There have been a number of articles about this proposed law by New York U.S. House Rep. Collins this week, but I didn't post any of them because the law is highly unlikely to go anywhere.

http://buffalonews.com/2017/07/31/collins-proposes-federal-law-overturn-safe-act/

However, now there is an article from Civil Beat here in Hawaii claiming that the world will end here in Hawaii if the law passes and our low-crime-causing strict gun laws are overridden. Obviously written by someone with no knowledge of firearms or Hawaii's firearms laws or the actual factual relationship between firearms laws and crime rates, it's a mess. You'll have to read the whole thing to believe it. But hey, it's Hawaii, what do you expect?

http://www.civilbeat.org/2017/08/ny-congressman-wants-to-take-away-hawaiis-gun-control-rights/

NY Congressman Wants To Take Away Hawaii’s Gun-Control Rights

A Republican congressman from New York has proposed legislation that would overturn state gun-control bills nationwide, including those in Hawaii.

Hawaii has some of the strictest gun-control laws in the country. In a 2015 report in the magazine Guns & Ammo, Hawaii ranked fifth, with only Washington, D.C., New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts having tougher laws.

Gun-control supporters credit the state’s laws for its low rate of violent crime by gunshot, and particularly its avoidance of the mass killings by assault rifles that have terrorized communities on the mainland. The last mass murder by gunfire in Hawaii took place in 1999, almost two decades ago.
* * * * *
And it goes on... and on...

Here is the email I sent the author:

Ms. Downey,

There are a number of errors in your piece on the Collin's bill. I don't have time to inform you about all of them, but two stand out as particularly erroneous.

1. "Gun-control supporters credit the state’s laws for its low rate of violent crime by gunshot, and particularly its avoidance of the mass killings by assault rifles that have terrorized communities on the mainland. "

There is no such thing as an "assault rifle" in Hawaii law (and "high capacity" magazines for long guns are completely legal), and therefore whatever varied definitions used by varied jurisdictions for that made-up term, they are all legal in Hawaii, and thus Hawaii laws regarding "assault rifles" could have no bearing on their use in any crime (prevention) whatsoever. As for the other Hawaii laws (registration, permits to acquire, etc.) bearing on their use in crimes, almost all the other "mass shootings" on the mainland using "assault rifles" were done by people who either 1. purchased them legally and undergoing background checks which they passed, and/or 2. or who stole their firearms from other people, or obtained them by other illegal means (straw purchases, black market, etc.). Thus, no law of any kind prevented criminals from failing to obey the law, which shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. Thus Hawaii's laws could have no bearing on any crimes committed or not committed by the fully legal "assault rifles" with fully legal "high capacity" magazines. Regarding "registration", back in 2000 an academic came to Hawaii to testify before a legislative committee regarding the efficacy of "registration" and crime prevention. That academic at the time asked the then-current Honolulu chief of police to submit answers to two questions: 1. How many hours does the department spend per year on "registration", etc. of firearms, and 2. How many crimes have been solved using the information from the registration rolls. The chief replied that 1. approximately 50,000 person-hours per year were expended in registering firearms, and 2. to his knowledge that registration information had NEVER ONCE BEEN USED TO SOLVE A CRIME. I've asked the police chief here in Hawaii County for their statistics and he refuses to provide them (I'm guessing because those stats also reveal the uselessness of the registration process, and thus the baselessness of the claim re "public safety" used to justify it).

2. "The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution establishes the “right to keep and bear arms” as part of a “well-regulated militia.”"

That is totally wrong, and the rulings from The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) in Heller and McDonald unambiguously contradict your claim. SCOTUS ruled that the prefatory clause re the militia in no way whatsoever bears on the right of "the people" to keep and bear arms. Also please note that "well-regulated" as used at the time meant "working properly" as used in the common phrase at the time "a well-regulated clock", not as in "overseen by some authority who creates rules".

I could go on, but don't really have the time. I suppose if you were really interested you could read the various source materials and decide for yourself which side is distorting the facts to suit their agenda the most.

If you want to make state to state "gun control laws" comparisons to "gun crimes" you need to look at ALL the data. Then you will discover that some states with extremely "lax" gun laws (no bans of any kind ("assualt rifles", "large capacity magazines", etc., either shall issue concealed carry and open carry and/or permitless carry of both kinds, etc.) have similar or lower rates of various violent crimes as Hawaii. Does that prove that "more guns equals less crime"? No, but it certainly puts the lie to "more guns equals more crime".