It began with 47 anti 2a bills. Stuff like sensitive places, 50 cal ban, mag ban, FBI screening, and more.

We are down to only 3. 1 is a C&C bill that's on the Mayors desk.

2 are almost identical bills about sensitive places and handgun safety class requirements.

We need to get more testimony.  So spread the word when they're due.  Not all gun owners are on social media or forums.

Mahalo cmo

I recently spoke to a few retired LEOs about Honolulu's Sensitive Places bill.  I was surprised how uninformed they were.  One person, did actually read the Honolulu Bill, but wasn't completely clear that it restricted retired LEO's like CCW's.  Are there any popular discussion boards that LEO's, particularly retired Hawaii LEO's frequent?  I feel that retired LEO's can help our cause. 

I recently spoke to a few retired LEOs about Honolulu's Sensitive Places bill.  I was surprised how uninformed they were.  One person, did actually read the Honolulu Bill, but wasn't completely clear that it restricted retired LEO's like CCW's.  Are there any popular discussion boards that LEO's, particularly retired Hawaii LEO's frequent?  I feel that retired LEO's can help our cause.

1 LEOSA with connections called the mayors office and was told by them that Bill 57 excludes LEOSA.  The office said they will also get a letter from their legal department that states this so he can share it with his fellow LEOSA.

Like my counsel rep, sounds like the mayors office had no clue and took about 5 days to check into this.  So they got lucky if LEOSA are excluded.  IMO it all comes down to if the word "state" and "state or subdivisions" are used interchangeably in Title 18.

Whether armored car are excluded is another story, 2 companies have left messages with the mayors office cause they read it and 1 had their legal read it and it doesn't exclude them.

1 LEOSA with connections called the mayors office and was told by them that Bill 57 excludes LEOSA.  The office said they will also get a letter from their legal department that states this so he can share it with his fellow LEOSA.

Like my counsel rep, sounds like the mayors office had no clue and took about 5 days to check into this.  So they got lucky if LEOSA are excluded.  IMO it all comes down to if the word "state" and "state or subdivisions" are used interchangeably in Title 18.

Oh, wow, changemyoil66, you got some valuable information. 

So let me see if I understand what you are saying.  LEOSAs are EXEMPT from the Sensitive Location prohibition and Private Property prohibition in the Honolulu Bill that the Mayor is supposed to sign soon?

If LEOSAs are Not EXEMPT, and they actually intended to exempt LEOSAs, I wonder if this would be enough for the Mayor to veto this bill?

... IMO it all comes down to if the word "state" and "state or subdivisions" are used interchangeably in Title 18.

Title 18, USC §926C. [Law Enforcement Officers' Safety Act,
also known as LEOSA] Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified
retired law enforcement officers [QRLEO]

(a) Notwithstanding [in other words,"in spite of the fact that,"
 or "nevertheless," or "although"] any other provision
of the law of any State or any political
subdivision thereof, an individual who is a
qualified retired law enforcement officer and who is carrying
the identification required by subsection (d) may carry a concealed
firearm that has been shipped or transported in interstate or
foreign commerce, subject to subsection (b).

(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit
the laws of any State that-

       (1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or
       restrict the possession of concealed firearms on
       their property; or

       (2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms
       on any State or local government
       property, installation, building, base, or park.

Oh, so changemyoil66, your point -- which is a very interesting/good one -- is that since "political subdivision" is not always specified, hence the Honolulu County (being a "political subdivision") may not have the authority to enact such restrictions?

Oh, wow, changemyoil66, you got some valuable information. 

So let me see if I understand what you are saying.  LEOSAs are EXEMPT from the Sensitive Location prohibition and Private Property prohibition in the Honolulu Bill that the Mayor is supposed to sign soon?

If LEOSAs are Not EXEMPT, and they actually intended to exempt LEOSAs, I wonder if this would be enough for the Mayor to veto this bill?

Per the Mayors office, LEOSA are exempt from sensitive places and "business establishments".  The bill doesn't use the phrase "private property".

They didn't intend to exempt LEOSA, they got lucky that their interpretation of Title 18 works in their favor.  As the guy who wrote the bill didn't know and neither did the Mayors staff. Each had to check with the cities atty's.  They even didn't add in HRS134-11 which applies to any active LEO or like agencies until the last hearing.  So they even forgot about that.  Which would mean no FBI agent, DOJ agent, UC HPD, CRU, etc...would be able to CCW in a sensitive place or business establishment.  So basically, they have no idea what they're doing.

It's unfortunate that someone brought HRS134-11 up cause this would have been a huge reason for Rick to veto the bill.  When I called Augies office to ask about when can no changes be made to the bill due to errors being discovered, the lady already knew about this.  To quote Sun Tsu "don't correct your enemy when they're making a mistake".

IMO, I don't think LEOSA are exempt. Why would the first part of Title 18 mention "State or subdivision" and never to use the word "subdivision" again in that section.  So IMO, I think further down state and subidvision are used as 1. So when it says state law, it's also implying subdivision law.

I think the cities atty is just trying to cover the ass of the error of the bill.

Disrupt

Delay

Distract

And all the while showing unresponsiveness to denying nor affirming information.

That's their strategy.

Oh, so changemyoil66, your point -- which is a very interesting/good one -- is that since "political subdivision" is not always specified, hence the Honolulu County (being a "political subdivision")   may not have the authority to enact such restrictions?

I think it's the opposite. The city may have the authority to enact restrictions. 

 "This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that-"