https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B0W1qMtF5JqqLUNBYUIxLWs4S00

Sad that most candidates did NOT return the surveys.      I guess they think that the gun community here in Hawaii does not much matter.

Get out and vote, vote 2A. 

For those not in the HRA you should joint and help strengthen the pro gun lobby in this state.

I was looking at that earlier.  I wonder how they survey responses are ranked.

The voting history is nice, but I'm afraid it doesn't address the sketchy nature of some of the candidates.  Pro 2A or not, I'm not voting for a guy/gal who is of questionable moral values.

Not sure if this is the same info but got this off NRA...

http://www.nrapvf.org/grades-endorsements/2012/hawaii.aspx

THe survey asks a variety of questions related to the ownership of firearms, hunting, concealed carry and support of additional gun control laws. Most responses are multiple choice. As a firearms advocacy group, our grades are based on the single issue of guns and gun control....not that morals shouldn't play a role, but making determinations as to what is "moral" or not, is beyond our mission.

In terms of how they are ranked, the HRA board reviews all the candiates responses and rates them based on how "2A friendly" they are. Now, this is a good screening tool, and many candidates who earned poor grades got them because they sad things like "all guns should be banned" or "only police and the military should have guns." But, keep in mind, these are just answers to questions and it's easy to say the right thing.....remember Karl Rhoads and the question a while back about why HRA endorsed him? Well, it was, in large part, due to his survey response. So he answered all the questions on the survey as if he was going to be a good 2A supporter, but then turned around and introduced very restrictive antigun bills.

So, use the survey, and the voting history to make your choices. If you have the option, support someone who is known to be a 2A supporter. And most of all, get out there and vote.

And, I'll stand on my soap box for a minute here: Someone mentioned that most of the candidates didn't respond. Why do you think that is? Because they know that as a voting block, the pro-firearms crowd here in Hawaii doesn't yield much influence. The HRA has about 1500 members, most relatively inactive in terms of active support (think 10-20 pieces of testimony during legislative season...). If we had a bigger and more active membership, the politicians might see things differently. But, until we have the numbers to exert the type of pressure that makes them think they NEED our support and endorsement, they will continue to ignore us, and our survey. 

THe survey asks a variety of questions related to the ownership of firearms, hunting, concealed carry and support of additional gun control laws. Most responses are multiple choice. As a firearms advocacy group, our grades are based on the single issue of guns and gun control....not that morals shouldn't play a role, but making determinations as to what is "moral" or not, is beyond our mission. ....................

I do understand that your primary mission should be to identify the pro firearms people, however IMHO it is extremely counterproductive if the guys being supported are a bunch of crooks..............for example what would you folks do if Rod Tam was pro firearms?  Would you back him despite his obvious lack of ethics and morals?

What about Ron Menor?  DUI with his 2 kids and tried to worm out of it.

Nestor Garcia?  On the Pro-Rail payroll despite his seat on the CC.

My opinion............if you want us to back you further, you need to delve into issues further.  This election in particular is one that will have truly massive and long term ramifications for the next several decades with both Rail and sewer improvements looming large and the seats in Congress opening up.  I don't want to replace a crook with a crook.

GZ - The relm of "morals" is too broad for us to delve into. Should it include abortion rights? What about gay rights? Many would say these are moral issues.

HRA, like the NRA, like JPOF, GOA, and a host of other gun-rights organizations, is a single issue adocacy group. It's not Republican or Democrat, pro-gay rights or anti-gay rights, or pro-abortion or anti-abortion. It cannot be....so while I appreciate your desire to make informed decisions during this election (and I would disagree that this election is any "more important" that any other....) we will continue to focus on firearms and firearms related issues.

I do understand that your primary mission should be to identify the pro firearms people, however IMHO it is extremely counterproductive if the guys being supported are a bunch of crooks..............for example what would you folks do if Rod Tam was pro firearms?  Would you back him despite his obvious lack of ethics and morals?

What about Ron Menor?  DUI with his 2 kids and tried to worm out of it.

Nestor Garcia?  On the Pro-Rail payroll despite his seat on the CC.

My opinion............if you want us to back you further, you need to delve into issues further.  This election in particular is one that will have truly massive and long term ramifications for the next several decades with both Rail and sewer improvements looming large and the seats in Congress opening up.  I don't want to replace a crook with a crook.

Sorry, I have to disagree.

HRA should concentrate on the issue of guns and gun rights.  One should find out about said candidates and make informed decisions on who to vote for.  If the candidate is pro gun, usually they will be a responsible and honest person.  Most pro gun people that I know are that very way.  One needs to be a responsible person to own a firearm in the first place, lest they eventually blow their own head off.  Not saying all gun owners are like this, just most.  Other issues, rightfully, should be taken up by the individual, and the fact that a person is pro gun or anti gun should be a major consideration in ones decision.

Sorry, I have to disagree.

HRA should concentrate on the issue of guns and gun rights.  One should find out about said candidates and make informed decisions on who to vote for.  If the candidate is pro gun, usually they will be a responsible and honest person.  Most pro gun people that I know are that very way.  One needs to be a responsible person to own a firearm in the first place, lest they eventually blow their own head off.  Not saying all gun owners are like this, just most.  Other issues, rightfully, should be taken up by the individual, and the fact that a person is pro gun or anti gun should be a major consideration in ones decision.

I respectfully disagree that if someone is pro-firearms they are responsible and honest.  There are a good few HPD guys who've been caught over the years doing bad stuff, the guy (postal worker) on Kauai recently he's certainly pro-firearms but did some pretty questionable/illegal stuff, local guards who brought in full auto sears a couple of years ago, etc.  There are lots of firearms owners, but if you look at the new guys in firearms they are rarely responsible either through lack of training, knowledge, or practice..............you need to understand that until you are looking down the muzzle of a pistol during a class with a guy who has owned firearms for decades ownership is not equatable to responsibility or familiarity (same guy I think would be really good with a long rifle or shotgun, but pistols aren't his thing).

My money is going out to support a local group (HRA) that is putting their weight and endorsement behind candidates.  If something is generally known about a candidate, should that not be brought up?  I've had talks with others who don't want to support HRA because of these types of issues (I personally last time I signed up was for 5 years).

I'm not saying the HRA should perform background checks and investigations of candidates, I'm saying that when you know something about a candidate and it would have direct bearing upon your endorsement of such a person shouldn't that be brought to light?




HiCarry I understand your point about where to draw the line and thinks it's very applicable in this situation.  It just distresses me when things continually get swept under the rug in Hawaii.  Here much as with everywhere else the candidates make a name for themselves and it's the name recognition that many times carries the day.  You don't know/remember how/where you heard about them, but since you have you go with it because it's familiar and humans like familiarity..................unfortunately you may not remember that it was tied to questionable ethics, DUI's, etc.

If you keep on the same course as before, things will not change.  If HRA is expected to change things in Hawaii, why are we keeping to the same course and expecting different results?
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/alberteins133991.html

My money is going out to support a local group (HRA) that is putting their weight and endorsement behind candidates. 

You'll note that there isn't any endorsement going on.  What you have is a list of candidates, and an evaluation of both their survey responses and their known history with respect to 2A.  All we've offered you is information. 

Update per email...

The Hawaii Rifle Association grading of candidates went out last week.  In it an error was identified.  Please note the following change: State Representative District 23 - Isaac W. Choy - Performance Rating - B We did not receive a response to the questionnaire sent out to candidates; however, in reviewing Representative Choy's past voting performance, we noted that he has been supportive.  HRA apologizes to Representative Choy for the error in its rating.

I respectfully disagree that if someone is pro-firearms they are responsible and honest.  There are a good few HPD guys who've been caught over the years doing bad stuff, the guy (postal worker) on Kauai recently he's certainly pro-firearms but did some pretty questionable/illegal stuff, local guards who brought in full auto sears a couple of years ago, etc.  There are lots of firearms owners, but if you look at the new guys in firearms they are rarely responsible either through lack of training, knowledge, or practice..............you need to understand that until you are looking down the muzzle of a pistol during a class with a guy who has owned firearms for decades ownership is not equatable to responsibility or familiarity (same guy I think would be really good with a long rifle or shotgun, but pistols aren't his thing).

My money is going out to support a local group (HRA) that is putting their weight and endorsement behind candidates.  If something is generally known about a candidate, should that not be brought up?  I've had talks with others who don't want to support HRA because of these types of issues (I personally last time I signed up was for 5 years).

I'm not saying the HRA should perform background checks and investigations of candidates, I'm saying that when you know something about a candidate and it would have direct bearing upon your endorsement of such a person shouldn't that be brought to light?




HiCarry I understand your point about where to draw the line and thinks it's very applicable in this situation.  It just distresses me when things continually get swept under the rug in Hawaii.  Here much as with everywhere else the candidates make a name for themselves and it's the name recognition that many times carries the day.  You don't know/remember how/where you heard about them, but since you have you go with it because it's familiar and humans like familiarity..................unfortunately you may not remember that it was tied to questionable ethics, DUI's, etc.

If you keep on the same course as before, things will not change.  If HRA is expected to change things in Hawaii, why are we keeping to the same course and expecting different results?
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/alberteins133991.html

I still have to disagree, also with mutual respect.

If you don't think that [most]folks that own firearms are responsible and honest, then what is the point of fighting for the right to keep a personal firearm for self defense, or for any other purpose.  We might as well conceed that the antis are correct, and government should heavily regulate guns and gun ownership, or just go ahead an outright ban private ownership of firearms and weapons.

Granted that there are those that are ignorant of safety, that doesn't mean they are not responsible and honest. It means that they need to be taught the correct way to handle the weapon.  The main reason for this is because here in Hawaii type culture has been so anti gun, for so long, that many are never taught properly, or formally, what it means to handle a weapon.  Furthermore, even those seasoned shooters sometimes have slip ups and become complacent. 

Guess we are going a little bit off topic, so well my point is, HRA has the data for pro and anti politicians, they can take care of that. Other issues should be weighed by the individual.
Its hard and slim pickings on the choices in Hawaii politics.  It's a shitty deal, but that is what we are left with. I just go pro gun as much as possible.

If you don't think that [most]folks that own firearms are responsible and honest, then what is the point of fighting for the right to keep a personal firearm for self defense, or for any other purpose.  We might as well conceed that the antis are correct, and government should heavily regulate guns and gun ownership, or just go ahead an outright ban private ownership of firearms and weapons.

There's an awful lot of ground between "most are responsible" and "the antis are right."  Personally, I don't think firearms ownership is in any way indicative of a person's morality, responsibility, or a performance indicator on any other standard.  I think it has about as much to do with who a person is as whether or not they own a car, a dog, or a pair of Nikes.  A firearm is just a thing.  Some people choose to have one (or many) of those things. 

I choose to believe that people tend to be "better" than they're generally given credit for.  Yes, I hate everyone.  Humanity sucks.  And none of you can drive.  But somehow, we make it through day after day, and we're largely OK.  Some few magnificent things happen.  Some few awful things happen.  And we just keep on keeping on.  Including those of us that own guns, dogs, cars, and/or Nikes.

[/mutual respect]

Oh, and to stay on-topic, vote your conscience!  I do.

The goal of 2A groups is not to give a crap about who likes rail, is pro-abortion, or anti-gay rights etc. it is to provide you input on who supports your Second Amendment rights.  If you are interested in the other activities, scope those answers out.  The constitution is blind to brands of Democrat and Republican.  You can find people on both sides of the isle willing to trample your rights, remember it is not always the 2nd amendment they will be after (or are after).


There are many people here who, at least in person, respect me for my position on civil rights in general.  There are directors that disagree with me on various positions, but you know what - we have an ally in firearm rights, and that is what we focus on.  The other stuff makes for great conversation as we drive to the range.

I still have to disagree, also with mutual respect.

If you don't think that [most]folks that own firearms are responsible and honest, then what is the point of fighting for the right to keep a personal firearm for self defense, or for any other purpose.  We might as well conceed that the antis are correct, and government should heavily regulate guns and gun ownership, or just go ahead an outright ban private ownership of firearms and weapons.

Granted that there are those that are ignorant of safety, that doesn't mean they are not responsible and honest. It means that they need to be taught the correct way to handle the weapon.  The main reason for this is because here in Hawaii type culture has been so anti gun, for so long, that many are never taught properly, or formally, what it means to handle a weapon.  Furthermore, even those seasoned shooters sometimes have slip ups and become complacent. 

Guess we are going a little bit off topic, so well my point is, HRA has the data for pro and anti politicians, they can take care of that. Other issues should be weighed by the individual.
Its hard and slim pickings on the choices in Hawaii politics.  It's a shitty deal, but that is what we are left with. I just go pro gun as much as possible.

The Second Amendment isn't just about firearms and this is a point that many don't understand especially those who oppose it.  The Second Amendment is about being able to protect the citizens against the Government...............keeping a free state.

By blindly electing people who are of questionable ethical and moral character (IMHO) we are accomplishing the exact opposite of this.  These people are easily bought or coerced.



The second point I'm trying to make is that although the HRA does try hard, they do not accomplish a lot.  When that happens (IMHO) you should evaluate what you are doing and see what can be done better or changed to get different results.  To try the same thing over and over again and expect different results is the definition of insanity.  On the legal front I know of only two things in the past several years that have really tried to push the envelope and change the methodology used, one is the gentleman on the Big Island who tried to push CCW and HDF.  I would be really interested to see how much backing either has received from the NRA & HRA and how NRA/HRA has tried to work together.



Finally responsible persons, no I do not think the majority of firearms owners are truly responsible.  Just go to the silhouette range on any weekend and I think we'd agree on that point.  It can get downright scary over there.

The goal of 2A groups is not to give a crap about who likes rail, is pro-abortion, or anti-gay rights etc. it is to provide you input on who supports your Second Amendment rights.  If you are interested in the other activities, scope those answers out.  The constitution is blind to brands of Democrat and Republican.  You can find people on both sides of the isle willing to trample your rights, remember it is not always the 2nd amendment they will be after (or are after).


There are many people here who, at least in person, respect me for my position on civil rights in general.  There are directors that disagree with me on various positions, but you know what - we have an ally in firearm rights, and that is what we focus on.  The other stuff makes for great conversation as we drive to the range.

With respect - again I think a lot of people get too focused on thinking 2A is only about firearms.  See my post above.

The Second Amendment isn't just about firearms and this is a point that many don't understand especially those who oppose it.  The Second Amendment is about being able to protect the citizens against the Government...............keeping a free state.

By blindly electing people who are of questionable ethical and moral character (IMHO) we are accomplishing the exact opposite of this.  These people are easily bought or coerced.


The second point I'm trying to make is that although the HRA does try hard, they do not accomplish a lot.  When that happens (IMHO) you should evaluate what you are doing and see what can be done better or changed to get different results.  To try the same thing over and over again and expect different results is the definition of             
insanity.  On the legal front I know of only two things in the past several years that have really tried to push the envelope and change the methodology used, one is the gentleman on the Big Island who tried to push CCW and HDF.  I would be really interested to see how much backing either has received from the NRA & HRA and how NRA/HRA has tried to work together.

Finally responsible persons, no I do not think the majority of firearms owners are truly responsible.  Just go to the silhouette range on any weekend and I think we'd agree on that point.  It can get downright scary over there.

wow

  On the legal front I know of only two things in the past several years that have really tried to push the envelope and change the methodology used, one is the gentleman on the Big Island who tried to push CCW and HDF.  I would be really interested to see how much backing either has received from the NRA & HRA and how NRA/HRA has tried to work together.

I believe you are talking about Oahu, and myself specifically.  Our legal case has received some funding from HRA and LIFE (as far as shooting groups go).  More importantly, we receive lots of 'other' assistance (newsletters, handouts, speaking opportunities) all to HRA. There is plenty going on behind the scenes that many of you don't see -- but we work together -- we have to.   We have also received some funding one local gun shop, OGC  and Mojo (as seen by their sponsorship for our t-shirts).  We do not, and will probably never, receive assistance from the NRA -- they have done little for us, and nothing is expected to change on that front.  I would note that isn't just us, from what I can see, they don't even help HRA with much of anything either other than getting the word out to their e-mail bomb when a bill is coming up.

Without the support of HRA / LIFE and some local gun shops who assist me we wouldn't be where we are today. So big hat-tip from the directors and officers of HDF to Bill and Kerry specifically, HRA / LIFE,  Carter / Eugene from OGC, and Dave from Mojo.


-- Edit: I forgot about Young, you could count him - but is not "HDF".

The second point I'm trying to make is that although the HRA does try hard, they do not accomplish a lot.  When that happens (IMHO) you should evaluate what you are doing and see what can be done better or changed to get different results.  To try the same thing over and over again and expect different results is the definition of insanity.  On the legal front I know of only two things in the past several years that have really tried to push the envelope and change the methodology used, one is the gentleman on the Big Island who tried to push CCW and HDF.  I would be really interested to see how much backing either has received from the NRA & HRA and how NRA/HRA has tried to work together

Now it's my turn to respectfully disagree. HRA has done very well with what limited resources it has. It's cadre of dedicated volunteers stayed up late into the night working out the recent candidate survey results so all Hawaii residents, HRA members or not, could use the information to make informed decisions. We got the NRA instructor's liability bill passed this year, the "no gun confiscation in energency"bill and "Castle Doctrine" bill passed in 2010, and it was instrumental in preventing a complete handgun ban a while back. So, while I will admit that there are issues we have not been as successful in, it was not for lack of trying or effort on the part of those that "do" instead of just talk.

As for George Young (the Big Isle guy who challenged the denial of his CCW application - he failed miserably. He was asked to wait to file his suit until after Heller but decided to move forward...he also filed it Pro Se, and as they say, the guy who tries to represent himself in court has a fool for a client). As for HDF, why don't you ask Chris who his biggest supporters, both financially and with in-kind help and assistance, are?

As for working with the NRA, well, I had a conversation with the Western region ILA person yesterday and in general talk to her at least a couple times a month....as for the collaboration between HRA and HDF, again, why don't we ask Chris?

And lastly, the reason HRA isn't able to accomplish more is apathy, or worse, IMHO, pseudo-activism. What do I mean by that? I hear a lot about what HRA doesn't do, yet it is mostly from folks who do little or nothing to help further the cause. I hear lot's of grumbling, but rarely see any real action. Chris and HDF are to be commended for taking on the issues he does, but even his membership could be better, and more involved. I invite you, and anyone else that feels HRA is not doing enough, or using the wrong strategy, to jump on board. Come on down to the board meeting, volunteer your time, evaluate the process and reasoning behind what gets done.

The bottom line is that HRA does pretty well with the resources it has....it could do much better if more gun owners got involved (notice I didn't say "join"....) with various issues. Here's a challenge: This year, as with most years, a concealed carry bill will be introduced. Why don't you shepard the effort to get it passed? Go ahead, step up and show us how it's done. You obviously believe we're insane (I'd say we're tenacious....) for continuing to try getting this legislation passed, so show us a better way. We'll wait....

The second point I'm trying to make is that although the HRA does try hard, they do not accomplish a lot.  When that happens (IMHO) you should evaluate what you are doing and see what can be done better or changed to get different results.  To try the same thing over and over again and expect different results is the definition of insanity. 

Even though, I think a couple of HRA members are dicks, the organization does a lot for the Hawaii shooting community.
To not see that, YOU must be insane.

KK - Thanks.

The problem, at least in part, as far as I can see, is that folks don't really know what's going on. As Chris says, there is a lot of stufff that goes on behind the scenes and we do work together....we have to. But we really, really need to stop this internal bickering. There will always be a few interpersonal problems...were dealing with strong, opinionated people, that's bound to happen. But when we allow those personal issues to fractionate and divide our efforts, we all lose.

When people get disenfranchised, we lose our most valuable asset, their energy and talent. I've said this time and time again, we should be able to generate hundreds, if not thousands of pieces of testimony during the legislative session. Instead, we're elated to see 20....there is something definitely wrong with that.

Folks need to look at the bigger picture and put aside the little personal conflicts that can so hamper efforts to get things changed. I applaud your willingness to do so.

Aloha