From the HRA annual meeting that took place today.

The speaker of the Hawaii house of representatives changed from slightly conservative to very anti-gun.  What this means next year is pro-gun bills will most likely not get hearings or die earlier than in the past, and anti-gun bills will proceede.  HRA will be playing defense next year because of this.

Other thing is the voting of HRA board of directors.  There were no challengers so we have the same directors again, most of whom have served for a very long time.  I think it's good that they have a lot of experience, however this poses a problem where there are no new ideas coming in and no new leaders are being created.  We need some challengers for next year's board of directors elections so start working on that if you're interested.  There are a bunch of general directors plus one representing each island.

From the HRA annual meeting that took place today.

The speaker of the Hawaii house of representatives changed from slightly conservative to very anti-gun.  What this means next year is pro-gun bills will most likely not get hearings or die earlier than in the past, and anti-gun bills will proceede.  HRA will be playing defense next year because of this.

Other thing is the voting of HRA board of directors.  There were no challengers so we have the same directors again, most of whom have served for a very long time.  I think it's good that they have a lot of experience, however this poses a problem where there are no new ideas coming in and no new leaders are being created.  We need some challengers for next year's board of directors elections so start working on that if you're interested.  There are a bunch of general directors plus one representing each island.

Thanks for the effort to keep us informed about some of the doings of the HRA.  I always wondered what they do... I mean besides a couple of emails per year asking people to submit testimony on particularly egregiously unconstitutional bills being proposed and heard in committees.

I'm not sure it's going to matter much exactly when someone decides they are not going to give any pro-rights bills a hearing. Dead sooner or later is still dead (and I'm pretty sure the moment the "decision maker" sees a "shall issue CCW" or "17 round handgun mag" bill they are dead). I would call into question your use of the term "slightly conservative"... none of the pro-rights bills last year was given a hearing... how "conservative" is that? That's exactly the same result as if Obama or Clinton or Feinstein or Schumer or Pocahontas was making the decision.

Would you happen to know if there has ever been any discussion at HRA as to why the NRA (or any other supposed pro-rights organization) has chosen to never file or even financially support any lawsuit challenging Hawaii's draconian laws (I mean, not one single CCW in the entire state... I think anyone would have to agree that's at least "borderline")? I know the answer is small potatoes/waste of money (unwinnable lawsuit), but just wonder if it's ever discussed as an effective strategy.

Thanks again. Please keep us apprised of the details of the HRA workings.

I meant the last speaker was a slightly conservative Democrat.  Kind of like a very liberal Republican.  In the past years, some pro-gun bills were heard, couple passed, though most went nowhere.  Expecting even less next year.

Just heard the same thing from the HRA as I do from the NRA and elsewhere about Hawaii cases.  HRA/NRA will only take cases that they think they have a good chance of winning.  NRA/SAF/etc tend to focus on cases in the appeals courts, but are reluctant to take cases in the 9th appeals court.  NRAILA can provide some guidance if you talk to them even if they don't take the case.

Funding is tight at the NRA, they seem like a big well funded organization but it's just a front.  Their power comes from the membership.  HRA has neither funding nor large membership which limits what they can do.