A few years ago when a similar flawed bill was presented I wrote this letter to the senators in response to it. Please feel free to copy, edit and use the text to send your own similar letters now if you wish. All the contact info for our senators can be found on the Hawaii Capitol website.
Dear Senator,
Recently gun control has become a bit of a national topic in the hopes that somehow making more, and more restrictive laws will somehow only takes firearms away from criminals and the mentally ill. I can not agree with this logic at all. The term assault weapon specifically refers to fully automatic weapons that are used by the military. Currently in Hawaii and in most States fully automatic weapons of any type are already illegal. A semi-automatic firearm does not have any increased rate of fire than other firearms. All the semi-automatic refers to is the it cycles the bolt on its own mechanically instead of the shooter having to manually operate the bolt for each round. A well trained marksman could fire the same number of shots just as fast with a revolver, bolt action or a semi-auto so I don't see how a semi-automatic firearm is more dangerous than any other firearm. Honestly can you really think of a single firearm that could not be used to assault someone? They are weapons just like any other dangerous instrument and need to be handled responsibly and with respect.
The second amendment of the US constitution is very clear in saying; A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. In 2008 The Supreme Court ruled in The District of Columbia v. Heller, (554 U.S. 570) that the Second Amendment protects an individuals right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditional purposes, such as self-defense within the home and within many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms. In 2010 McDonald v. Chicago, (562 U.S. 3025) the court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.
I have heard arguments made that the second Amendment was referring to flintlock muskets only because that is all they had at the time. I can't see how people intelligent enough to write the constitution could not have imagined that there would be new inventions and improvements to all manner of things including firearms. If we say that the second amendment only applies to certain types of firearms that are not modern then couldn't the same logic be used to say that the first amendment doesn't apply to the internet or television as when it was written these were not considered. Or that the fourth amendment doesn't apply because they didn't consider camera's or DNA or other modern forensics. Our founding fathers wrote the 2nd amendment specifically meaning for the people to be as well armed as any country is, including our own, so as to give the people a means to defend themselves from the tyranny that we had just fought for independence from and spilled countless amounts of American blood for.
I have also seen people argue that, what do you need a semi-automatic AR-15 or AK-47 or other so called "Assault Rifle" for? They argue that they aren't good for hunting or home defense. If they were so bad for this purpose then why do millions of people across the nation use them for it? Did Rosa Parks need to sit in the front of the bus? Did Susan B. Anthony need to vote? Or did any journalist ever need to write anything unpleasant or controversial? In the United States of America when has there ever been a requirement to prove a need to exercise a right?
I urge you as one of your constituents, who is also a registered voter, to vote against any measure that would make ownership of any firearm or part thereof by a law abiding, responsible, person in the United States of America and all 50 states illegal. The passing of any such law would only serve to strip us of our constitutional rights.
If you truly want to make an effective difference with gun violence instead go after the real problem. Find ways to help States prosecute and punish properly those who would use firearms maliciously to commit crimes. In every act out there that a firearm was used in a crime there was also a criminal disregarding the current laws that prohibited him from doing such an act. Also we must find a better way to help the mentally ill so as to prevent them from being allowed to hurt themselves or others due to their mental instability. In each incident such as the Xerox shooting in Hawaii, the Theater Shooting in Colorado, The Sandy Hook Elementary shooting, Ect.. Under current law all these people who did these abhorrent things were mentally ill and already under current law prohibited from firearm possession or ownership. If they had access to proper medical help or counseling perhaps these tragedies could have been avoided.
Thank you for your time in reading this and for your service to the great State of Hawaii as Senator.
Aloha