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?

The blood typing language is an attempt to kill the bill using administrative tactics. As to what you, or anyone can do to get the bill moving, read the above posts....

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

The blood typing relates to SB358 SD1 which hasn't been touched yet this session. It doesn't relate to SB2495

Quote from: 2aHawaii on January 26, 2010, 09:26:43 AM

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.

I'm more interested in supporting this confiscation bill than CC.
Some of us are outer island, so the face to face is difficult.

From everything HiCarry has said, it sounds like it WAS put in there to kill the bill and also why it is called the "poison pill." He mentioned making a trip to Hanohano's office (a House Rep) so maybe it wasn't intentional, just misguided.

From everything HiCarry has said, it sounds like it WAS put in there to kill the bill and also why it is called the "poison pill." He mentioned making a trip to Hanohano's office (a House Rep) so maybe it wasn't intentional, just misguided.

I cannot say with certainty that the "poison pill" was put in just to kill the bill, as I was not at the conference that resulted in the added language. But, if I had to make an educated guess, I would bet a large amount of money it was done with the intent to kill the bill...and in reality, the suggested rally/visit to Hanono's office is a good idea regardless of intent. If it was a mistake, then I assume once she was aware of said mistake, she'd support removal of the language and debate on the bill based on its merits...if it was intentional, then showing up and letting her know "we" won't let her get away with such underhanded tactics is a good way to put her, as well as other simiarily minded politicians on notice as well. Either way, it could be a very good way to get all those vocal internet activists to show that they aren't a lot of talk and no action....I have heard multiple times about how this person or that person wants to organize "us" so that "we" can get things done at the legislature. This is "your" chance!

If you didn't catch some of the news coming out of the session yesterday, when they killed the civil union bill (another subject worthy of its own debate. I bring it up here only to support my argument to follow...) you would have noticed that Calvin Say, the Speaker of the House, didn't want to move the bill along unless they could get a veto proof majority before a roll-call vote. This was done, by his own admission, because of this is an election year. Get that, AN ELECTION YEAR. He didn't want to jeprodize his, or any of his cronies, chances of reelection. If we, as gun owners, could make the politicians feel that way about "our" proposed legislation, we'd be able to get a lot more done. So, for all those that have been advocating "organizing" to help support our 2A right, this is your chance...will "you" capitalize on this opportunity, or will "you" let it slip away and complain when this, and other 2A bills die? 

I've sent a few letters in support of the new CC bill. I still think it needs a few tweeks, but BY FAR, this is the BEST bill for CC authored so far.

My question is, how can we find out WHEN we can speak in support of this bill, to the commitee IN PERSON? Something I have never had the opportunity to do. In other states there is usually some type of schedule put out to speak on proposed bills, but I have not been able to find anything for Hawaii. If I can find out when I can speak in support of this bill, I'll be there.

Any Ideas?

Just keep an eye on it.  It is often the case that a hearing is set with only 2-3 days' warning.  You can check the bill's status online, or subscribe to the alert thingy, or just check back here daily.  Rest assured, as soon as there is news of movement, it will appear here, on the HRA forum, and go out over the HRA alert email system.

I've gotta say, I am really looking forward to seeing all these new faces show up to testify!

I will also email everybody via the board's notification system.

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.

Here's recent story of a town where the local government declared an emergency and suspended firearms sales...now it doesn't take much imagination to see how, if things got worse, they might start confiscating guns ala New Orleans/Katrina

http://www.wxii12.com/news/22487153/detail.html

The "point" is that "the government" believes (IMHO) that having armed civillians after a disaster would, as General Lee (Adj. General, Hawaii) testified last year,  would put "them" in danger and hamper relief efforts. Of course what they don't tell you is that the "protection" and services normally provided (which, of course everyone knows they are not obligated to provide in the first place, right?) will not likely be available and that citizens will have to fend for themselves, even more so then they should be prepared to do under normal circumstances.

In case you didn't research the Katrina firearms seizures, here's a link for you to look at:

http://www.rightofanation.com/2009/12/14/a-look-back-gun-confiscation-after-hurricane-katrina/

I thought maybe we should sticky this somewhere. At least the existence of this bill anywyay.
 
I suck at forums. Sorry.