It looks like a revised version of the Concealed Carry Bill was introduced this year and just passed the first hearing today. It looks like a MUCH better version than last year. Maybe they took some of our suggestions

So, what is the plan now?

Here is the main page: http://capitol.hawaii.gov/session2010/lists/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=2495

This is a link to the text: http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2010/bills/SB2495_.pdf

I have attached the pdf of the text below as well.

[attachment deleted by admin]

We need to see what happens to the bill...I couldn't find the committee that heard the first reading, but if we know that, we can send those members messages of support. The idea is to let the legislators on that committee know you want the bill to move forward, rather than languish and die as in years past.

The general process is that the bill needs to be heard and then passed out of committee. If they simply hold onto it, it will just sit and die without ever reaching the full legislature for a vote.

Once it is passed to the desiginated committee, we'll then need to submit testimony. The link to do that is:

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/emailtestimony/

The only issue I have with the wording after my initial quick read is the provision about carrying in an establishment that serves alcohol. I think the wording is a little vague and could be read to exclude lawful concealed carry in any establishment that serves alcohol. I would prefer some language that allows CC but disallows actually consuming alcohol.

Just my 2 cents worth....

Last year it was referred to PSM/TIA, JGO committees. It looks like it takes a couple days for the committee to get posted on legislature website though, so I don't want to just guess.

(6)    Establishment or portion thereof that is legally licensed to serve alcoholic beverages for consumption upon those premises, which portion of that establishment is primarily devoted to such purpose;

Yes, this language is pretty interesting. It makes it sound like you just can't carry into the "bar" area, but the regular part of an alcohol serving restaurant should be fine. That's my interpretation anyway.

whats the plan now?   what can CC advocates do to help?

post it up on the Real Gun Forum to get the word spread even more.

What to do? 
Show up at the committee meetings for the bill and testify in support. 
Cannot?  Submit written testimony in support of the bill & get friends to do the same. 
Call the representatives who are hearing the bill & tell them you support it.

Best thing to do is form a coalition of shooting groups/2A supporters in Hawaii and testify together in support.  Coalitions get more attention from legislators than individuals because they have broad support of membership.

Last year it was referred to PSM/TIA, JGO committees. It looks like it takes a couple days for the committee to get posted on legislature website though, so I don't want to just guess.

Quote

(6)    Establishment or portion thereof that is legally licensed to serve alcoholic beverages for consumption upon those premises, which portion of that establishment is primarily devoted to such purpose;

Yes, this language is pretty interesting. It makes it sound like you just can't carry into the "bar" area, but the regular part of an alcohol serving restaurant should be fine. That's my interpretation anyway.

I would tend to agree with your interpretation, as that is how I read it as well. My concern is that it does allow for some other interpretation, and we would want the language to be as clear as possible with these types of issues.

As to what to do now, I was able to follow up a little, and this is what I found out. THe bill was "read" on the floor of the Senate, as will be many other bills that are introduced this year. It has not yet been assigned to a committee, nad chances are good that it may not be...if it is, it is very unlikely to pass out of committee. This, in part, is due to the fact that the caucus lead my Hanabusa is very anti-gun and will likely do anything possible to kill the bill.

Until the bill is assigned a committe and scheduled for a hearing, there is little you can do in terms of submitting testimony. Until then, folks should contact the legislators who introduced the bill (SLOM, Gabbard, Hemmings, Nishihara) and express your support of it. Another tact might be to contact those most likely to try and kill the bill and let them know YOU support it and expect them, as your representative, to do the same. You can also can also contact your individual legislators and let them know you support concealed carry in Hawaii.

Now, with all that said, let me throw in some "reality" here. This is not the first year a concealed carry bill has been introduced. In all of the prior instances, it died because it garnered little real support. I expect it will be the same this year as well...I hope I am proven wrong, but it will take more than some internet posturing to make this a reality. And, while submitted testimony is great, there is nothing that will influence legislators more than real faces sitting on real butts in the hearing room. So, hopefully I will be seeing lots of other pro-concealed carry, pro-gun folks down at the legislature this year....

Hey HiCarry, it looks like it was just referred to committee PSM/JGO, WAM. How does it work when the committees are divided like that?

I will also contact my Senator and the committee members showing my support. I will also try my best to show up in person if there is a hearing.

Contact information for the introducing members.

Mike Gabbard
19th Senatorial District
Hawaii State Capitol, Room 201
415 South Beretania Street
Honolulu, HI 96813
phone 808-586-6830; fax 808-586-6679
e-mail sengabbard@Capitol.hawaii.gov

Fred Hemmings
25th Senatorial District
Hawaii State Capitol, Room 221
415 South Beretania Street
Honolulu, HI 96813
phone 808-587-8388; fax 808-587-7240
E-mail senhemmings@Capitol.hawaii.gov

Clarence K. Nishihara
18th Senatorial District
Hawaii State Capitol, Room 213
415 South Beretania Street
Honolulu, HI 96813
phone 808-586-6970; fax 808-586-6879
e-mail sennishihara@Capitol.hawaii.gov

Sam Slom
8th Senatorial District
Hawaii State Capitol, Room 222
415 South Beretania Street
Honolulu, HI 96813
phone 808-586-8420; fax 808-586-8426
e-mail senslom@Capitol.hawaii.gov

Hey HiCarry, it looks like it was just referred to committee PSM/JGO, WAM. How does it work when the committees are divided like that?

I will also contact my Senator and the committee members showing my support. I will also try my best to show up in person if there is a hearing.

Each committee will hear the bill and vote on whether to pass it along or not...each time it is heard, it risks being killed. It would be good to start working on testimony now, as hearing notices don't usually provide a lot of time before each hearing.

And, while I really, really appreciate anyone's efforts to stand up for our gun rights, statistically speaking CC has very little chance of passing. That is not to say it isn't a worthwhile effort. Just remember, there are equally important bills left over from the last session that could use gun owner's support. One, relating to seizure of firearms during an emergency (think Katrina gun confiscation) is subject to a "poison pill" by the Chair of the hearing committee...that one will likely die if the Chair doesn't remove the added "poison pill." A concerted and coordinated effort to approach the Chair on this issue, especially if we muster the numbers necessary, could go a long way to increasing our "credibility" as a (gun owning, rights loving) community. If, for example, we could "flex our muscle" on the confiscation issue, we possibily use that to our advantage with the CC issue.....

Be sure to let us know of updates on the confiscation issue, or all the issues we should pay attention to for this session. I will gladly support them.

The only issue I have with the wording after my initial quick read is the provision about carrying in an establishment that serves alcohol. I think the wording is a little vague and could be read to exclude lawful concealed carry in any establishment that serves alcohol. I would prefer some language that allows CC but disallows actually consuming alcohol.

That caught my eye as well.  I could see it being interpreted as anywhere that serves alcohol, which would include nearly every restaurant other than fastfood:

(6) Establishment or portion thereof that is legally licensed to serve alcoholic beverages for consumption upon those premises, which portion of that establishment is primarily devoted to such purpose

Meaning you could be eating with your family at a table at Chilis, and because they have a bar in another part of the restaurant, you would be in violation of the law.  Or you could be bowling at Aiea Bowl and because they have a bar/restaurant connected to the bowling alley, you would be in violation of the law. 

I also don't understand why they prevent concealed carry on college campuses or even high school campuses.  As history has shown us, school campuses are a hotspot for mass shootings.  Even if they don't allow the students to concealed carry, they should at the very least allow the faculty and staff to protect themselves and their students.   

One thing I just noticed about this bill is that security guards would have to concealed carry as this changes the allowed carry provision of HRS-134. That might be interesting.

Be sure to let us know of updates on the confiscation issue, or all the issues we should pay attention to for this session. I will gladly support them.

Without some active intervention, I can tell you what will happen right now...the bill will die and, god forbid, if something akin to Katrina strikes us, there will be firearms seizures.

Here's a suggestion for those who think they'd like to participate in something...have someone organize a visit to Hanohano's office and ask to have her remove the poison pill and pass the bill out of committee "as is."  Show up with all the folks you can muster and show her what we, as a community, can muster...again, unless "we" build up some political capital (a "show of force" in her office would garner a lot of this "political capital") any position "we" take will be dismissed or disregarded because the politicos won't see us as a threat or a force to reconed with...

A little back ground on the poison pill - the bill had a provision added to it to include Rh testing (blood typing) which, is not permitted as it had nothing to do with the title of the bill...this will effectively kill the bill. The "poison pill" was added last year as the bill passed between committees.

HiCarry, I think I'm a little confused.

Which bill is this? Is it SB358 from last year?

From this, I find that the RHo blood typing is already a part of HRS 128-6

(B)  Compulsory RHo blood typing on females of child bearing age or younger, and such other compulsory blood typing as may be approved by competent medical authority.

From what I can gather, SB358 tried to remove the blood typing as it passed through the Senate and then the bill just died in the House. So the bad part is trying to remove the blood typing from law?

So really, we just want the bill to change only items regarding seizure of property, right?

HiCarry, I think I'm a little confused.

Which bill is this? Is it SB358 from last year?

From this, I find that the RHo blood typing is already a part of HRS 128-6

Quote from: http://capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol03_Ch0121-0200D/HRS0128/HRS_0128-0006.htm

(B)  Compulsory RHo blood typing on females of child bearing age or younger, and such other compulsory blood typing as may be approved by competent medical authority.

From what I can gather, SB358 tried to remove the blood typing as it passed through the Senate and then the bill just died in the House. So the bad part is trying to remove the blood typing from law?

So really, we just want the bill to change only items regarding seizure of property, right?

SB358 SD1 is the bill introduced last session and that would protect lawfully owned firearms from being seized during an emergency. The bill's language and intent is to modify the language in HRS134 to accomplish this. The problem, and the "poison pill" part is the attempt to change the wording of HRS 128, about the blood typing. The issue is that the changes to HRS 128 for the blood typing are not in the title of the bill. It's sort of like trying to sneak a change into one bill about a totally different subject.

So, the wording of  the change to HRS 128 is not the problem per se, but the attempt to pass those changes thru in an unrelated bill affecting HRS 134. I hope that helps.

A link to the bill's status is here: http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2010/lists/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=358

Note that besides the history of the bill, you can review the submitted testimony...and note the relative lack thereof.....

A link to the search engin for the legislature is here: http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2010/

That link is great for seeing sample testimony, especially the ones from the HRA.

So it looks like this SB358 made it through the Senate pretty easily. What could have been done to get it out of committee in the House?

That link is great for seeing sample testimony, especially the ones from the HRA.

So it looks like this SB358 made it through the Senate pretty easily. What could have been done to get it out of committee in the House?

The only way it can pass out of the house is to have the "poison pill" language removed...which requires convincing the anti-gun chair of the committee to remove the poison pill and allow debate on it....until that is done, the bill is basically stuck without a hope of passing thru....

Again, the efforts needed to participate in the legislative process requires some organization and actual participation by those interested....an e-mail is helpful, a written letter is worth  10 e-mails, a phone call is worth 10 letters, and a personal visit is worth 10 phone calls....folks can talk all they like about what they want, but until the rubber hits the road, it's still all talk....

what is the point in confiscating firearms after a natural disaster?    i thought the bill that came up earlier that was not passed was more along the lines of,  "allowing the public to carry in public their firearms after a natural disaster/emergency".  i dont recall anything about confiscation.

what is the point in confiscating firearms after a natural disaster?    i thought the bill that came up earlier that was not passed was more along the lines of,  "allowing the public to carry in public their firearms after a natural disaster/emergency".  i dont recall anything about confiscation.

The text of the bill is at the link I provided earlier...It doesn't have the provision you mention and is about creating a law, much as many other states have done, that would make it illegal for the police to confiscate firearms after a disaster. As to the "point" of confiscating firearms after a disaster, please read up on the Katrina debacle....

What is the blood typing for?  I'm confused, is this required for ccw?

As of this moment what's the best thing(s) to do to be able to see this bill moving?