official testimony due to it must be in writing.  But it is an easy way to show support

The best way to submit testimony is through the legislative website.  Alternatively they will take emails, regular mail, hand in testimony.  They will also take oral testimony at the hearing followed up by written testimony submitted by the end of business that day.

The Vice Chair's office processes all of the testimony submitted, weed out duplicates, posts them online, and makes copies and sorts them for the committee packets.  They get swamped with testimony sometimes and have a short window to process them which causes the delays.

For the committee packets, the order is government agencies at the top, then organizations and businesses, then individuals.

Tips for writing testimony...be concise, include your name, include the bill number, and clearly state in the subject or beginning sentence that you support,oppose, or providing comments.

I'll draft up a quick guide.

The Robinson's over on Ni'ihau support it. That should be good enough.     That reminds me, I need to save up for an Eland hunt over there if this passes. 

Mahalo!

The Amended version of the bill is up. Still no provision, as I read it, and I certainly could have missed it, for using the suppressor at a range to sight-in a firearm.  Of course still for hunting only. And the other hoops to jump through. Did I mention earlier that a 12-year-old can walk into a hardware store in New Zealand and buy a suppressor for $25, no questions asked? 

HB1589_HD1

2/15/2017 Reported from WAL (Stand. Com. Rep. No. 360) as amended in HD 1, recommending passage on Second Reading and referral to JUD.

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2017/bills/HB1589_HD1_.PDF, or

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2017/bills/HB1589_HD1_.HTM

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=HB&billnumber=1589&year=2017

When I emailed the sponsors about the omission of target shooting, I made sure to include the following brief, but critical information:


-Suppressors change the point of impact from a non-suppressed firearm.
-Not being able to verify this shift before hunting could lead to an unsafe/inhumane situation.
-The change in impact could cause an unintentional miss.
-The hunter may not be able to insure a humane kill.
-Going to field with a rifle that you haven't verified the change in point of impact from an installed suppressor would be similar to putting a new sights or scope on your firearm and going hunting without ever having sighted it in.  The change isn't drastic in every instance, but it is always unethical for a hunter to go afield with an unverified zero.


I posted the emails of all the sponsors earlier in the thread. I only got one canned response, so I'm going to hit it again.  Feel free to use any/all of this info.

 

When I emailed the sponsors about the omission of target shooting, I made sure to include the following brief, but critical information:


-Suppressors change the point of impact from a non-suppressed firearm.
-Not being able to verify this shift before hunting could lead to an unsafe/inhumane situation.
-The change in impact could cause an unintentional miss.
-The hunter may not be able to insure a humane kill.
-Going to field with a rifle that you haven't verified the change in point of impact from an installed suppressor would be similar to putting a new sights or scope on your firearm and going hunting without ever having sighted it in.  The change isn't drastic in every instance, but it is always unethical for a hunter to go afield with an unverified zero.


I posted the emails of all the sponsors earlier in the thread. I only got one canned response, so I'm going to hit it again.  Feel free to use any/all of this info.

 

I read all 170 pages of testimony submitted to the committee. At least six submissions, besides mine, clearly pointed out the need to zero the suppressed firearm at a range in order to conform to the ethics of humane hunting. Draw your own conclusion. Of course I also pointed out that it was absurd, not to mention likely unconstitutional, to extend lawful suppressor ownership and use only to hunters while hunting and not to all firearms owners for all firearms used for all purposes. They ignored that too. I never cease to be amazed... 

I read all 170 pages of testimony submitted to the committee. At least six submissions, besides mine, clearly pointed out the need to zero the suppressed firearm at a range in order to conform to the ethics of humane hunting. Draw your own conclusion. Of course I also pointed out that it was absurd, not to mention likely unconstitutional, to extend lawful suppressor ownership and use only to hunters while hunting and not to all firearms owners for all firearms used for all purposes. They ignored that too. I never cease to be amazed... 

Because Hawaii's law makers are so anti 2a, we need to take baby steps.  So first to legalize supps for hunting only.  Then next step would be at ranges to zero.  if we go all in at once, it has a higher chance of being denied. 

Because Hawaii's law makers are so anti 2a, we need to take baby steps.  So first to legalize supps for hunting only.  Then next step would be at ranges to zero.  if we go all in at once, it has a higher chance of being denied.

By default you would be able to use them for target shooting/zeroing in. IF the range lets you.

When I emailed the sponsors about the omission of target shooting, I made sure to include the following brief, but critical information:


-Suppressors change the point of impact from a non-suppressed firearm.
-Not being able to verify this shift before hunting could lead to an unsafe/inhumane situation.
-The change in impact could cause an unintentional miss.
-The hunter may not be able to insure a humane kill.
-Going to field with a rifle that you haven't verified the change in point of impact from an installed suppressor would be similar to putting a new sights or scope on your firearm and going hunting without ever having sighted it in.  The change isn't drastic in every instance, but it is always unethical for a hunter to go afield with an unverified zero.


I posted the emails of all the sponsors earlier in the thread. I only got one canned response, so I'm going to hit it again.  Feel free to use any/all of this info.

 

Creating a list of reasons for them to deny the bill, good job.

once legal ownership is allowed you would be able to use them at the range to Zero. This bill is about decriminalizing the ownership and the easiest sell for that is as a hunting/hearing protection tool.