Hearing on 3/21 @ 2pm.

https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/account/login.aspx?return=/account/submittestimony.aspx

Sign in and submit testimony.


This is the senate version of HB984. Bans ccw everywhere but the sidewalk and much stuff more for non-ccw holders.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

There is a mandatory insurance section "§134~C Mandatory insurance coverage."

There is a mandatory insurance section "§134~C Mandatory insurance coverage."

Yes, when it becomes available and you have 1 year to get it.

Like CA's microstamping law. Once the technology is commonly available, all guns must have Judge Dredd style stamping.

367 Support
84 Oppose

Most support are copy/paste. Now AOAO's for condo's are writing because some CCW holder could be angry and show up to a board meeting and shoot the board.  Or the property manager.  Condo common areas was removed from the bill.

367 Support
84 Oppose

I guess the 1600 or so people who attended the gun show are ok with SB1230.  It's hard for me to think that maybe they are  unaware of what is going on.

This CCW issue gets lots of coverage in the media.

Weird, they said 119 support and 95 opposed. Maybe theyre not counting copy/paste?

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

 (Going by memory) So deputy AG was asked if they can defend with success any lawsuit and he said yes. He stated he has a thick binder of all the court cases where states have been successfully been defending their anti 2a laws. He said NY just won something this week. And that NY court is very well respected.  He and his team put many hours into making HI's anti 2a law successfully defensible against any lawsuit.

Same guy said last week that they have no idea if they can defend against it because what the committee is asking them to do is to litigate the bill.  And we need to wait to see how this new SCOTUs ruling will be applied.  Didn't know that 1 can litigate a bill in 5 days.

So basically, he's full of it and telling the anti 2a lawmakers what they want to hear to give them peace of mind.

1 committee member  was scared when a zoom testifier took out his CCW'd pistol to put it into a gun case because CCWing would be banned on The Bus.  So he had to show what he would have to do and said it would freak out anyone who's at the bus stop with him.

Only 2 voted no, and same 2 voted no last time. Souza and Kong.

(Going by memory) So deputy AG was asked if they can defend with success any lawsuit and he said yes. He stated he has a thick binder of all the court cases where states have been successfully been defending their anti 2a laws. He said NY just won something this week. And that NY court is very well respected.  He and his team put many hours into making HI's anti 2a law successfully defensible against any lawsuit.

Same guy said last week that they have no idea if they can defend against it because what the committee is asking them to do is to litigate the bill.  And we need to wait to see how this new SCOTUs ruling will be applied.  Didn't know that 1 can litigate a bill in 5 days.

So basically, he's full of it and telling the anti 2a lawmakers what they want to hear to give them peace of mind.

1 committee member  was scared when a zoom testifier took out his CCW'd pistol to put it into a gun case because CCWing would be banned on The Bus.  So he had to show what he would have to do and said it would freak out anyone who's at the bus stop with him.

Only 2 voted no, and same 2 voted no last time. Souza and Kong.

Peace of mind?  Sounds like the AG's office thinks they can lie about anything they want knowing it'll take time to actually get a judge in a real case to decide against the state. As long as the state gets the anti-2A bills enacted, they have a win. if lawmakers get angry that the AG's office lied, the AG will hope enough time has passed so the blow back is minimal.

Ends justifies the means.

(Going by memory) So deputy AG was asked if they can defend with success any lawsuit and he said yes. He stated he has a thick binder of all the court cases where states have been successfully been defending their anti 2a laws. He said NY just won something this week. And that NY court is very well respected.  He and his team put many hours into making HI's anti 2a law successfully defensible against any lawsuit.

Same guy said last week that they have no idea if they can defend against it because what the committee is asking them to do is to litigate the bill.  And we need to wait to see how this new SCOTUs ruling will be applied.  Didn't know that 1 can litigate a bill in 5 days.

So basically, he's full of it and telling the anti 2a lawmakers what they want to hear to give them peace of mind.

1 committee member  was scared when a zoom testifier took out his CCW'd pistol to put it into a gun case because CCWing would be banned on The Bus.  So he had to show what he would have to do and said it would freak out anyone who's at the bus stop with him.

Only 2 voted no, and same 2 voted no last time. Souza and Kong.

What laws have been successfully defended? They e been getting smoked in federal district court from what I’ve been following

What laws have been successfully defended? They e been getting smoked in federal district court from what I’ve been following

Hence the lying.

Hence the lying.

I figured one member would actually ask him to detail out what case he’s actually talking about.

I figured one member would actually ask him to detail out what case he’s actually talking about.

It's a pre-planned question.  Tarnas the head chair asked the AG so he can let everyone know what's up and give a false sense of security.  But those who are in the know, know he's full of it.  Unfortunately, testifiers are not allowed to ask questions to the committee.  And when you do, they tell you that they don't answer questions.

It's a pre-planned question.  Tarnas the head chair asked the AG so he can let everyone know what's up and give a false sense of security.  But those who are in the know, know he's full of it.  Unfortunately, testifiers are not allowed to ask questions to the committee.  And when you do, they tell you that they don't answer questions.

Why couldn’t Souza or kong ask to clarify? Sorry for the questions just trying to understand the process here.

Why couldn’t Souza or kong ask to clarify? Sorry for the questions just trying to understand the process here.

They might not be aware of what question the chair is going to ask, they don't want to upset the chair, if they don't have good knowledge of the specific subject then they don't want to look stupid asking a dumb question.

These 2's main focus isn't 2a, but they are on our side.  Same with Brenton Awa, he said his main focus is corruption in the system. But he values the Constitution, which includes the 2A.