I just wanted to re-congratulate you all on your effective petitioning during the 2010 Legislative session. Today SB358 and SB532 were signed into law by Governor Linda Lingle.

ACT 096 (10)
SB358 SD1 HD2
Signed: May 12, 2010

RELATING TO FIREARMS.
Prohibits the seizure of firearms or ammunition from law-abiding individuals during a disaster or emergency.


ACT 097 (10)
SB532 SD1 HD1 CD1
Signed: May 12, 2010

RELATING TO LIMITING CIVIL LIABILITY.
Protects homeowners by limiting the civil liability of a property owner for the injury or death of a criminal that occurs on the owner’s property when the crime is taking place.

This is a small step in the right direction for gun owners in Hawaii.  Good job guys. 

 

Great job, everyone!

I just read my NRA email this morning and got the great news!!!!

I just got the email now. For those interested in that:

Please Thank the Governor Today!

On Wednesday, May 12, Governor Linda Lingle (R) signed two bills into law that will protect the rights of Hawaii’s law-abiding gun owners. 

Senate Bill 358, brought forward by State Senator Sam Slom (R-8), will prevent the seizure of firearms or ammunition from any lawful possessor during an emergency or disaster.  Senator Slom introduced SB358 in 2009 as a response to the widespread seizure of firearms that occurred in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.  The bill languished in the Legislature until the tsunami scare that occurred in Hawaii earlier this year, which propelled the measure through committees and onto the Governor’s desk at the close of the legislative session. 

Governor Lingle also signed Senate Bill 532.  Also introduced by Senator Slom, this bill will provide protection from civil immunity to a homeowner or an owner of any real property who uses force, including deadly force, for self-defense.  This is a very key provision under the “Castle Doctrine,” which is a long-held belief that an individual’s home is their castle and it should be defended from intrusion.

Please contact Governor Lingle and thank her for signing SB358 and SB532 into law.  The Governor can be reached by phone at (808) 586-0034 or click here to send email. 

Also, please thank Senator Slom and State Senator Brian Taniguchi (D-10), Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, for their leadership in seeing these bills through.  Senator Slom can be reached by phone at (808) 586-8420 or email senslom@Capitol.hawaii.gov.  To contact Senator Taniguchi, please call (808) 586-6460 or email sentaniguchi@Capitol.hawaii.gov.

Rick Hamada thanks you in Midweek.

Amazing: Two Bills Pass That Make Sense
Rick Hamada
By Rick Hamada
Wednesday - May 19, 2010
E-mail this story | Print this page | Comments (0) | Archive | RSS
Share
State Sen. Sam Slom

I commented last week on Gov. Linda Lingle’s assessment that this past legislative session was the worst ever.

I still don’t disagree with her statement. There were money grabs of Biblical proportion: raiding of special funds, abruptly halting Act 221 tax credits, making those who claim more income pay more taxes, the stunning increase in the Unemployment Insurance Tax and the list goes on and on.

(I won’t even get into the shameful and shabby treatment of retiring Republican Sen. Fred Hemmings. That’s for a later date.)

Despite the morass of poor legislation and heaps of the same old status quo we have come to expect from our friends on the left, there were a couple of bright spots.


 

As they say, “Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in awhile.”

The governor recently signed into law two Senate bills relating to firearms and self-defense - topics usually relegated to the vertical file early on in the session.

SB358, now Act 96, ensures the government shall not seize privately held legal firearms from citizens in time of emergency or disaster.

This proposal comes in light of New Orleans, in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, seizing firearms from private citizens with the intent of promoting safety. The opposite occurred when criminals, obviously with no respect for the law, preyed upon defenseless people using illegal weapons.

Introduced by Sen. Sam Slom, R-Hawaii Kai-Diamond Head, this signals a fleeting moment of clarity and common sense in the chambers of our state Legislature. As critical as some, including myself, can be of our elected officials, it bears reporting when a good deed is done.

The second bill, SB532, now Act 97, restores a sense of sanity in an increasingly insane world.

Previous to the governor signing this bill into law, if a felonious intruder broke into your home, the law stipulated that you must retreat from your premises.

What’s more outrageous is if you did engage the interloper, there would be grounds for the perpetrator to sue you for any injury or loss of life in the course of your actions.

I told you it was insane. Introduced by Slom and championed by Sen. Brian Taniguchi, D-Manoa, SB532, Act 97 now stipulates that a homeowner or other agent of the property cannot be held liable for injuries or loss of life against an intruder in the commission of a felony.


So as the king of your castle you can legally do what is necessary to stop that criminal from violating your rights, your property and your safety.

Your curmudgeonly warm and fuzzy scribe would like to acknowledge the good work of Sens. Slom and Taniguchi, those who supported these initiatives in the Legislature, and Gov. Lingle for defending and codifying the rights of Hawaii citizens.

Now, about that Barrel Bill ...

http://www.midweek.com/content/columns/ace/

I know this is old news, however!, I was wondering; if the Federal government takes control after a disaster, ie: FEMA, could they then circumvent this and other state laws?

Surely the State of Hawaii couldn't pass a law prohibiting the Federal gov't, or did they?

There has never really been an authority to confiscate our guns in our home.  Heller affirms that.

There has never really been an authority to confiscate our guns in our home.  Heller affirms that.

Which is why it never has happened, and legislation such as this was completely unnecessary. 

Actually the state law is just following the feds Stafford Disaster Relief Act, excert from FEMA:

Sec. 706. Firearms Policies (42 U.S.C. 5207)*
(a) Prohibition on Confiscation of Firearms - No officer or employee of the United
States (including any member of the uniformed services), or person operating
pursuant to or under color of Federal law, or receiving Federal funds, or under
control of any Federal official, or providing services to such an officer,

(1) temporarily or permanently seize, or authorize seizure of, any firearm the
possession of which is not prohibited under Federal, State, or local law,
other than for forfeiture in compliance with Federal law or as evidence in a
criminal investigation;
(2) require registration of any firearm for which registration is not required by
Federal, State, or local law;
(3) prohibit possession of any firearm, or promulgate any rule, regulation, or
order prohibiting possession of any firearm, in any place or by any person
where such possession is not otherwise prohibited by Federal, State, or
local law; or
(4) prohibit the carrying of firearms under Federal, State, or local law, solely
because such person is operating under the direction, control, or supervision
of a Federal agency in support of relief from the major disaster or
emergency.
(b) Limitation - Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit any person in
subsection (a) from requiring the temporary surrender of a firearm as a
condition for entry into any mode of transportation used for rescue or
evacuation during a major disaster or emergency, provided that such
temporarily surrendered firearm is returned at the completion of such rescue or
evacuation.
(c) Private Rights of Action -
(1) In General - Any individual aggrieved by a violation of this section may
seek relief in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for
redress against any person who subjects such individual, or causes such
individual to be subjected, to the deprivation of any of the rights, privileges,
or immunities secured by this section.
(2) Remedies - In addition to any existing remedy in law or equity, under any
law, an individual aggrieved by the seizure or confiscation of a firearm in
violation of this section may bring an action for return of such firearm in
the United States district court in the district in which that individual resides
or in which such firearm may be found.
(3) Attorney Fees - In any action or proceeding to enforce this section, the
court shall award the prevailing party, other than the United States, a
reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs."

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/about/stafford_act.pdf

And this was pre-Heller and also a US Code 42 USC 5207.  Just remember this next time Sherrif or HPD comes a knocking especially if they have received federal grant money which the State of Hawaii recieves a ton of Fed money.  I believe the lawyers put this into state law so local LE don't do Katrina type seizures.

This seems like a law that demonstrates exactly the fear of one of the Founding Fathers who opposed a bill of rights at all.  His point was, why enact a ban on something we have not empowered the government to do?  The logic was, (which seems to be vindicated by modern-day America) if you say, "Thou shalt not infringe on the freedom of the press", the implication for tyrants would be that the government has the authority to infringe on the freedom of the press.  It's counterintuitive, but have you seen any legislation banning the destruction of delicate rock formations on Mars?  Of course not, because people don't have the power to get there.  You only need to ban things that people have the capacity to do--therefore, the Second Amendment can be twisted to mean that the government can impose whatever restrictions they want, as long as they don't violate the letter of the Amendment.

We see it again with legislation like this.  We have majority-passed legislation to protect the Constitution from being trampled.  Would that be necessary if the state wasn't granted the authority to trample it in the first place?

This seems like a law that demonstrates exactly the fear of one of the Founding Fathers who opposed a bill of rights at all.  His point was, why enact a ban on something we have not empowered the government to do?  The logic was, (which seems to be vindicated by modern-day America) if you say, "Thou shalt not infringe on the freedom of the press", the implication for tyrants would be that the government has the authority to infringe on the freedom of the press.  It's counterintuitive, but have you seen any legislation banning the destruction of delicate rock formations on Mars?  Of course not, because people don't have the power to get there.  You only need to ban things that people have the capacity to do--therefore, the Second Amendment can be twisted to mean that the government can impose whatever restrictions they want, as long as they don't violate the letter of the Amendment.

We see it again with legislation like this.  We have majority-passed legislation to protect the Constitution from being trampled.  Would that be necessary if the state wasn't granted the authority to trample it in the first place?

Cougar....I definitely agree with you.  When's the revolution coming so I can prepare?

Cougar....I definitely agree with you.  When's the revolution coming so I can prepare?

If you go outside, and no one else is peeking out the door with their guns yet -- it's not time.

cheee hooooo!!! 

Quote from: Cougar8045 on January 19, 2012, 02:33:42 PM

This seems like a law that demonstrates exactly the fear of one of the Founding Fathers who opposed a bill of rights at all.  His point was, why enact a ban on something we have not empowered the government to do?  The logic was, (which seems to be vindicated by modern-day America) if you say, "Thou shalt not infringe on the freedom of the press", the implication for tyrants would be that the government has the authority to infringe on the freedom of the press.  It's counterintuitive, but have you seen any legislation banning the destruction of delicate rock formations on Mars?  Of course not, because people don't have the power to get there.  You only need to ban things that people have the capacity to do--therefore, the Second Amendment can be twisted to mean that the government can impose whatever restrictions they want, as long as they don't violate the letter of the Amendment.

We see it again with legislation like this.  We have majority-passed legislation to protect the Constitution from being trampled.  Would that be necessary if the state wasn't granted the authority to trample it in the first place?

Cougar....I definitely agree with you.  When's the revolution coming so I can prepare?

There is no revolution, at least that I'm aware of.  I would advise preparing now, you never know when the poop will hit the paddles.  And to be clear, I'm not talking about preparing to partake in any revolution, I'm referring to surviving a SHTF scenario, be it civil unrest, open rebellion, earthquake, tsunami, nuclear meltdown of a submarine moored at Pearl Harbor, zombie apocalypse, or alien invasion.

EDIT: To not come off like such a raging prick.

Quote from: kong on January 19, 2012, 06:28:47 PM

Quote from: Cougar8045 on January 19, 2012, 02:33:42 PM

This seems like a law that demonstrates exactly the fear of one of the Founding Fathers who opposed a bill of rights at all.  His point was, why enact a ban on something we have not empowered the government to do?  The logic was, (which seems to be vindicated by modern-day America) if you say, "Thou shalt not infringe on the freedom of the press", the implication for tyrants would be that the government has the authority to infringe on the freedom of the press.  It's counterintuitive, but have you seen any legislation banning the destruction of delicate rock formations on Mars?  Of course not, because people don't have the power to get there.  You only need to ban things that people have the capacity to do--therefore, the Second Amendment can be twisted to mean that the government can impose whatever restrictions they want, as long as they don't violate the letter of the Amendment.

We see it again with legislation like this.  We have majority-passed legislation to protect the Constitution from being trampled.  Would that be necessary if the state wasn't granted the authority to trample it in the first place?

Cougar....I definitely agree with you.  When's the revolution coming so I can prepare?

There is no revolution, at least that I'm aware of.  I would advise preparing now, you never know when the poop will hit the paddles.  And to be clear, I'm not talking about preparing to partake in any revolution, I'm referring to surviving a SHTF scenario, be it civil unrest, open rebellion, earthquake, tsunami, nuclear meltdown of a submarine moored at Pearl Harbor, zombie apocalypse, or alien invasion.

EDIT: To not come off like such a raging prick.

You are hereby required to muster in my garage with a 12 pack of Coors light and hand over your dolphins, you know this cannot happen...stop scaring the natives. 

Quote from: Cougar8045 on January 19, 2012, 07:44:03 PM

Quote from: kong on January 19, 2012, 06:28:47 PM

Quote from: Cougar8045 on January 19, 2012, 02:33:42 PM

This seems like a law that demonstrates exactly the fear of one of the Founding Fathers who opposed a bill of rights at all.  His point was, why enact a ban on something we have not empowered the government to do?  The logic was, (which seems to be vindicated by modern-day America) if you say, "Thou shalt not infringe on the freedom of the press", the implication for tyrants would be that the government has the authority to infringe on the freedom of the press.  It's counterintuitive, but have you seen any legislation banning the destruction of delicate rock formations on Mars?  Of course not, because people don't have the power to get there.  You only need to ban things that people have the capacity to do--therefore, the Second Amendment can be twisted to mean that the government can impose whatever restrictions they want, as long as they don't violate the letter of the Amendment.

We see it again with legislation like this.  We have majority-passed legislation to protect the Constitution from being trampled.  Would that be necessary if the state wasn't granted the authority to trample it in the first place?

Cougar....I definitely agree with you.  When's the revolution coming so I can prepare?

There is no revolution, at least that I'm aware of.  I would advise preparing now, you never know when the poop will hit the paddles.  And to be clear, I'm not talking about preparing to partake in any revolution, I'm referring to surviving a SHTF scenario, be it civil unrest, open rebellion, earthquake, tsunami, nuclear meltdown of a submarine moored at Pearl Harbor, zombie apocalypse, or alien invasion.

EDIT: To not come off like such a raging prick.

You are hereby required to muster in my garage with a 12 pack of Coors light and hand over your dolphins, you know this cannot happen...stop scaring the natives. 

Well, no, it can't actually happen, but I was stretching to come up as many doomsday scenarios as possible.  Call it...artistic license?   

Cougar....I definitely agree with you.  When's the revolution coming so I can prepare?
There is no revolution, at least that I'm aware of.  I would advise preparing now, you never know when the poop will hit the paddles.  And to be clear, I'm not talking about preparing to partake in any revolution, I'm referring to surviving a SHTF scenario, be it civil unrest, open rebellion, earthquake, tsunami, nuclear meltdown of a submarine moored at Pearl Harbor, zombie apocalypse, or alien invasion.

EDIT: To not come off like such a raging prick.
 You are hereby required to muster in my garage with a 12 pack of Coors light and hand over your dolphins, you know this cannot happen...stop scaring the natives. 
Well, no, it can't actually happen, but I was stretching to come up as many doomsday scenarios as possible.  Call it...artistic license?   

muster with said beer is still required.