too soon? 

I've just sent my proposed bill for the next legislative session to my senator and representative asking them to submit it as "submitted by request of a third party", which means that they don't support it, but are doing it as a "service" to a constituent. Please feel free to copy and submit it to your respective legislators. Will any of them actually submit it? I'm guessing not likely. But maybe they'll get the idea that there are a bunch of gun nuts at least a few people in the public that care about being able to lawfully exercise their  supposedly constitutionally-protected rights.

[Note: When amending existing legislation, deleted language is [struck through] and bracketed, and new language is underlined.]

Representative/Senator [Z],

As my representative/senator I hope you will be willing to introduce the following bill for me ("submitted by request of a third party"). I understand that it would be submitted to the legislature's body that approves and amends the precise legal language of any bill.

thank you,
[Y]


§134-9 Carrying Weapons Any person not prohibited by the following conditions may carry any lawfully owned or possessed weapon in any location not prohibited by state or federal law. [Licenses to carry. (a) In an exceptional case, when an applicant shows reason to fear injury to the applicant's person or property, the chief of police of the appropriate county may grant a license to an applicant who is a citizen of the United States of the age of twenty-one years or more or to a duly accredited official representative of a foreign nation of the age of twenty-one years or more to carry a pistol or revolver and ammunition therefor concealed on the person within the county where the license is granted.

Where the urgency or the need has been sufficiently indicated, the respective chief of police may grant to an applicant of good moral character who is a citizen of the United States of the age of twenty-one years or more, is engaged in the protection of life and property, and is not prohibited under section 134-7 from the ownership or possession of a firearm, a license to carry a pistol or revolver and ammunition therefor unconcealed on the person within the county where the license is granted. The chief of police of the appropriate county, or the chief's designated representative, shall perform an inquiry on an applicant by using the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, to include a check of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement databases where the applicant is not a citizen of the United States, before any determination to grant a license is made. Unless renewed, the license shall expire one year from the date of issue.
(b) The chief of police of each county shall adopt procedures to require that any person granted a license to carry a concealed weapon on the person shall:
(1) Be qualified to use the firearm in a safe manner;
(2) Appear to be a suitable person to be so licensed;]
[(3)] (1) Not be prohibited under section 134-7 from the ownership or possession of a firearm; and
[(4)] (2) Not have been adjudged insane. [or not appear to be mentally deranged.
(c) No person shall carry concealed or unconcealed on the person a pistol or revolver without being licensed to do so under this section or in compliance with sections 134-5(c) or 134-25.
(d) A fee of $10 shall be charged for each license and shall be deposited in the treasury of the county in which the license is granted. [L 1988, c 275, pt of §2; am L 1994, c 204, §8; am L 1997, c 254, §§2, 4; am L 2000, c 96, §1; am L 2002, c 79, §1; am L 2006, c 27, §3 and c 66, §3; am L 2007, c 9, §8]]

Edit: corrected failure to bracket "appears to be mentally deranged" previously struck phrase. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want my ability to exercise my rights depending on what some cop or other government bureaucrat evaluates as my "appearance".

never too soon

https://www.civilbeat.org/2018/12/danny-de-gracia-how-to-get-what-you-want-from-the-legislature/

I submitted the following email this morning to every Hawaii state legislator (see list of all current legislator email addresses posted as a separate thread in this Legal and Activism" section) except the two clowns who purportedly "represent" me and have not responded at all in any manner whatsoever to my email to them over 10 days ago... as posted above. In today's email to them all I included the proposed text of the bill as above in the original post above.

December 20, 2018

Dear Legislator,

I submitted the following proposed bill to both my district senator and representative more than 10 days ago and have not received any response at all from either of them, thus I hope you will be willing to introduce the following bill for me ("Introduced by request of another party"). I understand that it would be submitted to the legislature's body that approves and amends the precise legal language of any bill.

Please note that there is no quality evidence that will withstand critical scrutiny that there is even any correlation, much less causation, related to the increased number of people carrying firearms in public and any increase in crime of any kind nor any other issue of jeopardized "public safety". In fact the most recent study, coming from the usually extremely biased anti-firearm rights medical community (Hamill, M.E., Hernandez, M.C., Bailey, K.R. et al. State level firearm concealed-carry legislation and rates of homicide and other violent crime. J Am Coll Surg. 2018 Sep 27) which looked at every single state over a period of 30 years and corrected for numerous variables (income, health, etc.) concludes "This study demonstrated no statistically significant association between the liberalization of state level firearm carry legislation over the last 30 years and the rates of homicides or other violent crime. Policy efforts aimed at injury prevention and the reduction of firearm-related violence should likely investigate other targets for potential intervention."

Please help restore the fundamental individual enumerated inalienable pre-existing constitutionally-protected civil rights of Hawaii's law-abiding citizens where currently not one single one of us are "allowed" to lawfully bear arms outside our homes for self-defense. You have taken an oath to uphold both the United States and Hawaii state constitutions, both of which read identically that our right to bear arms shall not be infringed. If not one single person can exercise that right without being subject to criminal arrest, prosecution and imprisonment, it is obvious that the situation calls for immediate correction and restoration of the pre-existing right. The following proposed bill does just that.

thank you,

Call their office to follow up.  If no response then I'll walk it in next week.

Republican Plans Push to Eliminate Concealed Carry Permit Requirement

Woohoo! Finally someone steps up to the plate! Oh, wait... not Hawaii... Texas. I should have known. Still, I'm going to attempt to get an answer from at least one of the 76 legislators I submitted the permitless carry bill for Hawaii to, who have thus far been totally silent... yeah, even the "Republicans".

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/12/28/texas-republican-plans-push-to-eliminate-concealed-carry-permit-requirement/

Texas Rep. Jonathan Stickland (R) plans a push in the coming legislative session to eliminate the state’s concealed carry permit requirement.

The Victoria Advocate reports this will be Stickland’s third attempt to ditch the requirement.

The language of Stickland’s bill sets for Constitutional Carry of firearms. It means any person 21-years old or older “who is not prohibited from possessing a firearm” can carry a handgun concealed or openly without going through the process of securing a permit from the state government.

The text of the legislation:

Texas constitutional carry proposed legislation 2019

https://legiscan.com/TX/text/HB357/id/1825492