From Tulsi Gabbard's email this morning. Seems she inadvertently left out a ban on revolvers. The original email has links to various articles about her support for all the measures listed and comments from people who are totally ignorant about anything at all having to do with firearms and the laws that govern them, that is, the people that Gabbard listens to and looks to for re-election. For example:

https://gabbard.house.gov/news/in-the-news/garden-island-some-call-stricter-laws-ban-assault-weapons

Puhi’s Mona Green, originally from Spokane, Wash., said that we need to take away the hard automatic guns.

“I don’t think that we should be selling them in our country. There’s no need for them,” she said.

Passing Gun Safety Legislation Now

The horrific tragedy that occurred at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School left 17 dead, at least 14 injured, and a community and nation in mourning. On the first assembly back at school, some Hawai'i students, teachers, and volunteers delivered a Lei of Aloha to the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School community, to share our aloha with them and to let them know we stand with them not only during this time of tragedy, but as we work toward necessary reforms to our gun safety laws. We can’t allow partisan politics to get in the way of common sense change.

Here are a few bipartisan, common sense actions that I’m working on:

Requiring background checks on anyone seeking to purchase a gun
Closing the Gun Show Loophole and pushing the Gun Show Loophole Closing Act
Banning military-style assault weapons through the Assault Weapons Ban of 2018
Banning Bump Stocks – devices that turn a semi-automatic weapon into a fully automatic weapon and can fire 400 to 800 rounds a minute
Closing the Sutherland Springs Background Check Loophole to ensure that any individual convicted of domestic violence cannot legally purchase a firearm

Its great that she is putting her experience as an MP officer to good use
How many of us can compare to the weapon knowledge she has in the military?

1) Requiring background checks on anyone seeking to purchase a gun
2) Closing the Gun Show Loophole and pushing the Gun Show Loophole Closing Act
3) Banning military-style assault weapons through the Assault Weapons Ban of 2018
4) Banning Bump Stocks – devices that turn a semi-automatic weapon into a fully automatic weapon and can fire 400 to 800 rounds a minute
5) Closing the Sutherland Springs Background Check Loophole to ensure that any individual convicted of domestic violence cannot legally purchase a firearm

1) Already in place for the most part.  See more discussion on Item 2
2) It was my understanding that while many states still allow sale of firearms by "private owners" to individuals where they "don't have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from possessing firearms", that the vast majority of sales at gun shows on the mainland are from licensed sellers.  That's not to say that persons who would otherwise be prohibited from firearm ownership couldn't get a gun from a private seller, but I thought that in "almost every high-profile case in recent years, the perpetrator had no criminal record or record of mental illness that barred the purchase of a firearm. The infamous mass shooters in Aurora, Tucson, Roanoke, and Oregon all legally purchased their guns from federally-licensed firearms dealers in accordance with all federal and state laws."

https://www.nationalreview.com/blog/corner/perpetual-scapegoat-gun-show-loophole/

3) Great. . .
4) Bump stocks don't turn a semi-auto firearm into a fully automatic.  Though the stock does allow the function to increase rate of fire similar to full-auto.  At least according to ATF (IIRC).
5) I thought conviction of violent crimes is usually cause for barring of firearm ownership in most states.

Its great that she is putting her experience as an MP officer to good use
How many of us can compare to the weapon knowledge she has in the military?

She can’t shoot for shit, true story. More hits to the ground infront of the targets than my 92A who was our CLS and had never fired a pistol before.

She can’t shoot for shit, true story. More hits to the ground infront of the targets than my 92A who was our CLS and had never fired a pistol before.

outrageous...so you mean an experienced officer, a military police officer can't hit a target? I suppose those targets were pretty far away.

Here's a portion of a generic email she sent to me in 2013 after I "questioned" her positions on several Second Amendment issues. I think these few sentences sum up the most salient points re her positions (bold added).

Summing up:

Her military experience gives her some kind of special knowledge and moral authority to determine the extent of our rights.
Thus she opposes "high-capacity clips".
She believes Hawaii bans "high-capacity clips".
She supports the Second Amendment right to bear arms.
The right to bear arms is fulfilled by hunting.

* * * * *

As a Soldier and Military Police Officer, I have received extensive training and have significant experience in handling a variety of firearms.   Having firsthand knowledge of the impact of these weapons, and the devastation they can cause, I do not see any role for military-style assault weapons on our streets and in our communities.   This is why I support reinstating the assault weapons ban, and a ban on high-capacity clips holding more than 10 rounds.   These provisions replicate the protections that we have already in place in Hawai`i, and which have played a role in our state having the lowest firearm-related homicide rate in the country.

I support the Second Amendment and our constitutional right to bear arms. In Hawai`i, we have a rich tradition of hunting, and some of our families rely on it not only for food, but for their livelihood. These responsible gun owners will not be affected by this change in federal policy, and will be able to continue their activities unaffected.

Here's a portion of a generic email she sent to me in 2013 after I "questioned" her positions on several Second Amendment issues. I think these few sentences sum up the most salient points re her positions (bold added).

Summing up:

Her military experience gives her some kind of special knowledge and moral authority to determine the extent of our rights.
Thus she opposes "high-capacity clips".
She believes Hawaii bans "high-capacity clips".
She supports the Second Amendment right to bear arms.
The right to bear arms is fulfilled by hunting.

* * * * *

As a Soldier and Military Police Officer, I have received extensive training and have significant experience in handling a variety of firearms.   Having firsthand knowledge of the impact of these weapons, and the devastation they can cause, I do not see any role for military-style assault weapons on our streets and in our communities.   This is why I support reinstating the assault weapons ban, and a ban on high-capacity clips holding more than 10 rounds.   These provisions replicate the protections that we have already in place in Hawai`i, and which have played a role in our state having the lowest firearm-related homicide rate in the country.

I support the Second Amendment and our constitutional right to bear arms. In Hawai`i, we have a rich tradition of hunting, and some of our families rely on it not only for food, but for their livelihood. These responsible gun owners will not be affected by this change in federal policy, and will be able to continue their activities unaffected.

EXTENSIVE TRAINING   

Did the Assault weapons ban of 1994 work? A classmate of mine said that the ban on 30 round mags would hold no value because anybody competent with an "assault weapon" could reload a 10 round mag in less than a few seconds. Whats y'all opinions on this?

Did the Assault weapons ban of 1994 work? A classmate of mine said that the ban on 30 round mags would hold no value because anybody competent with an "assault weapon" could reload a 10 round mag in less than a few seconds. Whats y'all opinions on this?

The recent Florida School shooter, Cruz, used nothing but 10 rd mags for his AR. 

Mag limits just result in more money for more mags and more frequent mag changes.  The delay to change a mag is a couple of seconds if the mags are readily accessible, like on a tactical vest with pouches.

The CDC released 2 reports both saying there is no discernible affect on crime from the 1994 AWB.  In fact, crime involving guns was already dropping before the ban and has continued to trend downward after the ban expired.

The fact that rifles are used in only about 3% of all gun related crimes, and of that small percentage not all are "assault weapons", eliminating them from all existence would have no impact on crime.  There are plenty of other weapons available to use including different firearms.

The VA Tech shooting claimed 33 lives (including the shooter's suicide).  Weapons used were a Glock 19 and Walther P22 -- both semi-automatic handguns.  Taking away all semi-auto rifles would impact crime 0%.

Did the Assault weapons ban of 1994 work? A classmate of mine said that the ban on 30 round mags would hold no value because anybody competent with an "assault weapon" could reload a 10 round mag in less than a few seconds. Whats y'all opinions on this?

The Isla Vista murderer used California-compliant 10-round mags. He killed half his homicide victims with knives, and injured more with his car.

That said, every mag change would be a brief opportunity to intervene or attempt escape, especially if there was a mistake like dropping the new mag or fumbling with it. The logical conclusion of that line of thinking, is, as we can see all around us... single-shot break-open firearms are the best for "public safety"... well, except for a total ban on possession of any firearm at all. That's where it all leads.

....... The logical conclusion of that line of thinking, is, as we can see all around us... single-shot break-open firearms are the best for "public safety"... well, except for a total ban on possession of any firearm at all. That's where it all leads.

Isn't that what's best for the children?

Isn't that what's best for the children?

Not for the children of a single mother whose home is being invaded in the middle of the night by multiple assailants... among others...

That may be a "rare" event, perhaps more rare than a home fire, but some people like to be "prepared" even for statistically unlikely events, thus they have smoke detectors, fire extinguishers, and guns.

Or some incident like a natural disaster or riot where law enforcement ceases to function.

The recent Florida School shooter, Cruz, used nothing but 10 rd mags for his AR. 

1) Mag limits just result in more money for more mags and more frequent mag changes.  The delay to change a mag is a couple of seconds if the mags are readily accessible, like on a tactical vest with pouches.

2) The CDC released 2 reports both saying there is no discernible affect on crime from the 1994 AWB.  In fact, crime involving guns was already dropping before the ban and has continued to trend downward after the ban expired.

The fact that rifles are used in only about 3% of all gun related crimes, and of that small percentage not all are "assault weapons", eliminating them from all existence would have no impact on crime.  There are plenty of other weapons available to use including different firearms.

The VA Tech shooting claimed 33 lives (including the shooter's suicide).  Weapons used were a Glock 19 and Walther P22 -- both semi-automatic handguns.  Taking away all semi-auto rifles would impact crime 0%.

1) While I see and generally agree with your point from a pro-2a perspective, this is one line of thinking that I also see being used for anti-2a arguments for banning the guns themselves.  "We tried mag limits, didn't work as the limited capacity mags are capable of just as much carnage. . . ".  Next they will target restricting on "tactical training" classes and will have to refer to them as "sport shooting training". 

2) Forget looking at that stuff logically or at the data.  Banning all "assault weapons" serves to allow anti-2a and even neutral-2a folks to feel like they accomplished something and thus FEEL safer, while not actually improving the situation.  A result of the "we MUST do something" mentality, but the pack is steered down "guns are bad" path.  [rant off]

"Requiring background checks on anyone seeking to purchase a gun"

ok.  lets see how good Hawaii's background check records are:



Oh....
no felons on the background check list?

ok....   so you want to expand the background checks to every one, using an empty list?

You guys are rocket surgeon smart.

Its great that she is putting her experience as an MP officer to good use
How many of us can compare to the weapon knowledge she has in the military?

Probably the same as people who aren't active enlisted, yet talk like they are with 2/75.

Sound familiar?

Probably the same as people who aren't active enlisted, yet talk like they are with 2/75.

Sound familiar?

If you are referring to me, I never claimed to be a Ranger.
Nor received any kind of advanced training.

If you are referring to me, I never claimed to be a Ranger.
Nor received any kind of advanced training.

Yes. You have. I trained you myself.

Its great that she is putting her experience as an MP officer to good use
How many of us can compare to the weapon knowledge she has in the military?

Tulsi was first commissioned as a 2nd Lt in a medical unit of the HIARNG before she became an MP officer. Her extent of firearms experience as an officer is qualification with the assigned firearm (M9 pistol) on an annual basis. Prior to range qualification everyone attends a PMI (Primary Marksmanship Instruction) class to re-inforce the fundamentals of shooting. Her knowledge of firearms is compartmentalized to the military side of the house. She doesn't publicly shoot or have firearms of her own. I'm sure she has perhaps spoken to legally owned firearm owners in Hawaii that support the 2A. My commentary is opinionated in that she's perhaps is un-informed on what the term "assault" means and "loopholes". Terms that are thrown around the media and distributed by supporters of a firearms BAN.

What we all want is "How do we keep our keiki safe?", "What can we do to protect our firearm rights (2A) with respect to prohibiting ownership to those that are to do us harm?", "What measures can we implement to protect soft target rich environments from an active shooter(s)."

Perhaps everyone that owns a firearm legally will have to bear the burden of the actions of a few that commit crimes of mass proportions.

Oh and btw, there are MP's that BOLO on the range with a rifle (M4) AND a pistol (M9).....just bcuz you're an MP doesn't give you any more knowledge or experience of a firearm than anyone else.

"Requiring background checks on anyone seeking to purchase a gun"

ok.  lets see how good Hawaii's background check records are:



Oh....
no felons on the background check list?

ok....   so you want to expand the background checks to every one, using an empty list?

You guys are rocket surgeon smart.

adjudicated mental health?  Like a judge, in a court of law?  I want to see the stat of how many of these were turned over..   Such BS