Hearing is on 2/6/23 @ 3pm, so test is due 24 hours prior.

Visit capitol.hawaii.gov and log into your account.

Then click "submit testimony".

Enter the bill number and continue.

This is the states sensitive places bill. Bans any restaurant, parks, public event gatherings, bus, banks, etc...

Also interview for CCW of 4 people and any spouse, partner, or adults living with u.

Bascially this is throwing shit at the wall and see what sticks.

Please submit your testimonies and tell others.  Our goal is to get 1,000 opposing written testimonies nad 100 people to do remote zoom testimony or appear in person.

Please submit your testimonies and tell others.  Our goal is to get 1,000 opposing written testimonies nad 100 people to do remote zoom testimony or appear in person.

Hearing is on 2/6/23 @ 3pm, so test is due 24 hours prior.

Visit capitol.hawaii.gov and log into your account.

Then click "submit testimony".

Enter the bill number and continue.

This is the states sensitive places bill. Bans any restaurant, parks, public event gatherings, bus, banks, etc...

Also interview for CCW of 4 people and any spouse, partner, or adults living with u.

Bascially this is throwing shit at the wall and see what sticks.

I just got done submitting my testimony opposing SB1230.  Thank you for the heads up.

Done 

Guess not enough people care about their rights.

375 support the bill
143 oppose

Of all the support, 90% were copy and paste. Our side was 100% original.

They also added in insurance requirements.  This bill also states you must lock your gun in a case when going to and from.  So no more gun socks or card board boxes. So when you buy a gun, you have to also bring a case if it doesn't come with one.  And a lock with you. 

Gun also has to be kept out of view/reach. So in your trunk.  And much more stuff that doesn't only affect CCW holders.

Vote was 4 aye and 1 nay (Brenton Awa).  It seemed like the committee already had their agenda and didn't care about any of the testimonies.  They were asking the "veteran" guy questions. Seems like he was the one who gave them the bill language. He only mentioned he's a veteran once.

Interesting enough was that those who came to testify in support of the bill, actually opposed it if you payed attention to what they were saying.

HPD really opposes this bill, they said it will be almost impossible to enforce sensitive places and the interview has to be objective, so a waste of time. This was a shocker.

Ainokea, might be a thing soon.

Oh well, people betta not complain.

Going be hard being a CCW licensee here in the banana republik of Josh Greed's Hawaii.

And Rick BS-giardi's City of Honolulu.

These two guys, with the other lib-tards under them, do not believe in freedom.  They believe in control.

Oh well, people betta not complain.

Going be hard being a CCW licensee here in the banana republik of Josh Greed's Hawaii.

And Rick BS-giardi's City of Honolulu.

These two guys, with the other lib-tards under them, do not believe in freedom.  They believe in control.

Please list the gun control bills where # opposing was much greater than # supporting, and the bill still passed.  What was the percentage that passed in spite of opposition? 

Maybe if those casting their votes cared about the majority, it would attract more testimonies?  Futility tends to discourage participation.

Don't be so upset at the people not submitting testimony when the evidence demonstrates numbers don't matter.  Most of the testimonies I read comprise the bulk of arguments, so additional submittals aren't likely to illuminate the proverbial light bulb for any of the people making the decision.

I wish I was wrong, but I don't see many of these votes turning on the number of testimonies one way or the other.  I think really bad gun control bills don't often get passed because the bill is just poorly crafted from the start.  Could be legal issues, no funding, or it adds nothing to the plethora of existing laws.

JMHO   

Ainokea, might be a thing soon.

Ummm, I have a feeling it's already here.

And in my opinion, that's not a good thing......

Please list the gun control bills where # opposing was much greater than # supporting, and the bill still passed.  What was the percentage that passed in spite of opposition? 

Maybe if those casting their votes cared about the majority, it would attract more testimonies?  Futility tends to discourage participation.

Don't be so upset at the people not submitting testimony when the evidence demonstrates numbers don't matter.  Most of the testimonies I read comprise the bulk of arguments, so additional submittals aren't likely to illuminate the proverbial light bulb for any of the people making the decision.

I wish I was wrong, but I don't see many of these votes turning on the number of testimonies one way or the other.  I think really bad gun control bills don't often get passed because the bill is just poorly crafted from the start.  Could be legal issues, no funding, or it adds nothing to the plethora of existing laws.

JMHO   

An example would be the mag ban precovid. 1500 oppose and like 40 support. Bill passed senate and only died because the house declined to hear it.

I get where you're coming from, but we need to still do something.  Because if 1 thinks like that, then 1 more, then 2 more, then hundreds more.  We were able to change many bills and defeat a few.  1 reason why we are where we are today is because lack of trying.  Prior to HIFICO, I went to the hearings and there were like 4 pro 2a and 10 anti 2a.  And testimonies were like 12 pro 2a.

1) Taser carry restrictions-Bill defeated
2) Bump stocks, also included "anything that increases the rate of fire".  We got this last part deleted, but bill passed.
3) Loaning a rifle/shotty for 3 days-Bill defeated
4) Registration of tasers-Bill defeated
5) Semi auto rifle ban-Bill defeated

These are just a few that come off the top of my head.

So what we do or don't do today, affects the future of gun owners.  1 has to ask if HIFICO or the internet was around in the 90's; would registration, permits to acquire, etc...be in law today.  TBH, I still think they would, but you get my point.

We should have one or two more local gun rights groups in Hawaii.  Compete with each other to see who gets more done.

An example would be the mag ban precovid. 1500 oppose and like 40 support. Bill passed senate and only died because the house declined to hear it.

I get where you're coming from, but we need to still do something.  Because if 1 thinks like that, then 1 more, then 2 more, then hundreds more.  We were able to change many bills and defeat a few.  1 reason why we are where we are today is because lack of trying.  Prior to HIFICO, I went to the hearings and there were like 4 pro 2a and 10 anti 2a.  And testimonies were like 12 pro 2a.

1) Taser carry restrictions-Bill defeated
2) Bump stocks, also included "anything that increases the rate of fire".  We got this last part deleted, but bill passed.
3) Loaning a rifle/shotty for 3 days-Bill defeated
4) Registration of tasers-Bill defeated
5) Semi auto rifle ban-Bill defeated

These are just a few that come off the top of my head.

So what we do or don't do today, affects the future of gun owners.  1 has to ask if HIFICO or the internet was around in the 90's; would registration, permits to acquire, etc...be in law today.  TBH, I still think they would, but you get my point.

Yes, I get your point, but hypothesizing about what would have been different in the past is not a productive debate.  Can't prove or disprove what *might* have happened.

HIFICO has proven at least one major aspect of this conflict:  without lawsuits (and the means to bring them), laws that are unconstitutional have been, and will continue to be, passed, regardless of the number of testimonies submitted.

While some testimonies have watered down or helped sway lawmakers toward voting against some bills, I don't think the numbers are the reason.  I think organizations like HRA help put the bills in a logical perspective and can add points as to why the bill is bad, unenforceable, or unconstitutional.  That doesn't require numbers, just a good, well presented argument.

If you can show where the numbers have actually mattered -- meaning someone who voted changed their position based on the majority of testimonies -- I'd still love to hear it.  just because some bills favored a 2A position is not evidence the number of testimonies mattered, especially when there are many more bills that are decided in opposition of the majority of testimonies.

As I said, JMHO.  I'd love to be proven wrong.   

We should have one or two more local gun rights groups in Hawaii.  Compete with each other to see who gets more done.

Isn't the Hawaii Rifle Association and Hawaii Defense Foundation a local gun rights groups?

Isn't the Hawaii Rifle Association and Hawaii Defense Foundation a local gun rights groups?

HDF stopped their gun rights push when Baker left a while ago.  HRA is more on the training side nowadays but does some gun rights and outreach..  Both have their members support us, and both bring in new shooters into the community.

Yes, I get your point, but hypothesizing about what would have been different in the past is not a productive debate.  Can't prove or disprove what *might* have happened.

HIFICO has proven at least one major aspect of this conflict:  without lawsuits (and the means to bring them), laws that are unconstitutional have been, and will continue to be, passed, regardless of the number of testimonies submitted.

While some testimonies have watered down or helped sway lawmakers toward voting against some bills, I don't think the numbers are the reason.  I think organizations like HRA help put the bills in a logical perspective and can add points as to why the bill is bad, unenforceable, or unconstitutional.  That doesn't require numbers, just a good, well presented argument.

If you can show where the numbers have actually mattered -- meaning someone who voted changed their position based on the majority of testimonies -- I'd still love to hear it.  just because some bills favored a 2A position is not evidence the number of testimonies mattered, especially when there are many more bills that are decided in opposition of the majority of testimonies.

As I said, JMHO.  I'd love to be proven wrong.   

Acasio who was on JDC with Rhodes wanted to ban mags. Overwhelming phone calls and test changed her mind.

But it still wasnt enough to kill the bill. She was new at the time and not corrupted yet like lee, rhodes, or kealakohole (sp?).

This isnt a strong argument to show what im saying, but its something.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Isn't the Hawaii Rifle Association and Hawaii Defense Foundation a local gun rights groups?

They are not gun rights like hifico. But more to promote and help the 2a community. This does involve some activism, but isnt their main focus. Like how hifico's main focus isnt to train people.

Both post when bills are due.  HRA president recently met with Logan and others about the rules after the 1st hearing. I recently got an email from them about SB1230.

Precovid, a few HDF main people showed up to the hearings.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

They are not gun rights like hifico. But more to promote and help the 2a community. This does involve some activism, but isnt their main focus. Like how hifico's main focus isnt to train people.

Both post when bills are due.  HRA president recently met with Logan and others about the rules after the 1st hearing. I recently got an email from them about SB1230.

Precovid, a few HDF main people showed up to the hearings.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

*cough*
i met with calvin say a couple weeks ago and was also on the zoom call to work on Bill 57 CD1
and was at the legislative rally last week...