GM1311_.pdf (hawaii.gov)


Given the new law that allows purchase, carry, and use of tasers, I am interested in knowing what kind of strategies you all would use, if you need to use it.


Taser pulse seems to be the most popular choice so far.  Given that the device's recommended strategy seems to be.... deploy then drop, as the device discharges for 30 seconds, this gives you the chance to safely escape the situation. 
However, do you think you would be in violation of the law, since you have now surrendered control of the taser? 


If this is so, then how would you safely employ the taser and escape?


We've all seem the videos of guys jumping up and attacking as soon as the electricity stops.




Thoughts?

I prefer carrying a Mace pepper gun, but if you use a Taser Pulse and incapacitate them for 30 seconds, take 5 to 10 of those seconds to make sure the bad guy won’t be able to follow you after the power stops.  If you do that and don't want to leave the Pulse gun, put the safety on which will cut the power, disconnect the cartridge and get out of there.  This is assuming the bad guy has no friends with him, which is seldom true. Taser will give you a new Pulse and cartridge when you use it in a SD situation and provide a police report to back it up.  On a side note, even if we were allowed to carry a firearm, I would still carry my pepper gun.  Not every situation will require deadly force.

I think the pepper spray is much easier and simpler in a fight or flight situation. Just need to be aware of wind direction.

I won’t be buying any electric defense tools. Just IMHO.

Carrying two spray canisters will give me more peace of mind than one electric thing. A handgun is a different matter because there is less variability. The fact that the darts run out of juice, and can even just hit a belt buckle or a watch or something and be deflected, is not something I like.

And it’s a one shot thing. You ever play shooting video games where you only have ONE SHOT to take out the enemy? Good luck with that when your mind and body are freaking out about some dude(s) trying to maybe kill you.

Of course, always open to having my opinion changed with logic and facts.

PS - Having said all this, I am totally in support of HI allowing the carrying of electric guns. One step closer toward carrying firearms. An armed society is a polite one.

Excellent channel to see REAL WORLD situations. Very instructive.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I fully expect that most non-lethal arms will fail, and that their failure may or may not provide a homeowner with a defense for using a real gun to stop an assailant. "I tried to stop the perp with a taser or pepper spray device, and he kept charging at me. I had to use a firearm to prevent him from doing serious bodily harm to my frail body."
Steve Alm's reply: "Did you try to use your bible to ameliorate the incident?"

PS - Having said all this, I am totally in support of HI allowing the carrying of electric guns. One step closer toward carrying firearms. An armed society is a polite one.

I'm on the fence when it comes to allowing the carrying of electric guns.  I'm concerned that allowing this will give our crooked anti-gun politician leaders an excuse to implement more restrictions on firearm ownership and use.

I worry they will introduce legislation that will reason that since there are these "alternate" options, then there is really no need for firearms designed for defensive purposes.

I fully expect that most non-lethal arms will fail, and that their failure may or may not provide a homeowner with a defense for using a real gun to stop an assailant. "I tried to stop the perp with a taser or pepper spray device, and he kept charging at me. I had to use a firearm to prevent him from doing serious bodily harm to my frail body."
Steve Alm's reply: "Did you try to use your bible to ameliorate the incident?"

I'll probably shoot back at Steve and ask him "Would YOU???"

And then get thrown in jail for contempt.

I also support allowing the carrying of electric guns.  However, I'm concerned that allowing this will give our crooked anti-gun politician leaders an excuse to implement more restrictions on firearm ownership and use.

I worry they will introduce legislation that will reason that since there are these "alternate" options, then there is really no need for firearms designed for defensive purposes.

I can totally see this. However, if they are dumb enough to list this as an reason, it’ll be easily shot down constitutionally. It has already been precedent that firearms are a right to have for personal self defense.

It has already been precedent that firearms are a right to have for personal self defense.

But not outside the home where 99.8% of the time is where you would need it. Talking about in Hawaii and a few other asshole states like Jersey.

Besides learning how to use a new tool, I hope everyone participates in the legislative session. They already want to ban where you can carry a taser. Basically, if you catch the bus, your shit out of luck, or even pass "near" certain places. No definition of what "near" means. Unlike federal gun free school zones, which are 1000 feet. But per federal law, you can CCW within that 1000 feet as long as you have that states issued CCW permit. And more exceptions if you live within 1000 feet of a school. No exceptions like this for the taser bill proposed.

I'm on the fence when it comes to allowing the carrying of electric guns.  I'm concerned that allowing this will give our crooked anti-gun politician leaders an excuse to implement more restrictions on firearm ownership and use.

I worry they will introduce legislation that will reason that since there are these "alternate" options, then there is really no need for firearms designed for defensive purposes.

Bill already submitted to making someone who is carrying also carry a taser. Since no one is issued CCW or open permits, this would apply mainly for non-LEO like airport security and armored car people. The bill also requires something like 16hrs of annual training or some BS like that.

I wonder if the armored car companies/airport security will get involved with the legislative session.

Bill already submitted to making someone who is carrying also carry a taser. Since no one is issued CCW or open permits, this would apply mainly for non-LEO like airport security and armored car people. The bill also requires something like 16hrs of annual training or some BS like that.

I wonder if the armored car companies/airport security will get involved with the legislative session.

Leave it to Hawaii politicians to MANDATE the carry of a weapon that just less than month ago was illegal to own.

        

Bill already submitted to making someone who is carrying also carry a taser. Since no one is issued CCW or open permits, this would apply mainly for non-LEO like airport security and armored car people. The bill also requires something like 16hrs of annual training or some BS like that.

I wonder if the armored car companies/airport security will get involved with the legislative session.

in Addition  then bills that are restricting places you allowed to carry taser also introduced . So in terms if you are required to carry a taser in conjunction to carrying a firearm and restricted from these places to carry a taser will prevent and restrict you from carrying  a gun. Which is just about everywhere landing squarely back to what you already had. Bravo state of Hawaii for always knowing how to oppress the people! I'm sure this is in preparation for the verdict from scotus.. they are already working  to counter that so my opinion is to start paying attention cause they already  starting their plan.

It's amazing that, although it seemed SCOTUS is on the verge of ruling Hawaii's socialist and oppressive gun laws unconstitutional, the scumbags in office already are putting in place measures that actually make it HARDER for a law- abiding citizens to exercise his 2a rights.

No can win, as long as those fackahs are in office.

in Addition  then bills that are restricting places you allowed to carry taser also introduced . So in terms if you are required to carry a taser in conjunction to carrying a firearm and restricted from these places to carry a taser will prevent and restrict you from carrying  a gun. Which is just about everywhere landing squarely back to what you already had. Bravo state of Hawaii for always knowing how to oppress the people! I'm sure this is in preparation for the verdict from scotus.. they are already working  to counter that so my opinion is to start paying attention cause they already  starting their plan.

focus
read the exemptions to the taser carry restrictions...

focus
read the exemptions to the taser carry restrictions...

Please  elaborate macsak enlighten us
This is what I was reading. I see no exceptions applying  to the citizens.

SB 2800
 The purpose of this Act is to ensure public safety by improving the training of individuals who are licensed to carry handguns by:

     (1)  Requiring all individuals to undergo additional training before applying for or renewing a license to carry a handgun;

     (2)  Requiring any individual applying for or renewing a license to carry a handgun to undergo the same review as an individual applying for or renewing a license to carry a handgun;

     (3)  Reducing the term of a license to carry a handgun from one year to six months to ensure those permitted are properly trained at all times; and

     (4)  Requiring non-lethal electric guns, also known as tasers, to be carried when carrying a firearm.

HB 1732
ThepurposeofthisActistoprohibitindividualsfrom 2carryinganelectricguninornearcertainsensitivelocations, 3withexceptions. 4SECTION2.Chapter134,HawaiiRevisedStatutes,is 5amendedbyaddinganewsectiontopartVtobeappropriately 6designatedandtoreadasfollows: 7‘~l34-Locationrestrictionsforelectricguns.(a)It 8shallbeunlawfulforanypersontocarryorpossessesan 9electricguninornearanairport,passengertransportation 10terminal,commuteroperationsarea,stateorcountygovernment 11building,oranymeetingplacerequiredtobeopentothepublic 12pursuanttochapter92;providedthatthefollowingshallbe 13exempt: 14(1)Anypersonwhopossessesweaponsinortransports 15weaponsintoacourtoflawtobeusedasevidence; 16providedthatapersonisnotexemptiftheyarea 17partytoanactionpendingbeforethecourt; 18(2)Afulltimepaidpeaceofficerofanotherstateorthe 19federalgovernmentwhoiscarryingoutofficialduties 20whileintheStateoranypersonsummonedbythepeace 21officertoassistinmakingarrestsorpreservingthepeacewhilethatpersonisengagedinassistingthe 2peaceofficer; 3(3)Apersonwhohaspermissiontopossessanelectricgun 4inwritingbyadulyauthorizedofficialwhois 5chargedwiththesecurityofastateorcounty 6governmentbuilding; 7(4)Apersonwholawfullyresidesin,owns,orisin 8possessionofastateorcountygovernmentbuilding 9withrespecttothoseportionsofthebuildingthat 10arenotownedorleasedbythestateorcounty 11government; 12(5)Apersonlicensedorregisteredinaccordancewith, 13andactingwithinthecourseandscopeofchapter463, 14andwhohasbeenhiredbytheownerofastateor 15countygovernmentbuilding;and 16(6)Anypersonoragencyexemptpursuanttosection 17134-87. 18(b)Anypersonviolatingthissectionshallbeguiltyofa 19misdemeanor.hl

oops
no focus
i misunderstood what you were traversing...

Please  elaborate macsak enlighten us
This is what I was reading. I see no exceptions applying  to the citizens.

SB 2800
 The purpose of this Act is to ensure public safety by improving the training of individuals who are licensed to carry handguns by:

     (1)  Requiring all individuals to undergo additional training before applying for or renewing a license to carry a handgun;

     (2)  Requiring any individual applying for or renewing a license to carry a handgun to undergo the same review as an individual applying for or renewing a license to carry a handgun;

     (3)  Reducing the term of a license to carry a handgun from one year to six months to ensure those permitted are properly trained at all times; and

     (4)  Requiring non-lethal electric guns, also known as tasers, to be carried when carrying a firearm.

HB 1732
ThepurposeofthisActistoprohibitindividualsfrom 2carryinganelectricguninornearcertainsensitivelocations, 3withexceptions. 4SECTION2.Chapter134,HawaiiRevisedStatutes,is 5amendedbyaddinganewsectiontopartVtobeappropriately 6designatedandtoreadasfollows: 7‘~l34-Locationrestrictionsforelectricguns.(a)It 8shallbeunlawfulforanypersontocarryorpossessesan 9electricguninornearanairport,passengertransportation 10terminal,commuteroperationsarea,stateorcountygovernment 11building,oranymeetingplacerequiredtobeopentothepublic 12pursuanttochapter92;providedthatthefollowingshallbe 13exempt: 14(1)Anypersonwhopossessesweaponsinortransports 15weaponsintoacourtoflawtobeusedasevidence; 16providedthatapersonisnotexemptiftheyarea 17partytoanactionpendingbeforethecourt; 18(2)Afulltimepaidpeaceofficerofanotherstateorthe 19federalgovernmentwhoiscarryingoutofficialduties 20whileintheStateoranypersonsummonedbythepeace 21officertoassistinmakingarrestsorpreservingthepeacewhilethatpersonisengagedinassistingthe 2peaceofficer; 3(3)Apersonwhohaspermissiontopossessanelectricgun 4inwritingbyadulyauthorizedofficialwhois 5chargedwiththesecurityofastateorcounty 6governmentbuilding; 7(4)Apersonwholawfullyresidesin,owns,orisin 8possessionofastateorcountygovernmentbuilding 9withrespecttothoseportionsofthebuildingthat 10arenotownedorleasedbythestateorcounty 11government; 12(5)Apersonlicensedorregisteredinaccordancewith, 13andactingwithinthecourseandscopeofchapter463, 14andwhohasbeenhiredbytheownerofastateor 15countygovernmentbuilding;and 16(6)Anypersonoragencyexemptpursuanttosection 17134-87. 18(b)Anypersonviolatingthissectionshallbeguiltyofa 19misdemeanor.hl

I'm on the fence when it comes to allowing the carrying of electric guns.  I'm concerned that allowing this will give our crooked anti-gun politician leaders an excuse to implement more restrictions on firearm ownership and use.

I worry they will introduce legislation that will reason that since there are these "alternate" options, then there is really no need for firearms designed for defensive purposes.

Good point


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm on the fence when it comes to allowing the carrying of electric guns.  I'm concerned that allowing this will give our crooked anti-gun politician leaders an excuse to implement more restrictions on firearm ownership and use.

I worry they will introduce legislation that will reason that since there are these "alternate" options, then there is really no need for firearms designed for defensive purposes.

I missed where the 2nd Amendment was included in The Bill of Needs.

Rights do not require one to justify the exercise thereof. If it's exercised responsibly, there should be no "need".

I assume what I've read is true -- that police department guidance and policy ordinarily requires 2 officers be involved when trying to use non-lethal/less-than-lethal force to subdue a violent suspect.  The Taser may miss, be ineffective for many reasons, or be ripped away by the suspect.  There needs to be an officer with a firearm backing up the one using the Taser.

Who is going to back up the citizen who is only permitted to carry a Taser?

Yesterday the cops decided that a taster would not work and went back to using good old fashioned lead.
https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2022/01/25/hpd-investigating-officer-involved-shooting-near-ala-moana-center/
It's frequent incidents like this which tells me that the kinder gentler methods of self-defense are going to get somebody killed.
I do like the new taser law. I just don't think it's worth the effort to get a permit for something that can't stop a raging crackhead.