Persons wishing to submit written testimony in advance
may do so by emailing their testimony to :

HPDLTC@honolulu.gov

thanks

I’m wondering what do we get out of the rules meeting? Is there good that can come out of this? If the laws are already passed by Congress what are we testifying for?

I’m wondering what do we get out of the rules meeting? Is there good that can come out of this? If the laws are already passed by Congress what are we testifying for?

Showing face via in person or test.

No grumble if u dont do either.

But u are correct, i think this one's fate is in because the rules have already been redone last year. So minor tweeks to it.

Last years test, we got rid of the type 2 holster.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

I have a hard time understanding the way bills are written but I want to submit a testimony. Can someone please help what main ones we should testify for/against? And what does the strike throughs mean in the bill?

I have a hard time understanding the way bills are written but I want to submit a testimony. Can someone please help what main ones we should testify for/against? And what does the strike throughs mean in the bill?

A strike thru means that part is deleted.

An underline means its being added.

None of the above means its im the existing version and not being changed.

For this rules hearing, u have to email them. Also if u want to show up in person is good too.

Read the rules and write how any changes affect you.  Keep in mind that if that part references the law (hrs), then its too late to change. 1 example is how the law doesnt require a handgun safety class, but the chiefs rules is.

If u get overwhelmed, just say u opposse all additions due to it being due soon.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Right on  cmo66

Thank you for explaining.

A strike thru means that part is deleted.

An underline means its being added.

None of the above means its im the existing version and not being changed.

For this rules hearing, u have to email them. Also if u want to show up in person is good too.

Read the rules and write how any changes affect you.  Keep in mind that if that part references the law (hrs), then its too late to change. 1 example is how the law doesnt require a handgun safety class, but the chiefs rules is.

If u get overwhelmed, just say u opposse all additions due to it being due soon.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Wait the new handgun safety class requirement is the chiefs rule? It wasn’t required by Congress?

Wait the new handgun safety class requirement is the chiefs rule? It wasn’t required by Congress?

wasnt req by law, chiefs rules is adding it for ccw. Unless i missed it. Someone can verify?

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

wasnt req by law, chiefs rules is adding it for ccw. Unless i missed it. Someone can verify?

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

What about to acquire a handgun? Is that chiefs rules as well?

What about to acquire a handgun? Is that chiefs rules as well?

Yes. But doesnt look like anything meaningful added.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Yes. But doesnt look like anything meaningful added.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

I’m confused because someone around here was saying that none of this was HPDs fault. Something like if HPD could make the process easier they would and that HPDs hands are tied by the legislature. So HPD is making everyone retake a handgun safety class to purchase a new handgun? If it is this really helps what I will be putting into my online testimony.

I’m confused because someone around here was saying that none of this was HPDs fault. Something like if HPD could make the process easier they would and that HPDs hands are tied by the legislature. So HPD is making everyone retake a handgun safety class to purchase a new handgun? If it is this really helps what I will be putting into my online testimony.

For sb1230, hpd testified (chief logan and other hpd) that sensitive places is hard to enforce. They never said its unconstitutional or that they wont enforce it. They never stated theyre against sensitive places or to not pass this portion.

The other areas, they were silent on as sb1230 redid much of the current law.

They did begin their written test with "hpd supports the intent of this bill..."

But never stated they are against it.

This is a change from the past few years where hpd pretty much supported majority of the anti 2a bills.

If u look back in the legal section, i usually put what hpd said during the hearings.



Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

I’m confused because someone around here was saying that none of this was HPDs fault. Something like if HPD could make the process easier they would and that HPDs hands are tied by the legislature. So HPD is making everyone retake a handgun safety class to purchase a new handgun? If it is this really helps what I will be putting into my online testimony.

Hpd doesnt make law, but enforces it.

Like other moments in history, we have seen what happens when authority figures "obey orders" or "just enforcing the law".

Imagine if hpd said they wont enforce this law. But then again, the chief of police is a politican position.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

https://www.honolulupd.org/police-services/firearms/?fbclid=IwAR1uHfe0BRazX-JZiQ-iPhO6fFDoTUwVAUegFW6rQD7eiGUvQTvlfirpZ2M

Click proposed rules link.

Click on public hearing notice

Written testimony can be submitted to :

HPDLTC@honolulu.gov

testimony submitted

I've submitted mine.

Thanks for providing the information.

It appears that "they" are trying to put as many "names" on a firearms application as possible. It's an age old strategy of intimidation by extending the reach of liability, sometimes, far beyond reason. Attorney's also do something similar by "naming as many defendants as possible" in civil cases.

What's concerning to me about this, is that people pursuing a LTC are subject to prejudice over other legal and illegal gun owners. When an illegal gun owner uses a gun in commission of a crime, no one successfully pursues all elements of that gun-related crime because of things like qualified immunity--they just blame the gun. When a gun owner defends their home from within its walls, there are statutes that protect them. However, the mere act of carrying in public exposes you and everyone who "signed off" on your application to indiscriminate amounts of prosecution and litigation.

A great majority of crimes are committed by illegal guns and illegal gun owners outside of the home, however, the proposed changes do not specifically address this. The argument is always that they are trying to keep guns out of the hands of people who don't have them, yet, none of these changes clearly demonstrate how it will accomplish this. What it does accomplish, is limiting the ability for law-abiding citizens to carry by disrupting their ability to complete this "Chain of Certifications" by extending gun-related liability far beyond the owner themselves. (Rhetorical questions) If a police officer engages in domestic violence off duty, you don't see the victims lawsuit naming the officer, police department, police academy instructors, vocational insurers, medical insurers, department psychologist, Sergeant, Lt., Chief, Mayor, and Gov all being named? Why does a private citizen need the potential endorsement of half a dozen people before they even become a liability?

Testimony submitted regarding amendment of Chapter 15 of the Rules of the Chief of Police, HPD, entitled “Firearms Permits and Licenses.” §§15-12 – 15-28 (last amended in Nov. 2022), and add new rules (§§15-29 to 15-31) to comply with Act 52 (2023). Implement Act 52 as to the application process, background checks, renewal process, fees, and forms for licenses to carry, permits to acquire, and registration of firearms;

“To conquer a nation, first disarm its citizens.” ― Adolf Hitler

These unreasonable and overly stringent firearms restrictions on Hawaii’s law-abiding citizens rights are clearly an infringement of guaranteed 2nd Amendment rights which are protected from government infringement and overreach by the Bill of Rights. The BOR was written to clarify the concept that government works for its citizens, not the other way around.

Some argue that the second amendment is no longer relevant or that it was written only for outdated militias. The most valid arguments against this are from two people who actually wrote the Constitution. “The Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.” - Samuel Adams. Thomas Jefferson wrote, ”The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.” The author’s intentions could not be clearer.

But, setting these indisputable constitutional facts aside, the matter is simple. Does anyone – ANYONE honestly believe that criminals will abide by any of these past, present, or additional future restrictions that are being proposed? Of course not.

Then, who will be affected? It is exclusively law-abiding citizens who have the guaranteed right to equal means of self-protection, protection of their families, and the protection of their property from those outlaws who are illegally and effortlessly armed. Will these new proposals make it even more difficult for law-abiding citizens to obtain firearms for self-protection or hunting? Of course they will.

Are criminals careful to avoid having firearms in “sensitive places”? Has any convicted felon ever registered their firearms at police headquarters, waited for weeks, taken a gun safety course, applied for a permit to acquire, completed a test of any kind, filled out eleven pages of forms, been mentally approved by a doctor, paid fees, or been certified by any governmental entity to buy or possess a firearm? Of course not. Criminals will continue to successfully do what they have always done – buy their guns instantly from other criminals. No legislation, rules, or laws will stop or even restrict that. Never has, never will.

It is not possible for the police to protect all of us from gun-wielding repeat outlaws, the insane, or judgement impaired drug addicts. By the time police can respond, the harm is completed, leaving police with the function of filling out paperwork after the crime. That is not good enough. That is not acceptable. That is not constitutional. But, moreover, it is not fair to law-abiding citizens. As the cliche states, “Criminals prefer unarmed victims.”  So true!

What then is the solution to crimes committed by felons with firearms, other than more “gun control”? Rather than attempting to restrict good citizens’ rights, or blame inanimate objects which cannot commit a crime, then permanently jail felons who use firearms to commit their crimes. It is criminals who commit crimes – NOT firearms, and NOT law-abiding citizens. Again, simple common sense must prevail.

Testimony submitted by Robert W. Hochstein

Imagine all the resources: money, manpower, effort, and planning would go to the real source of the problem which is the criminal element and mental health.

Imagine using all those resources to incarcerate and punish crimes against innocent citizens.

Just imagine what progress it would achieve.

Then forget it.  It's a pipe dream.

they are still accepting email testimony until midnight tonight...