So we have a few more days to call and email these committee chairs with our $0.02 regarding this bill ... fine. So be it.

I'll repost the list here for anyone who wants to follow the above suggestion (NIshihara and Thielen were present today):

COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY, INTERGOVERNMENTAL, AND MILITARY AFFAIRS

Senator Clarence K. Nishihara, Chair
phone: 808-586-6970
fax: 808-586-6879
sennishihara@capitol.hawaii.gov

Senator Glenn Wakai, Vice Chair
phone: 808-586-8585
fax: 808-586-8588
senwakai@capitol.hawaii.gov

Members

Rosalyn H. Baker   
phone: 808-586-6070
fax: 808-586-6071
senbaker@capitol.hawaii.gov

Laura H. Thielen
phone: 808-587-8388
fax: 808-587-7240
senthielen@capitol.hawaii.gov

Les Ihara Jr.   
phone: 808-586-6250
fax: 808-586-6251
senihara@capitol.hawaii.gov

S 2/1/2018: The committee(s) on PSM deferred the measure until 02-06-18 1:20PM in conference room 229.   
https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2018/bills/SB2046_.pdf   
SB2046   Firearms; Trigger Modification Devices; Bump Stocks   RELATING TO FIREARMS.   
Prohibits trigger modification devices, including bump stocks, that are designed or function to accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic firearm.   
Oppose.   K. RHOADS, S. CHANG, KEITH-AGARAN, NISHIHARA, Shimabukuro   PSM, JDC

S 2/1/2018: The committee(s) on PSM deferred the measure until 02-06-18 1:20PM in conference room 229.   
https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2018/bills/SB2046_.pdf   
SB2046   Firearms; Trigger Modification Devices; Bump Stocks   RELATING TO FIREARMS.   
Prohibits trigger modification devices, including bump stocks, that are designed or function to accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic firearm.   
Oppose.   K. RHOADS, S. CHANG, KEITH-AGARAN, NISHIHARA, Shimabukuro   PSM, JDC

S 2/1/2018: The committee(s) on PSM deferred the measure until 02-06-18 1:20PM in conference room 229.   
https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2018/bills/SB2046_.pdf   
SB2046   Firearms; Trigger Modification Devices; Bump Stocks   RELATING TO FIREARMS.   
Prohibits trigger modification devices, including bump stocks, that are designed or function to accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic firearm.   
Oppose.   K. RHOADS, S. CHANG, KEITH-AGARAN, NISHIHARA, Shimabukuro   PSM, JDC

Those listed after oppose in red in fact opposed? Rhonda? Wow if that’s true.

Those listed after oppose in red in fact opposed? Rhonda? Wow if that’s true.

No. That's just an "artifact" of the "copy and paste" from the spreadsheet. It's the suggestion to those here to "oppose" the bill. The following names are the entire list of introducers of the bill and not related to their position on the bill (which would obviously be in support of a bill they introduce).

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rwd7YQNUy9ALVIXR81-Sh1tfWuiYLOaX4re1bDN-GBY/edit#gid=504834860

No. That's just an "artifact" of the "copy and paste" from the spreadsheet. It's the suggestion to those here to "oppose" the bill. The following names are the entire list of introducers of the bill and not related to their position on the bill.

as previously mentioned, it was deferred because there was not a quorum
they were running out of time, but they did take in-person testimony

as previously mentioned, it was deferred because there was not a quorum
they were running out of time, but they did take in-person testimony

My recollection is that the chair allowed two in-person testimonies. He gave Dan Reid of the NRA 40 seconds to repeat several NRA talking points, and then allowed one other person who has an FFL manufacturing license to speak for less than two minutes (he explained that if he got two factory rifles, both Hawaii legal, one of which had a slightly lesser trigger pull than the other, and took that lesser pull trigger out of the one rifle and put it in the other rifle he would be guilty under the proposed law of modifying).

Chairman starts off the committee meeting by saying that there are too many people who want to testify on SB2046, so (even though you took time off work and came all the way down here and maybe paid for parking, etc.) you won't be able to testify. Why have "in person" testimony if there is a "time limit" that is interpreted to mean the vast majority of people there to testify can't testify? So much for "public input".   

i was there, he actually stated that there were many bills that had numerous people testifying, so people should keep that in mind
and there is a "time limit" for everyone testifying, not just for SB2046
it just turned out that since SB2046 was one of the last bills, they didn't give the testifiers much time
your call if that was deliberate or not
but the gun violence protective order was not last, and neither meeting took the bills in order, so who knows?

I'll repost the list here for anyone who wants to follow the above suggestion (NIshihara and Thielen were present today):

COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY, INTERGOVERNMENTAL, AND MILITARY AFFAIRS

Senator Clarence K. Nishihara, Chair
phone: 808-586-6970
fax: 808-586-6879
sennishihara@capitol.hawaii.gov

Senator Glenn Wakai, Vice Chair
phone: 808-586-8585
fax: 808-586-8588
senwakai@capitol.hawaii.gov

Members

Rosalyn H. Baker   
phone: 808-586-6070
fax: 808-586-6071
senbaker@capitol.hawaii.gov

Laura H. Thielen
phone: 808-587-8388
fax: 808-587-7240
senthielen@capitol.hawaii.gov

Les Ihara Jr.   
phone: 808-586-6250
fax: 808-586-6251
senihara@capitol.hawaii.gov

Oh yeah I got those... BTW still ZERO response to the two sets of messages I left for ALL of these individuals, so emails had to do. Same goes for my attempts to request NO HEARING for SB 2265 (5 year registration, bans on flash hiders, etc...). 

No. That's just an "artifact" of the "copy and paste" from the spreadsheet. It's the suggestion to those here to "oppose" the bill. The following names are the entire list of introducers of the bill and not related to their position on the bill (which would obviously be in support of a bill they introduce).

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rwd7YQNUy9ALVIXR81-Sh1tfWuiYLOaX4re1bDN-GBY/edit#gid=504834860

Cool. Thanks.

i was there, he actually stated that there were many bills that had numerous people testifying, so people should keep that in mind
and there is a "time limit" for everyone testifying, not just for SB2046
it just turned out that since SB2046 was one of the last bills, they didn't give the testifiers much time
your call if that was deliberate or not
but the gun violence protective order was not last, and neither meeting took the bills in order, so who knows?

I think it would be "helpful" if they had an upfront stated policy about how much in-person testimony would be allowed per bill considered. It could be "five minutes total for each side FOR and OPPOSED, each individual one minute maximum unless there are fewer than five people in which case the time will be divided evenly" or something like that. They could also notify people shortly after the 24 hour-prior-to-meeting deadline for written testimony is due which five people who opted to present live testimony were to be included in that group, with maybe two or three "alternates" in case some of the first five are no shows, thus saving others from taking time off work, driving, etc. to no end if they aren't allowed to testify. Why the "hard" deadline when the meeting had to end? Schedule more time between the end of one set of meetings and the next round if that was the issue. I mean, I know they don't care about wasting citizens' time and money, but they could extend such a policy as a simple courtesy. Or maybe it doesn't matter to anyone there and they are all happy to have gone to the meeting and not gotten a chance to testify. It doesn't effect me, being on an "outer island", as I won't be traveling to Oahu. It just doesn't have the "appearance" of equity. The chair has the sole power to decide which bills will be granted a hearing at all, so why have a format that has the appearance of the opportunity to allow public input, and then cut that public input to a negligible amount? Especially given that the chairman ignores all requests to schedule hearings for the bills that would begin to restore some of our trampled rights. I'm just sayin'...

I think it would be "helpful" if they had an upfront stated policy about how much in-person testimony would be allowed per bill considered. It could be "five minutes total for each side FOR and OPPOSED, each individual one minute maximum unless there are fewer than five people in which case the time will be divided evenly" or something like that. They could also notify people shortly after the 24 hour-prior-to-meeting deadline for written testimony is due which five people who opted to present live testimony were to be included in that group, with maybe two or three "alternates" in case some of the first five are no shows, thus saving others from taking time off work, driving, etc. to no end if they aren't allowed to testify. Why the "hard" deadline when the meeting had to end? Schedule more time between the end of one set of meetings and the next round if that was the issue. I mean, I know they don't care about wasting citizens' time and money, but they could extend such a policy as a simple courtesy. Or maybe it doesn't matter to anyone there and they are all happy to have gone to the meeting and not gotten a chance to testify. It doesn't effect me, being on an "outer island", as I won't be traveling to Oahu. It just doesn't have the "appearance" of equity. The chair has the sole power to decide which bills will be granted a hearing at all, so why have a format that has the appearance of the opportunity to allow public input, and then cut that public input to a negligible amount? Especially given that the chairman ignores all requests to schedule hearings for the bills that would begin to restore some of our trampled rights. I'm just sayin'...

no one was not allowed to testify
I spoke to someone present, and the chair asked who wanted to speak, and only those who spoke raised their hands

I think it would be "helpful" if they had an upfront stated policy about how much in-person testimony would be allowed per bill considered. It could be "five minutes total for each side FOR and OPPOSED, each individual one minute maximum unless there are fewer than five people in which case the time will be divided evenly" or something like that. They could also notify people shortly after the 24 hour-prior-to-meeting deadline for written testimony is due which five people who opted to present live testimony were to be included in that group, with maybe two or three "alternates" in case some of the first five are no shows, thus saving others from taking time off work, driving, etc. to no end if they aren't allowed to testify. Why the "hard" deadline when the meeting had to end? Schedule more time between the end of one set of meetings and the next round if that was the issue. I mean, I know they don't care about wasting citizens' time and money, but they could extend such a policy as a simple courtesy. Or maybe it doesn't matter to anyone there and they are all happy to have gone to the meeting and not gotten a chance to testify. It doesn't effect me, being on an "outer island", as I won't be traveling to Oahu. It just doesn't have the "appearance" of equity. The chair has the sole power to decide which bills will be granted a hearing at all, so why have a format that has the appearance of the opportunity to allow public input, and then cut that public input to a negligible amount? Especially given that the chairman ignores all requests to schedule hearings for the bills that would begin to restore some of our trampled rights. I'm just sayin'...

Sounds like an unusual situation, I've never seen this before when I testified at the capitol.  If they're short on time, they'll usually limit people to 2 minutes and cut them off when time is up or tell people not to repeat the same talking points again.  1 minute isn't much time to do anything.

Sounds like an unusual situation, I've never seen this before when I testified at the capitol.  If they're short on time, they'll usually limit people to 2 minutes and cut them off when time is up or tell people not to repeat the same talking points again.  1 minute isn't much time to do anything.

I'm waiting for the meeting video to get posted. Maybe I misunderstood the words of the chairman, both at the very opening of the meeting and just prior to hearing anyone comment on the bill. I'll report once I get to hear that. I'm not sure if the fact that the chairman was one of the introducers of the bill might influence his decisions about hearing testimony. I mean, I know it's not supposed to, but he did know that the written testimony had gone 103 to 5 against him...

An even quicker and easier way to contact the committee members... of course it'll be seen as spam mass mailing from the NRA-ILA which might not count as much, but... I rather doubt that it matters much.

https://act.nraila.org/default.aspx

Click on Hawaii on the map and SB2046 will be the first choice.

Another issue with testimony:

http://www.civilbeat.org/2018/02/legislature-keeps-written-testimony-under-wraps-til-the-last-minute/

Legislature Keeps Written Testimony Under Wraps Til The Last Minute

The common practice of not releasing testimony to the public until an hour before a hearing has one Republican lawmaker pushing for change.

A GOP lawmaker is decrying the Legislature’s lack of transparency when it comes to making public the written testimony on proposed legislation.

“I’m very disturbed about the lack of open government,” Rep. Cynthia Thielen said Friday. “When chairs refuse to release that testimony in a meaningful way then they control all the information.”

Following what has become common practice in the Hawaii Legislature, Yamane decided to keep the public from seeing written  testimony on bills until an hour before the hearing.

Thielen said in the past she did not receive testimony until just before the committee hearing started, a concern other lawmakers have privately expressed.

[Just one bill, the one that is the subject of this thread, before the committee the other day had 117 pages of testimony... and they looked at at least 6 other bills in that meeting... they get the testimony "just before the meeting"?]

It is now seven hours prior to the PSM committee meeting this afternoon (1:20 PM) during which, assuming a quorum is present this time, the "decision making" will take place on the ten bills presented, along with testimony, during the quorumless meeting on Feb. 1.

According to the Senate "Upcoming Live Events" schedule (http://olelo.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=13), only one committee meeting will be broadcast today, and two tomorrow, and the PSM "decision making" meeting today is not among them. So we apparently won't get to see or hear our "representatives" as they present their reasoning prior to their votes unless you live on or travel to Oahu and attend the meeting in person, and that room has a capacity of what, maybe 40 people at the most? So that means that approximately .000029% of the states population will be able to witness this "decision making".

Also the same page has not posted the video of the PSM meeting from Feb. 1, which I hoped to see to get exact quotes from chairperson Nishihara regarding the presentation of testimony re SB2046 and limitations upon that.

Maybe they will schedule streaming later in the day, but the other streams listed for today and tomorrow have been posted for days.

Also the "Late Testimony" has been posted (https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/Session2018/Testimony/SB2046_TESTIMONY_PSM_02-01-18_LATE.PDF).

FOR              1 (ONE)
OPPOSED  17 (SEVENTEEN)

Testimony TOTAL

FOR                 6 (SIX)
OPPOSED   120 (ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY)

120 OPPOSED is not a lot.  yes, I submitted.  my opinion, we need 10 times that many, to really make a statement.

120 OPPOSED is not a lot.  yes, I submitted.  my opinion, we need 10 times that many, to really make a statement.

I agree 120 is a good start and it did surprise me.  We do need several hundred to make them give things a second look and thousands for them to approve something like CCW.