On Thursday February 23, at 9:15am the Senate Committee on Judiciary and Labor will hear Senate Bill 898.  SB 898 is a misguided gun control bill that would permanently strip an individual of their Second Amendment rights, not based on a criminal conviction or mental adjudication, but based on a quasi-criminal proceeding. 

The committee will NOT be taking oral testimony at this hearing. It is imperative that you submit written testimony to the committee through the Hawaii Legislature website voicing opposition to this dangerous and misguided legislation.  In order to submit testimony, you will need to create an account.  For help creating an account and submitting testimony, click here.  To email committee members, click the “Take Action” button below.



SB 898 allows for firearms to be seized based on an ex-parte warrant application based on the low evidentiary standard of probable cause.  An individual is entitled to a hearing, however that hearing may not take place for up to 30 days.  At the hearing, the seized firearms can be retained and a permanent firearm prohibition can be put in place, not because of a disqualifying offense but merely the risk of one.  No one wants dangerous individuals to have access to firearms, however this is not about dangerous people.  This bill sets to ignore the normal rules of criminal procedure in order to promote the anti-gun agenda of the political elites and others.

Last Friday, February 10, the House Water and Land Committee heard and unanimously passed House Bill 1589 with amendments.  HB 1589, sponsored by Representative Ryan Yamane (D-37), would allow the use of sound suppressors while hunting in the state of Hawaii.  Currently, 40 states allow the use of suppressors while hunting.  Sound suppressors attached to firearms (less accurately called "silencers") are an additional tool available to help protect hearing, increase accuracy and safety, and reduce noise complaints by surrounding residents.  While suppressors do not eliminate the sound of a firearm, they do reduce the muzzle report of a firearm, reducing the risk hearing damage.  Additionally, suppressors help increase accuracy by reducing felt recoil and shot “flinch.”  Suppressors also help reduce noise complaints from neighbors, which are frequently used as an excuse to close hunting lands throughout the country.  HB 1589 is now awaiting a hearing in the House Committee on Judiciary.

Please continue to check your email and www.nraila.org for updates.

 

Hawaii Senate Committee on Judiciary and Labor:

Chairman Gilbert S.C. Keith-Agaran
(808) 586-7344

Vice Chair Karl Rhoads
(808) 586-6130

Senator Mike Gabbard
(808) 586-6830

Senator Donna Mercado Kim
(808) 587-7200

Senator Laura Theilen
(808) 587-8388

NRA-ILA: Institute for Legislative Action
FOLLOW NRA-ILA
Facebook   Twitter   YouTube   Instagram
© 2017 National Rifle Association of America, Institute For Legislative Action. To contact NRA-ILA call 800-392-8683. Address: 11250 Waples Mill Road Fairfax, Virginia 22030.

when you use the state website, make sure you put "oppose" or "support" in the check box- the default setting is "comments only"

Testimony submitted.  Thanks for the update. Macsak.

FYI per NRA-ILA, the "Take Action" alert is not archived or used as official testimony at the hearings. It tells your representative that you support/oppose the bill.

It's preferable to do the "Take Action" AND submit official testimony(at least check the support/oppose box) through the HI legislature website. For this one the link is: http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=898

In the prior committee the submitted testimony, including the late testimony, was five (5) FOR, thirty (30) OPPOSED.

The committee vote was unanimous FOR.

And we wonder why people don't get interested, much less enthused, about participating in "the process"?

One of the recent Hawaii County Council meetings, which allows for two-minute-limited testimony per item from the public at the beginning of the meeting re any items on the agenda featured a gentleman who sat alone in the entire auditorium in Hilo via video conferencing for the meeting in Kona who noted (paraphrase) that "This entire room behind me is empty because people know that no matter they say, you are going to do what you want to do anyway and ignore them". He made quite a few other good points, and was ruled out of order for doing so a number of times. I wanted to contact him and thank him for taking the time to go there and speak for probably the majority of people who have given up... but he refused to give his name prior to testimony so I never found out who he was. But I understand.

Submitted. Thanks for the heads-up.   

Direct link to the bill

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=898&year=2017

Done and done. Thank you for the directions.

Didn't know what to say but I submitted my opposition.

Opposition testimony submitted!

Wow, the JDL committee did not even bother to schedule a public hearing on this.. just straight to decision making.

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=898&year=2017
2/15/2017   S   The committee(s) on JDL will hold a public decision making on 02-23-17 9:15AM in conference room 016.

Testimony in strong opposition submitted. 

Wow, the JDL committee did not even bother to schedule a public hearing on this.. just straight to decision making.

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=898&year=2017
2/15/2017   S   The committee(s) on JDL will hold a public decision making on 02-23-17 9:15AM in conference room 016.

Testimony in strong opposition submitted.

Thanks for the heads up.

Strong opposition also submitted. 

Wow, the JDL committee did not even bother to schedule a public hearing on this.. just straight to decision making.

Strong opposition also submitted. 

Thanks for the heads up.

Testimony in strong opposition submitted.

As I posted above, the public testimony in the earlier committee hearing had a ratio of 6 to 1 OPPOSED, and it PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

I'm pretty sure if most (any?) of the state legislators were really concerned about upholding their oath to uphold and defend the constitutions, including our civil rights protected by the Second Amendment and Article I, section 17, that we'd have had evidence of it by now in this hellhole of treasonous traitors (yeah, I said it.). Maybe I'm wrong and the committee chair and members have decided to abide by their oath of office and summarily dismiss this bill which denies due process. Sure they will. 

As I posted above, the public testimony in the earlier committee hearing had a ratio of 6 to 1 OPPOSED, and it PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

I'm pretty sure if most (any?) of the state legislators were really concerned about upholding their oath to uphold and defend the constitutions, including our civil rights protected by the Second Amendment and Article I, section 17, that we'd have had evidence of it by now in this hellhole of treasonous traitors (yeah, I said it.). Maybe I'm wrong and the committee chair and members have decided to abide by their oath of office and summarily dismiss this bill which denies due process. Sure they will. 

Yeah, I saw your previous post.  As always, thank you for your always thoughtful posts that convey a positive attitude that encourages others to support the 2A cause.   

Here's what I submitted. I took most of it from a news article.

"I oppose this because it violates the Constitution. The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides, "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Furthermore, SB 898 allows for firearms to be seized based on an ex-parte warrant application based on the low evidentiary standard of probable cause. An individual is entitled to a hearing, however that hearing may not take place for up to 30 days. At the hearing, the seized firearms can be retained and a permanent firearm prohibition can be put in place, not because of a disqualifying offense but merely the risk of one. No one wants dangerous individuals to have access to firearms, however this is not about dangerous people. This bill sets to ignore the normal rules of criminal procedure in order to promote the anti-gun agenda of the political elites and others."

done!

I think the intent of this law is good but it fails to have a number of important protections of individual's rights. With some modifications I think this could be the start of a decent gun control law but as of now it is very problematic.

Submitted opposition testimony too for all the good it will do.
Hate to say it but I am losing my fight.
Aloha

I think the intent of this law is good but it fails to have a number of important protections of individual's rights. With some modifications I think this could be the start of a decent gun control law but as of now it is very problematic.

This is why you are identified by many as an anti-gun sympathizer.

What, specifically, would you change to make it "a decent gun control law?"