A few days ago this section read something like Instructor(s) must teach all of the required subjects EXCEPT "Mental health"
I also ponder why ''students'' who wish to become ''applicants'' are now referred to as "Trainees".
LTC is not a training class !

My personal guess is that they are copying and pasting from police recruit training requirements as well as from other sources.

Forcing people wanting to exercise a right to meet "professional standards" imposed on others is just another roadblock they think will make us shut up and color.

I might be wrong, but the same seemed to be the case the first go-round for the Chief's Rules.

This is the part I am concerned about.
It was buried on page 34 of a 37 page document.
It requires firearms instructors to be counselors on mental health.



Subchapter 3 Instructor verifications and training certifications 
 §21-15-29  Instructor verifications.

(a) Each firearm certification program for Permits and each firearm certification program for Licenses shall be led by an instructor verified by the State of Hawaii or the Honolulu Police Department. An application for verification as an instructor shall be rejected if the applicant is legally prohibited from possessing or handling firearms. 
 
(b) An applicant may be verified to conduct trainings for Permits to Acquire, and may also be verified to conduct trainings for Licenses to Carry, but §21-15-29 34  an applicant shall demonstrate the required qualifications for each before being so verified.  Verification as an instructor for Permits to Acquire alone does not authorize the applicant to conduct trainings for Licenses to Carry, and verification as an instructor for Licenses to Carry alone does not authorize the applicant to conduct trainings for Permits to Acquire.   
 
(c) Absent a verification process formalized by the State of Hawaii, the Training Division shall develop clear and objective criteria to verify qualifications of applicants to become instructors, with verification to be valid for two years.  Such clear and objective criteria shall require the applicant to provide evidence of the following: (1) Valid, in-person certifications by nationally recognized firearms manufacturers or organizations, demonstrating the applicant’s qualifications to use a firearm proficiently and safely and to educate others regarding the same. (2) The applicant’s ability to provide reliable certifications regarding trainees’ qualifications to the Firearms Unit.  An applicant shall be disqualified if the applicant was previously convicted of any criminal offense involving dishonesty or fraud, or if the applicant was previously found liable in any civil court for any act involving dishonesty or fraud.  (3) For applicants seeking verification to provide training for Permits to Acquire, the applicant’s qualifications to teach others regarding mental health, suicide prevention, and domestic violence issues associated with firearms and firearm violence.  The applicant shall satisfy at least one of the following: (A)  If the applicant intends to conduct this portion of the training, the applicant shall submit evidence of the applicant’s education and experience in each field.  (B) If a physician, psychologist, social worker, or other health care professional licensed in Hawaii and with training and experience in these issues intends to conduct this portion of the training, the applicant shall provide the name, contact information, and qualifications of the person conducting each of these portions. (C) If the applicant intends to use one or more videos for this portion of the training, the applicant shall submit information on each video to be used. (4) For applicants seeking verification to provide training for Licenses to Carry, the applicant’s qualifications to teach others regarding the law in Hawaii on self-defense and use of force, including the requirements of chapters 134 and 703, Hawaii Revised Statutes.   §21-15-29 35  (A)  The applicant may conduct this portion of the training, in which case the applicant shall submit evidence of the applicant’s qualifications to provide this training. (B) Alternatively, an active attorney in good standing with the Hawaii State Bar Association may conduct this portion of the training, in which case the applicant shall provide the name, contact information, and Hawaii State Bar Association JD number.  (C) The applicant shall also provide a copy of the written examination to be used. (d) As used in this section and in section 21-15-30, “applicant” means the person seeking to be verified as an instructor, “instructor” means verified instructor, and “trainee” means the person seeking training to obtain a Permit to Acquire or a License to Carry.  [Eff and comp             ] (Auth: HRS § 134-9; RCH § 6-1604(d)) (Imp: HRS §§ 134-2, 134-7, 134-9)

This will likely significantly increase the cost of the classes. As I read it the instructor must have some level of training (additional cost) or must outsource that portion of the class (additional cost)

It would be easier if the department just made a video that instructors could use, but that would require HPD to be interested in certifying trainers....

This will likely significantly increase the cost of the classes. As I read it the instructor must have some level of training (additional cost) or must outsource that portion of the class (additional cost)

It would be easier if the department just made a video that instructors could use, but that would require HPD to be interested in certifying trainers....

=====================
Let's not mince words here.
The actual intent of these rules is to make it as hard as possible for people to get ANY kind of firearm permit.
Therefore, the vaguer the rule is written, the easier it is to interpret it ANY WAY they want.

I would like to know what genius wrote this ill-conceived proposal before they figured out how it is supposed to be applied.
Furthermore, I would like to know if the person who WROTE these rules has any of the qualifications spelled out in these rules.

=====================
Let's not mince words here.
The actual intent of these rules is to make it as hard as possible for people to get ANY kind of firearm permit.
Therefore, the vaguer the rule is written, the easier it is to interpret it ANY WAY they want.

I would like to know what genius wrote this ill-conceived proposal before they figured out how it is supposed to be applied.
Furthermore, I would like to know if the person who WROTE these rules has any of the qualifications spelled out in these rules.

Someone who's anti 2a is writing a gun rule.  Because if they were pro2A or abided/understood the constitution, all that the Chiefs rules would have is "are you a prohibited person from possessing a firearm.  Yes/No"

=====================
Let's not mince words here.
The actual intent of these rules is to make it as hard as possible for people to get ANY kind of firearm permit.
Therefore, the vaguer the rule is written, the easier it is to interpret it ANY WAY they want.

I would like to know what genius wrote this ill-conceived proposal before they figured out how it is supposed to be applied.
Furthermore, I would like to know if the person who WROTE these rules has any of the qualifications spelled out in these rules.

I am not going to speculate on intent but of course agree that the end result is that it is harder for us either way.

It is not uncommon for high level people, be they legislators, department heads, heads of large businesses, etc. to write laws that sound good at some level but are in no way realistic towards actual implementation. Maybe they do is as a poison pill, or want lots of liability protection, or just don't think things through. Either way I hope that SCOTUS case gets decided in the way that makes all these additional rules invalid.

I am not going to speculate on intent but of course agree that the end result is that it is harder for us either way.

It is not uncommon for high level people, be they legislators, department heads, heads of large businesses, etc. to write laws that sound good at some level but are in no way realistic towards actual implementation. Maybe they do is as a poison pill, or want lots of liability protection, or just don't think things through. Either way I hope that SCOTUS case gets decided in the way that makes all these additional rules invalid.

Yeah, there's really no evidence that they don't want private citizens to carry a firearm in public ... I mean, other than the things they've said publicly and done before and after the Bruen decision.

Throw out all that nonsense, and their intent is just a mystery.

 

#objective

Yeah, there's really no evidence that they don't want private citizens to carry a firearm in public ... I mean, other than the things they've said publicly and done before and after the Bruen decision.

Throw out all that nonsense, and their intent is just a mystery.

 

I am not going to speculate on intent but of course agree that the end result is that it is harder for us either way.

Wheres the being objective? 

Yeah, there's really no evidence that they don't want private citizens to carry a firearm in public ... I mean, other than the things they've said publicly and done before and after the Bruen decision.

Throw out all that nonsense, and their intent is just a mystery.

 

Who is "they"?
Do whatever you want I am just saying I choose not to speculate on intent.

focus
no need to speculate
the bill was sponsored by the governor and passed by the legislature
and they stated their intent numerous times...

Who is "they"?
Do whatever you want I am just saying I choose not to speculate on intent.

focus
no need to speculate
the bill was sponsored by the governor and passed by the legislature
and they stated their intent numerous times...

Enter goal post moving next.

focus
no need to speculate
the bill was sponsored by the governor and passed by the legislature
and they stated their intent numerous times...

We pointed that out to him more than once, but actual statements by public officials must not carry any weight with him.

Hitler:  We will rid our nation of the evil Jewish vermin.

EEF:  I don't want to speculate on whether Hitler hates the Jews.

We pointed that out to him more than once, but actual statements by public officials must not carry any weight with him.

Hitler:  We will rid our nation of the evil Jewish vermin.

EEF:  I don't want to speculate on whether Hitler hates the Jews.

#objective

Reminder

WHen submitting written or oral testimony, remember to keep on task.  Certain things are because of the law, so the chief or his rule makers cannot change this at this point. So don't spend too much time talking about it.  In the rules, many times the law is referenced, so this will help show which rules are because of state law.

Also this isn't the time to go off topic and say stuff like mags bans are anti 2a or registration is anti 2a, etc...

I mean, it's your testimony, but going off topic doesn't help.  Had that lady who's daughter committed suicide and she was rambling on about 30rd mags.  She already sounds like a fool, but this adds to it.

Give personal examples on how the rules will impact you.  Tell your story.

There are metal detectors to enter the building. So leave all knives, firearms, Tasers, etc...at home or in your car if the law allows.

There is a restroom that's available, but you must pass the metal detectors first, see above.

Last time HPD set up a TV to watch the oral testimony via their YouTube channel outside.

Reminder

WHen submitting written or oral testimony, remember to keep on task.  Certain things are because of the law, so the chief or his rule makers cannot change this at this point. So don't spend too much time talking about it.  In the rules, many times the law is referenced, so this will help show which rules are because of state law.

Also this isn't the time to go off topic and say stuff like mags bans are anti 2a or registration is anti 2a, etc...

I mean, it's your testimony, but going off topic doesn't help.  Had that lady who's daughter committed suicide and she was rambling on about 30rd mags.  She already sounds like a fool, but this adds to it.

Give personal examples on how the rules will impact you.  Tell your story.

There are metal detectors to enter the building. So leave all knives, firearms, Tasers, etc...at home or in your car if the law allows.

There is a restroom that's available, but you must pass the metal detectors first, see above.

Last time HPD set up a TV to watch the oral testimony via their YouTube channel outside.

This is always my issue when submitting testimony. Outside of “these laws are unconstitutional” which is really me just saying “these laws suck” I don’t really know what to say.

This is always my issue when submitting testimony. Outside of “these laws are unconstitutional” which is really me just saying “these laws suck” I don’t really know what to say.

Explain how it affects you.

But at least u submit, many others dont even bother. Then grumble.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

focus
no need to speculate
the bill was sponsored by the governor and passed by the legislature
and they stated their intent numerous times...

Are we speaking about individuals or about the decision as a whole?
That is the problem when looking at a law and trying to claim intent, if you have a bunch of legislator vote yes on a bill that doesn't mean they all have the same intent. One senator could have one intent while another senator could vote for the same law with a very different intent. So how do we say "The" intent is any one specific thing? I do believe that some individual legislators have such specific intent.

What did our legislators say specifically? Did they say that they want gun permits to be as hard to get as possible? Did they say that they made it vague on purpose so they could interpret it any way they want? (Those are the two things old fart stated that I was replying to.

Are we speaking about individuals or about the decision as a whole?
That is the problem when looking at a law and trying to claim intent, if you have a bunch of legislator vote yes on a bill that doesn't mean they all have the same intent. One senator could have one intent while another senator could vote for the same law with a very different intent. So how do we say "The" intent is any one specific thing? I do believe that some individual legislators have such specific intent.

What did our legislators say specifically? Did they say that they want gun permits to be as hard to get as possible? Did they say that they made it vague on purpose so they could interpret it any way they want? (Those are the two things old fart stated that I was replying to.

focus
you replied to my quote
"the bill was sponsored by the governor and passed by the legislature
and they stated their intent numerous times..."
sorry if i didn't add more "maybes" and "perhaps" so you would see how "objective" i am trying to be

the governor specifically said that people have the right to feel safe
and more guns on the street means less safety
the governor sponsored the bill, and he had key legislators at his side that repeated the same thing more than once

Are we speaking about individuals or about the decision as a whole?
That is the problem when looking at a law and trying to claim intent, if you have a bunch of legislator vote yes on a bill that doesn't mean they all have the same intent. One senator could have one intent while another senator could vote for the same law with a very different intent. So how do we say "The" intent is any one specific thing? I do believe that some individual legislators have such specific intent.

What did our legislators say specifically? Did they say that they want gun permits to be as hard to get as possible? Did they say that they made it vague on purpose so they could interpret it any way they want? (Those are the two things old fart stated that I was replying to.

Ready to move goalpost.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

I mentioned before, didn't I?

Basic war strategy is to get rid of instructors and politicians first.
Invalidating the credentials of firearm instructors is one method to quash the pro-gun community.

Next on the hit list are community leaders, like the supervisory range officers at KHSC and admin on this forum and then shooting clubs.
Simultaneously, journalists would be on the hit list too. Pity the reporter that disputes Logan's claim that crime is down here in Hawaii.

Basically, the idea is to quash any criticism of police or political leaders.
You would notice that the bulletin boards at the range are gone.
Shooting club gatherings have been halted for quite some time now.
The range shuts down at 4pm eliminating any club social-type gatherings.