Smith and wesson filed a UIPA and was told it will cost them $27k for time and printing paper by the Hawaii AG.

What SW is after, i have no clue.

If im reading this right, a judge ruled

1) UIPA docs must be given for free
2) HI has to pay SW's atty fees
3) future hearing set to see if "good faith" arugement holds that was used by the AG.
4) AG has 30 days to provide all docs requested


So seems like HI is still winless when it comes to 2a stuff. And yet the AG supports all the sensitive places bills. "We can defend it", but the AG left out the word "sucessfully".

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

When Hawaii loses in court we all lose. Think about that during tax time. We need smart people not the dumb puppets we have now.

Lawsuit dates back to this, https://www.civilbeat.org/2022/03/smith-wesson-sues-hawaii-over-the-high-cost-of-public-records/

Basically it's to see how closely the AG and anti-gun groups work, and to expose what they're doing.  They work hand in hand to coordinate with other states, share research, defend against lawsuits, and write bills.

Exposing how they do this would help to reduce their effectiveness.

These kinds of shenanigans by states or any other level of government really pisses me off.

The information the government holds belongs to the people who pay the officials to oversee these agencies.

If a citizen, business, organization or other legal entity requests information, the information should be provided in a reasonably SHORT amount of time, and in the format requested (don't print out years of spreadsheets when a thumbdrive copy is faster, cheaper, and easier to digest).

Sunshine makes the best disinfectant when it comes to government misdeeds, which is why gov't places so many hurdles in front of anyone trying to gather information.

Whoever calculated the ridiculous (and illegal) cost for obtaining this information should be personally liable for the requestor's legal fees, court costs, and anything else the tax payer is now on the hook for.  Unfortunately, they hide behind "policy" and "qualified immunity".

That personal liability thing has always bothered me.  In any action, there is always one member of the committee, group, or whatever, who initiates the discussion or proceeding on that action.

There are times I'd like to know precisely who that <vulgar term> was.

So I could write them a polite advisory letter regarding the level of their intellect and perhaps speculating on their ancestry.