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.

So what's your estimate for how many dozens of years of "baby steps" until Hawaii legalizes suppressors for all firearms and all firearms owners? You're claiming that unethical inhumane hunting practices (hunting with a non-zeroed firearm) are a "baby step" in the right direction? Or are you suggesting that the ethical humane ethos of hunters in strong enough that they would illegally zero their rifles at a range, or anywhere else while not hunting? Or that the legislators don't know that they are encouraging such illegal and/or unethical inhumane activity? I'll wager that 1. IF (a big "if") suppressors are legalized only for licensed hunters only while hunting 2. the illegal use of suppressors to zero a hunting firearm will rarely or never be cited or prosecuted and 3. that there will NEVER be any "carryover" in Hawaii from the "baby step" to legalization of suppressors in general for all purposes. I personally think all of that is bullshit, and I'm planning on writing all the members of the Judiciary committee and telling them so (leaving out the word "bullshit").

once legal ownership is allowed you would be able to use them at the range to Zero.

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

Where exactly do you see that in the bill? Where else would you be able to use suppressors "by default"? My rural ag-zoned property for target shooting (with or without a hunting license)? Elsewhere on my property, including in my home on a non-hunting firearm for self-defense purposes?

So what's your estimate for how many dozens of years of "baby steps" until Hawaii legalizes suppressors for all firearms and all firearms owners? You're claiming that unethical inhumane hunting practices (hunting with a non-zeroed firearm) are a "baby step" in the right direction? Or are you suggesting that the ethical humane ethos of hunters in strong enough that they would illegally zero their rifles at a range, or anywhere else while not hunting? Or that the legislators don't know that they are encouraging such illegal and/or unethical inhumane activity? I'll wager that 1. IF (a big "if") suppressors are legalized only for licensed hunters only while hunting 2. the illegal use of suppressors to zero a hunting firearm will rarely or never be cited or prosecuted and 3. that there will NEVER be any "carryover" in Hawaii from the "baby step" to legalization of suppressors in general for all purposes. I personally think all of that is bullshit, and I'm planning on writing all the members of the Judiciary committee and telling them so (leaving out the word "bullshit").

I'm claiming that our law makers are anti 2a.  So we need to tread slowly when introducing a bill that we all know that they compare silencers to Hollywood.  So taking 1,2 or even more years to allow until allowed for range usage is better than supps being totally illegal forever. We have to treat this bill like a child.  See what we can get away with even though it's our 2a right that states it shall not be infringed upon.
 I agree that it is an infringement of our 2a rights, but apparently our law makers don't think so and get away with it daily for years with no penalties.

So the issues with not being able to zero and causing inhumane treatment and safety concerns will be a reason we use later for range usage of supps.

I'm claiming that our law makers are anti 2a.  So we need to tread slowly when introducing a bill that we all know that they compare silencers to Hollywood.  So taking 1,2 or even more years to allow until allowed for range usage is better than supps being totally illegal forever. We have to treat this bill like a child.  See what we can get away with even though it's our 2a right that states it shall not be infringed upon.
 I agree that it is an infringement of our 2a rights, but apparently our law makers don't think so and get away with it daily for years with no penalties.

So the issues with not being able to zero and causing inhumane treatment and safety concerns will be a reason we use later for range usage of supps.

Well, you didn't answer the question about how many dozens of years it would take for the "baby steps" incrementalism approach to result in legal ownership of suppressors for all firearms by all firearms owners. We're 7 and 5 years in the legal cases to allow CCW and/open carry in Baker and Young, and they appear headed for defeat, though the finalization of those cases is likely still years away. What leads you to believe that the legislature is any more likely to be accommodating than the courts?

I don't know the answer to this question, so it is not rhetorical, in the past 20 or 30 years how many Second Amendment rights have been restored to law-abiding Hawaii residents via the incrementalist "baby steps" approach? What infringing laws have been repealed one step at a time resulting in full, or near full, restoration of our rights to keep and bear arms? In that same time period how many laws have been passed that have further eroded/infringed our fundamental individual inalienable natural enumerated Second Amendment-protected civil rights?

Where exactly do you see that in the bill? Where else would you be able to use suppressors "by default"? My rural ag-zoned property for target shooting (with or without a hunting license)? Elsewhere on my property, including in my home on a non-hunting firearm for self-defense purposes?

Part of hunting is making sure that your firearm is in a functional state, this includes zeroing your firearm. Where do you zero your firearm ? The range.

Do you have a suitable range setup on your property ?

If it was fitted to a firearm that is suitable for hunting and you used it for self defense then i would say its legal.

So when can I order ? I don't need to zero at a public range and got my hunters ed card ready 😂✌🏽✊🏿

Well, you didn't answer the question about how many dozens of years it would take for the "baby steps" incrementalism approach to result in legal ownership of suppressors for all firearms by all firearms owners. We're 7 and 5 years in the legal cases to allow CCW and/open carry in Baker and Young, and they appear headed for defeat, though the finalization of those cases is likely still years away. What leads you to believe that the legislature is any more likely to be accommodating than the courts?

I don't know the answer to this question, so it is not rhetorical, in the past 20 or 30 years how many Second Amendment rights have been restored to law-abiding Hawaii residents via the incrementalist "baby steps" approach? What infringing laws have been repealed one step at a time resulting in full, or near full, restoration of our rights to keep and bear arms? In that same time period how many laws have been passed that have further eroded/infringed our fundamental individual inalienable natural enumerated Second Amendment-protected civil rights?

I can't answer your question about how many years will it take because I do not have a crystal ball.  The point is that over the years, many have tried to restore our rights fully.  This doesn't work because majority of the bills get denied.  So lets try a different approach (baby steps).  Like Gabbards proposal of the 17rd mag limit.  If that gets approved, lets try for 30rd STANAG mags which fit in AR's.  Then 60rd drums and so forth. 

Part of hunting is making sure that your firearm is in a functional state, this includes zeroing your firearm. Where do you zero your firearm ? The range.

Do you have a suitable range setup on your property ?

If it was fitted to a firearm that is suitable for hunting and you used it for self defense then i would say its legal.

You haven't shown me any parts of the proposed bill that would substantiate your claims.

Here are quotes from the actual bill:

Accordingly, the purpose of this Act is to improve the safety of hunters in Hawaii by authorizing:

     (1)  Licensed hunters who comply with state firearms law to possess and use firearm noise suppressors while hunting.

§134-5  Possession by licensed hunters and minors; target shooting; game hunting.  (a)  Any person of the age of sixteen years[,] or over, or any person under the age of sixteen years while accompanied by an adult, may carry and use any lawfully acquired rifle or shotgun [and], suitable ammunition, and a suitable firearm noise suppressor while actually engaged in hunting [or target shooting] or while going to and from the place of hunting [or target shooting]; provided that the person has procured a hunting license under chapter 183D, part II.

* * * * *
Seems to me that they've gone to lengths to clearly make a distinction between the legality of suppressor use ONLY while hunting (or to and from the hunting area) and emphasize that by deleting the legality of using it for target shooting or to and from a target shooting location.

How do you read that language and come to a different conclusion?

I can't answer your question about how many years will it take because I do not have a crystal ball.  The point is that over the years, many have tried to restore our rights fully.  This doesn't work because majority of the bills get denied.  So lets try a different approach (baby steps).  Like Gabbards proposal of the 17rd mag limit.  If that gets approved, lets try for 30rd STANAG mags which fit in AR's.  Then 60rd drums and so forth.

I wasn't expecting a psychic prediction for which you will be held accountable. I was hoping someone who is advocating for a particular strategy as being "more effective" to state a rough timeline of what could be expected from that strategy. What's the difference for seeking the actual restoration of our rights and getting nothing, and asking for a crumb and getting it in 20 or 40 or 100 years (or never)? I guess I'd rather fight for my full rights and lose than beg and grovel and get tossed a crumb and then be expected to show them gratitude like a slave. And I doubt they've tossed many, or any, crumbs re Second Amendment rights, but I don't know, and that's why I ask for examples.
 
There is no mag limit for rifle mags. If you're talking about an AR pistol, well, that's totally illegal anyway, and that will get changed when hell freezes over. There is no hearing scheduled for the mag limit bill. By your thinking that bill should be to change the handgun mag limit to 11. Then 10 years later try for 12. (This is a re-introduction of Senator Gabbard's bill from 2007, when he proposed a 15 round limit. He introduced this at my request and after seeing a list of all the current handguns that have 17 round standard capacity magazines was willing to change it to 17.) That bill isn't about a "number". It's totally irrational and random that they selected a particular number (in the New York SAFE Act it is 7). It's about control, making their arbitrary and capricious, irrational and illogical will imposed upon lowly citizens with the force of threatened violence (unless you are willing to head to prison peacefully because 12, not 10) for literally meaningless (in terms of the proclaimed "public safety") violations (what if you have a 10 round magazine and one in the chamber? I mean, if the "danger" is really "11", but "10" is "safe", then the mag capacity limit should be 9, right?).

Again, in the past 20 to 30 years give me the examples of rights in Hawaii being restored via the incrementalist "baby steps" approach. If it's a strategy that works, there must be some examples, right?

I wasn't expecting a psychic prediction for which you will be held accountable. I was hoping someone who is advocating for a particular strategy as being "more effective" to state a rough timeline of what could be expected from that strategy. What's the difference for seeking the actual restoration of our rights and getting nothing, and asking for a crumb and getting it in 20 or 40 or 100 years (or never)? I guess I'd rather fight for my full rights and lose than beg and grovel and get tossed a crumb and then be expected to show them gratitude like a slave. And I doubt they've tossed many, or any, crumbs re Second Amendment rights, but I don't know, and that's why I ask for examples.
 
There is no mag limit for rifle mags. If you're talking about an AR pistol, well, that's totally illegal anyway, and that will get changed when hell freezes over. There is no hearing scheduled for the mag limit bill. By your thinking that bill should be to change the handgun mag limit to 11. Then 10 years later try for 12. (This is a re-introduction of Senator Gabbard's bill from 2007, when he proposed a 15 round limit. He introduced this at my request and after seeing a list of all the current handguns that have 17 round standard capacity magazines was willing to change it to 17.) That bill isn't about a "number". It's totally irrational and random that they selected a particular number (in the New York SAFE Act it is 7). It's about control, making their arbitrary and capricious, irrational and illogical will imposed upon lowly citizens with the force of threatened violence (unless you are willing to head to prison peacefully because 12, not 10) for literally meaningless (in terms of the proclaimed "public safety") violations (what if you have a 10 round magazine and one in the chamber? I mean, if the "danger" is really "11", but "10" is "safe", then the mag capacity limit should be 9, right?).

Again, in the past 20 to 30 years give me the examples of rights in Hawaii being restored via the incrementalist "baby steps" approach. If it's a strategy that works, there must be some examples, right?

I guess we can try restoring our 2a rights by both means.  Full blown and baby steps or any other way we didn't think of yet.  2 is better than 1 or not even trying at all.

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.

This list was sent to the co-sponsors. Why would they suddenly deny the bill because I pointed out that they missed a very important aspect of using suppressors?

This list was sent to the co-sponsors. Why would they suddenly deny the bill because I pointed out that they missed a very important aspect of using suppressors?

All those committee members were informed by testimony at the committee hearing, if not before, of that defect in the bill, yet they chose NOT to amend the bill to allow for that obviously necessary use to conform to the standards of ethical humane hunting practices. Why?

All those committee members were informed by testimony at the committee hearing, if not before, of that defect in the bill, yet they chose NOT to amend the bill to allow for that obviously necessary use to conform to the standards of ethical humane hunting practices. Why?

If people used suppressors at the range, the noise level would be too low for HK residents to complain.   

All those committee members were informed by testimony at the committee hearing, if not before, of that defect in the bill, yet they chose NOT to amend the bill to allow for that obviously necessary use to conform to the standards of ethical humane hunting practices. Why?

I've only lived here for 3 months, and have asked "why" not a few times in trying to understand how the HI laws work. I would think that they either don't think it'll grow any legs, or they are just putting forth just enough effort to keep some of their constituents happy so they can point to pro-2A activity next election cycle. 

I've only lived here for 3 months, and have asked "why" not a few times in trying to understand how the HI laws work. I would think that they either don't think it'll grow any legs, or they are just putting forth just enough effort to keep some of their constituents happy so they can point to pro-2A activity next election cycle.

Wow. And I thought I was "cynical". Just kidding. I believe there is enough evidence in general to substantiate such a view as "realistic" rather than "cynical". That said, in this particular case I'll be curious to see what happens at the next committee hearing, if one is even scheduled, and how the eight original co-sponsors advocate for the bill.

Im a three year implant into Hawaii and cant really sort out what this bill passage by the Senate means, Does it go to the "HI House" now or to the Gov to become Law.


Once Law will other BATF laws apply or only  Hawaiian suppressor laws.... can we make our own without the US Fed Transfer Act of $200 ? If we cant can we just bring from mainland with us?

From what I understand this is only the second reading, 13 more steps to go until Governor signs or vetos


Not clear on what we can do at all.

Aloha

Once Law will other BATF laws apply or only  Hawaiian suppressor laws.... can we make our own without the US Fed Transfer Act of $200 ? If we cant can we just bring from mainland with us?

NFA will always apply until it's repealed or modified. Even in states that allow NFA items, you still must buy them on a Form 4 ($200), or make them yourself on a Form 1 ($200).

So the NRA-ILA site is saying this is dead...
"Unfortunately, House Bill 1589, legislation that would legalize the use of suppressors while hunting, failed to meet deadlines and is now dead for the 2017 legislative session.  Your NRA-ILA will be back next year to continue the fight for the passage of this important bill."

Looking at the Hawaii Leg site it doesn't say crap. So how do we know...? http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=HB&billnumber=1589&year=2017

NFA will always apply until it's repealed or modified. Even in states that allow NFA items, you still must buy them on a Form 4 ($200), or make them yourself on a Form 1 ($200).

Form 2's are free!

So the NRA-ILA site is saying this is dead...
"Unfortunately, House Bill 1589, legislation that would legalize the use of suppressors while hunting, failed to meet deadlines and is now dead for the 2017 legislative session.  Your NRA-ILA will be back next year to continue the fight for the passage of this important bill."

Looking at the Hawaii Leg site it doesn't say crap. So how do we know...? http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=HB&billnumber=1589&year=2017

It didn't "crossover" to the senate so it's dead.  Technically it could be kept alive for this year, but those are astronomical odds.  Could be resurrected next year.