well thought out questions for our esteemed legislators Punaperson 

well thought out questions for our esteemed legislators Punaperson 

A Solution in Search of a Problem (aka "Do something", even if what you do is unrelated to reality and has no effect on anything whatsoever (like crime) except being a political talking point to influence the vote of the uninformed.)

I suppose I ought to have included the fact that while I really don't know the answers to those questions (crimes preciously committed with proposed banned (altered) objects), I suspect that they are rhetorical. From what I read Massachusetts passed their law banning bump stocks and trigger cranks without there being a record of even a single crime ever in the state using those now-banned objects. I don't expect to actually get an answer from any of the sponsors of the bill, but if I do I'll be surprised if it's anything other than the typical "public safety" argument about "dangerous objects" (you know, guns, stun guns, knives, handgun magazines with more than 10 rounds, "assault pistols", bearing arms outside the home, etc., and how they could or might be used). I could be completely wrong and a few hours from now I will receive multiple emails with long lists of crimes committed in Hawaii with the soon-to-be-banned modified weapons. As far as I know there was never been a crime committed in Hawaii prior to the ban where a criminal having a larger-than-10 capacity handgun magazine fired more than 10 rounds... but I welcome evidence to the contrary.

Just so I can get all the correct info, there are 2 rate of fire increase bills? H.B. NO.1908 and 2046?

Just so I can get all the correct info, there are 2 rate of fire increase bills? H.B. NO.1908 and 2046?

there's a senate bill and a house bill

As far as I know there was never been a crime committed in Hawaii prior to the ban where a criminal having a larger-than-10 capacity handgun magazine fired more than 10 rounds... but I welcome evidence to the contrary.

Uyesugi used 17 round mags in a Glock 17 and reloaded once.  According to court docs.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/hi-supreme-court/1270801.html

It's the wording this bill that's so messed up. Massachusetts law is worded much better.
Perhaps this is an opportunity for education of lawmakers and cooperation. To gain trust and perhaps some cooperation back.
This whole no infringement stuff. Are you guys high? This is the real world.
We have very little if any political clout as a group. Wishing is fine, but at some point reality needs to kick in.
We can write them until we're blue in the face and it won't make any difference.
Name me one time we changed the outcome of a bill with our testimony.
Maybe this is our chance to work with them to work with us. Let them know more about concealed carry.

Who even cares about or owns a bump stock?

But the wording of the bill needs to change to be specific to bump stocks like Massachusetts law.

Just so I can get all the correct info, there are 2 rate of fire increase bills? H.B. NO.1908 and 2046?

It's senate SB2046, referenced in most of the posts in this thread.

HB1908 is much narrower in scope than the senate bill, and has a lot less ambiguous language (no "alters" to "increase the rate of fire", though I did write Takayama last week and ask him to define "burst"... since he defines the term "multiburst" using the term "burst"):

"§134-    Multiburst trigger activator; prohibition.  (a)  Any person in this State who manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the State, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives, lends, or possesses any multiburst trigger activator shall be guilty of a class C felony.

     (b)  As used in this section, "multiburst trigger activator" means:

     (1)  A device designed or redesigned to be attached to a semiautomatic firearm, which allows the firearm to discharge two or more shots in a burst by activating the device; or

     (2)  A manual or power-driven trigger activating device constructed and designed so that when attached to a semiautomatic firearm it increases the rate of fire of that firearm."

HB1908 (house) was referred to committees today:

Measure Title:   RELATING TO FIREARMS.
Report Title:   Prohibited; Multiburst Trigger Activators
Description:   Prohibits multiburst trigger activators.

Current Referral:   JUD, CPC
Introducer(s):   TAKAYAMA, CREAGAN, DECOITE, GATES, ING, KEOHOKALOLE, LOPRESTI, LOWEN, NISHIMOTO, SAY

Sort by Date       Status Text
1/18/2018   H   Pending introduction.
1/19/2018   H   Introduced and Pass First Reading.
1/22/2018   H   Referred to JUD, CPC, referral sheet 4

SB2046
https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2018/bills/SB2046_.HTM

HB1908
https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2018/bills/HB1908_.HTM

Uyesugi used 17 round mags in a Glock 17 and reloaded once.  According to court docs.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/hi-supreme-court/1270801.html

It's the wording this bill that's so messed up. Massachusetts law is worded much better.
Perhaps this is an opportunity for education of lawmakers and cooperation. To gain trust and perhaps some cooperation back.
This whole no infringement stuff. Are you guys high? This is the real world.
We have very little if any political clout as a group. Wishing is fine, but at some point reality needs to kick in.
We can right them until we're blue in the face and it won't make any difference.
Name me one time we changed the outcome of a bill with our testimony.
Maybe this is our chance to work them to work with us. Let them know more about concealed carry.

Who even cares about or owns a bump stock?

But the wording of the bill needs to change to be specific to bump stocks like Massachusetts law.

I believe the Uyesugi crime occurred (1999) AFTER the handgun mag limit bill was already law (1992)? "Section 134-8 HRS amended June 29, 1992, banned all magazines that hold more than 10 rounds and are capable of use in a semi-auto handgun." (http://hawaiihistoricarms.com/more-than-10-rds-magazine-ban/) Thus only proving that the law had no effect on stopping a criminal from possessing and using an illegal item.

There was a lot of testimony (the majority) last session opposing SB208, the exclusion of firearm ownership/possession to anyone on the Terrorist Screening Database, and the bill was deferred (tabled) in committee. Was it deferred in part due to the opposing testimony? I don't know. Maybe. Maybe not. That bill has been re-introduced and re-referred to committees, so they might give it another shot. The sponsors of the bill read like the who's who of the communist most "progressive" members of the Hawaii senate.

You want us to help them right a "better" bill infringing our rights that will more likely withstand any future legal challenges? Not my idea of Second Amendment activism, but I know some out there differ.

Name me one time we changed the outcome of a bill with our testimony.

last year we stopped the liability insurance requirement

We need testimony from non firearm related organizations like the aclu, domestic violence, unions, and other groups.

Those would make a big difference.  In general, not for this specific bill.

Great example of laws only affecting the law abiding Puna.
And often their ineffectiveness. 

Good example also Mac.

I generally always submit testimony on the 2A bills and will on these.

However, my testimony will be on how poorly worded and general they are.

I just see this as a chance to play politics with politicians without really losing anything.
We are in a crazy ass blue state, like it or not.
Learn the rules then play the game.

Idealism and wishful thinking doesn't get us anywhere.

We need testimony from non firearm related organizations like the aclu, domestic violence, unions, and other groups.

Those would make a big difference.  In general, not for this specific bill.

I talked to Kimberly Scott, the mother of Charli Scott, that girl who was preggers and killed by her exbf on Maui.  I told her that if Charli were armed (CCW), she might have had a better chance to survive the attack.  Because she was over powered by the ex.  Kimberly agreed, but it seems her focus is on changing the laws so that killing a pregnant woman, you can also be charged in the death of her unborn child.  I told her that the law she is proposing is only after the fact, and won't prevent it from happening.

Forget about the ACLU, unless we get a black guy to testify about racism and how he can't carry.

you going to get together with your people at HPD to make this happen?

Yeah, because police, not the legislature, pass laws. 

Only a progressive would consider giving up one right to get another right back is a good thing. 

If law makers are possibly willing to "trade" suppressors for bump stocks," doesn't that scream, "maybe suppressors should not have been restricted/forbidden to start with?"

If you can get a right back by trading another for it, then violating the first right was neither right nor justified.

Oh please, we have already given up rights and we are about to lose another. Be realistic and see what we can get back. If the choice is no bump stock and no suppressors vs no bump stock but suppressors are legal I would choose the latter.

That being said, full auto is right about where I draw the line for what weapons should be legal and illegal, so from my stance I am really not giving up any rights.

And stop playing the you're just a progressive card, you are just as bad as those who drop the race card when one of their snowflake ideas is challenged.

Oh please, we have already given up rights and we are about to lose another. Be realistic and see what we can get back. If the choice is no bump stock and no suppressors vs no bump stock but suppressors are legal I would choose the latter.

That being said, full auto is right about where I draw the line for what weapons should be legal and illegal, so from my stance I am really not giving up any rights.

And stop playing the you're just a progressive card, you are just as bad as those who drop the race card when one of their snowflake ideas is challenged.

The loss of full auto is when we stepped onto that slope that was full of algae.

The loss of full auto is when we stepped onto that slope that was full of algae.

A line has to be drawn somewhere. We can agree to disagree of course, but that is just where I would draw the line.

I talked to Kimberly Scott, the mother of Charli Scott, that girl who was preggers and killed by her exbf on Maui.  I told her that if Charli were armed (CCW), she might have had a better chance to survive the attack.  Because she was over powered by the ex.  Kimberly agreed, but it seems her focus is on changing the laws so that killing a pregnant woman, you can also be charged in the death of her unborn child.  I told her that the law she is proposing is only after the fact, and won't prevent it from happening.

Forget about the ACLU, unless we get a black guy to testify about racism and how he can't carry.

To do that they would have to say an unborn child is a life and as such abortion is murder. Never go a happen.

To do that they would have to say an unborn child is a life and as such abortion is murder. Never go a happen.

It's already happened in 38 states with fetal homicide laws.  At least 23 states have fetal homicide laws that apply to the earliest stages of pregnancy.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx

 

I just don't want this to turn into an unborn fetus thread. That's a whole 'nother thread
If someone wants to start it.

No, I'm not a moderator.

Oh please, we have already given up rights and we are about to lose another. Be realistic and see what we can get back. If the choice is no bump stock and no suppressors vs no bump stock but suppressors are legal I would choose the latter.

Interesting coincidence that today's "Quote of the Day" on Joe Huffman's blog is about this very topic. He quotes former NRA leader Neal Knox's book "The Gun Rights War", and then adds a comment of his own. Please go to the original to see all the active links.
http://blog.joehuffman.org/2018/01/23/quote-of-the-day-james-a-garfield/

There is a silly notion, fervently adhered to by many gun owners, that if our side of the gun issue would just sit down and talk with the other side, we could work out a “reasonable” compromise that would satisfy “society’s need to keep guns out of the hands of criminals,” while imposing little inconvenience upon law-abiding gun owners.

…and the lion shall lie down with the lamb.

These people will say whatever it takes, no matter how deceptive, and suppress factual data to achieve their goals. These are evil people and it is time we stand up to politicians who advocate for infringements upon our rights. We must tell them they have no business being a public servant. They belong in prison. [And I'll add: AMEN!!]

That being said, full auto is right about where I draw the line for what weapons should be legal and illegal, so from my stance I am really not giving up any rights.

I think I heard some black people saying that in the 1960s who were satisfied riding in the back of the bus... never.