House Bill 834, introduced by state Representative Karl Rhodes (D-28), would make it unlawful for a person or entity to sell or distribute ammunition unless the purchaser shows proof that the firearm for which the ammunition is to be used is registered.  HB 834 is currently in the House Public Safety and Military Affairs Committee. (2011)

WHY???

What a goddamn travesty. 

I think this is left over from last year. This bill has no chance of making it, and would go to court before it ever hit the books - guaranteed.

I think this is left over from last year. This bill has no chance of making it, and would go to court before it ever hit the books - guaranteed.

and?

and?

The question has still not been answered.

Maybe the president of the HRA will leave some third party message blaming someone else...

I'll play devil's advocate.  Is it possibly that this Rhodes idiot was running against someone even worse than he was, and that's why he got the HRA endorsement?  Say, for example, that Eric Holder is running against Hillary Clinton.  I'd endorse and tell my peeps to vote for Hillary; although she was First Lady for the 94 AWB, and no doubt supports bringing it back, C*ck Holder has proven he's willing to be an accessory to mass murder in order to get your guns.  Vote Hillary!  That's the only thing I can think of to explain why a gun organization would endorse someone who went on to propose an idiotic law like this.

I'll play devil's advocate.  Is it possibly that this Rhodes idiot was running against someone even worse than he was, and that's why he got the HRA endorsement?  Say, for example, that Eric Holder is running against Hillary Clinton.  I'd endorse and tell my peeps to vote for Hillary; although she was First Lady for the 94 AWB, and no doubt supports bringing it back, C*ck Holder has proven he's willing to be an accessory to mass murder in order to get your guns.  Vote Hillary!  That's the only thing I can think of to explain why a gun organization would endorse someone who went on to propose an idiotic law like this.

I did have a conversation with David Chang, his opponent and fellow Guardman and David expressed that he is pro gun, a Republican and believed in the 2A.  He also stated that HRA contacted him in regards to 2A issues and he replied.  Why HRA supoprted Rhodes? I don't know.

While I'm not in the know about Rhodes or Chang, I do know how many of these decisions get made.  HRA sends questionnaires to everyone involved in a race.  Some candidates never return them, some take noncommittal positions, and some outright lie.  However, in the case of a candidate who has never held office before, we don't have any way to evaluate the veracity of their questionnaires.  We do invite them to come meet with the board, but very few accept.  So, what most likely happened is that Rhodes' questionnaire showed him to be a stronger 2A advocate than Chang's. 

While I'm not in the know about Rhodes or Chang, I do know how many of these decisions get made.  HRA sends questionnaires to everyone involved in a race.  Some candidates never return them, some take noncommittal positions, and some outright lie.  However, in the case of a candidate who has never held office before, we don't have any way to evaluate the veracity of their questionnaires.  We do invite them to come meet with the board, but very few accept.  So, what most likely happened is that Rhodes' questionnaire showed him to be a stronger 2A advocate than Chang's.

So I am guessing "trust but verify" is not part of HRA's decision making process?

So I am guessing "trust but verify" is not part of HRA's decision making process?

That's a pretty dickish way of putting it.

I'm curious... how would you approach verifying 200 trackless candidates' claims in a 2 month period?

That's a pretty dickish way of putting it.

I'm curious... how would you approach verifying 200 trackless candidates' claims in a 2 month period?

Tom,

Yes, it is dickish..and your point?

How would I do it ?   ----> If you don't know or can't verify it, don't endorse.   

Seems simple enough to me, but then again we are talking about politics and the good ole boy network, so nothing is as simple as it should be.

Tom,

Yes, it is dickish..and your point?

My point is that I'm not here to bicker with dicks. 

My point is that I'm not here to bicker with dicks.

Noted.

So I am guessing "trust but verify" is not part of HRA's decision making process?

I think the question is a legitimate one...how would you do it? As Tom mentioned, HRA sends out a questionaire and based on that and known voting records, a recommendation is made.

If you have a better process,then let's hear it. If not, and you're truely interested in making things better for your fellow gun owners and not just sittin' on your ass and bitchin' then let's sit down and devise a better system. Obviously we won't be able to use it this year, but we could implement for next year. It should only take a couple of hours a week for, oh, I don't know, a few months. So, you don't mind volunteering your time, right? We'd be grateful for it and your expertise.

Oh, and by the way, the reason Chang didn't get rated was that he didn't send in his questionaire, and that was after he was contacted not once, but twice by HRA staff to ask him to get it into us. We knew from his public statements that he would probably be a good candidate to endorse, but we never heard back from him. So, maybe while you're working on developing a new and improved method to evaluate politicians, you can figure out how to "make" them respond and what to do in terms of making an "endorse/not endorse" decision.

A gun might work

I think the question is a legitimate one...how would you do it? As Tom mentioned, HRA sends out a questionaire and based on that and known voting records, a recommendation is made.

If you have a better process,then let's hear it. If not, and you're truely interested in making things better for your fellow gun owners and not just sittin' on your ass and bitchin' then let's sit down and devise a better system. Obviously we won't be able to use it this year, but we could implement for next year. It should only take a couple of hours a week for, oh, I don't know, a few months. So, you don't mind volunteering your time, right? We'd be grateful for it and your expertise.

Oh, and by the way, the reason Chang didn't get rated was that he didn't send in his questionaire, and that was after he was contacted not once, but twice by HRA staff to ask him to get it into us. We knew from his public statements that he would probably be a good candidate to endorse, but we never heard back from him. So, maybe while you're working on developing a new and improved method to evaluate politicians, you can figure out how to "make" them respond and what to do in terms of making an "endorse/not endorse" decision.

Have a legislature fun shoot day.

Have a legislature fun shoot day.

That's not a bad idea.  Invite our elected officials to the range and let them try out some different guns.  People who are anti-gun generally change their minds once they get to the range, so that's a plus.  On the other hand, they might all love guns, just not in the hands of the riff-raff. 

Have a legislature fun shoot day.

A couple of weeks ago, myself and another instructor for LIFE hosted several Republican legislators at the range.....so I can say I have a pretty good idea about those individuals. Now, what do we do about the others who don't fill out a questionaire or don't have a voting track record that we can evaluate??

Of course it was midweek during the day, which meant I had to take time off work, and run home to get the firearms and ammo. So, if anyone here wants to help with similar efforts, just let me know. I hear a lot of what "we" should do but I don't often see an lot of action by those telling "us" what "we" should do. So come on, all you "real deals" out there that seem to have an answer for everything, especially those that have been involved in the shooting sports for "years" as some have claimed....Let's see you out walking the talk.

LIFE has a standing offer to Legislators and their office staff to attend the class for free, and we have had several attend. It is one of the many ways we actively participate in the efforts to "normalize" guns and gun-owners here in Hawaii. LIFE, HRA, and HDF spends a lot of time and effort trying their respective best to better our current situation on multiple fronts and it is frustrating to hear all the complaints about what we don't do. I guess that's why I get a lttle short with all the whinners out there (especially those that profess to be the "real deal" and to have been involved in firearms in Hawaii for "years." I guess those folks just don't realize that if they had truely been involved for years then they have just as much culpability for the current condition of Hawaii's gun laws as the legislators. After all, if they had been doing something, certainly they, in their infinite wisdom should have been able to change things for the better by now, right?)
[rant off]

So here's a deal for you...you arrange a Legislative Range day, that would include a reasonable number of Legislators promising to come out to shoot, and I will use one of the LIFE funshoot dates to facilitate the event. Ball's in your court.......

A couple of weeks ago, myself and another instructor for LIFE hosted several Republican legislators at the range.....so I can say I have a pretty good idea about those individuals. Now, what do we do about the others who don't fill out a questionaire or don't have a voting track record that we can evaluate??

Of course it was midweek during the day, which meant I had to take time off work, and run home to get the firearms and ammo. So, if anyone here wants to help with similar efforts, just let me know. I hear a lot of what "we" should do but I don't often see an lot of action by those telling "us" what "we" should do. So come on, all you "real deals" out there that seem to have an answer for everything, especially those that have been involved in the shooting sports for "years" as some have claimed....Let's see you out walking the talk.

LIFE has a standing offer to Legislators and their office staff to attend the class for free, and we have had several attend. It is one of the many ways we actively participate in the efforts to "normalize" guns and gun-owners here in Hawaii. LIFE, HRA, and HDF spends a lot of time and effort trying their respective best to better our current situation on multiple fronts and it is frustrating to hear all the complaints about what we don't do. I guess that's why I get a lttle short with all the whinners out there (especially those that profess to be the "real deal" and to have been involved in firearms in Hawaii for "years." I guess those folks just don't realize that if they had truely been involved for years then they have just as much culpability for the current condition of Hawaii's gun laws as the legislators. After all, if they had been doing something, certainly they, in their infinite wisdom should have been able to change things for the better by now, right?)
[rant off]

So here's a deal for you...you arrange a Legislative Range day, that would include a reasonable number of Legislators promising to come out to shoot, and I will use one of the LIFE funshoot dates to facilitate the event. Ball's in your court.......

Cool HiCarry -- thanks for sharing your experience.  I don't know much about the legislature outreach scene by the HRA, HDF, etc as I've never been to one but I would be willing to help.  I don't know what would get a majority of legislators to the range but I could personally probably get one or two to go.  I am not one of those who claim to be the "real deal" and for sure has not had "many years" in the scene, but I am one who has recently come to truly love this activity and would be happy to share the joys of shooting with legislators (and non-legislators) that I know.

No one can do this on their own.  Reaching out only to Republican legislators is reaching out to a very small minority.  I am thinking that folks reaching out to the Democratic and Independent legislators might be a good way to reach out to a more mainstream audience. Can you imagine the Republican legislators calling out the Democratic legislators and having a friendly (or not so friendly) target competition at the range?   Now that would require some changing of minds.

Do legislators have team building events?  A day at the range would be an awesome experience for those who have never shot in their lives.