when you have government step in and decide who is "certified" they will encroach on what ever freedoms you have left. What we have here is a group of instructors / gatekeepers determine after you pay them whether or not you have the right to carry a gun. This was not done for public safety but for control. The local politicians know what they created. This is social engineering 101. This purposely designed policy divided our community.

None of local politicians are genuinely interested to make Hawaii affordable. This is just one small example.
Here's an example of government control over housing.
https://www.civilbeat.org/2021/09/years-before-indictments-honolulu-permitting-department-was-warned-about-corrupt-culture/

https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2021/03/31/city-planning-department-employees-charged-months-long-federal-corruption-investigation/

With these cases in mind, why do Hawaii citizens always turn to the same government for solutions?

It's probably an unpopular opinion here, but I actually agree with the guy...

I don't think a permit should be required for any long gun (AR to shotgun to musket) unless you want to carry it in public.
I think a permit should be required to own a handgun, and if you want to carry it in public, you also should have a permit demonstrating you have the skills necessary to carry and deploy that firearm safely.

My reasoning for this is simply because long guns are rarely used in crimes and cannot really be concealed. In situations where a long gun is used, you can usually take your time (e.g. hunting or skeet shooting) and there probably aren't a lot of people around. However, when you carry a handgun, we need to make sure you don't have a criminal history since gun crimes are usually committed with handguns. In addition, carrying a concealed handgun requires skills that people don't naturally have. People fumble holstering/unholstering a weapon in giant outside-the-waistband holsters... I think people should be required to demonstrate they can remove a layer of clothing and deploy a concealed weapon without injuring themselves or someone else. Also, since CCWing means you'll be carrying in public, there are a lot of people around who could be hurt. I see police who have "training" running, one-handed, indiscriminately firing at a target 20-30 yards away at an obviously unclear backdrop. It's troubling to think what someone who has absolutely no training will do. In exchange for this training though, the state shouldn't have such a wide "Sensitive Place" ban when police officers are allowed to carry in those same places while off duty, and their tactic of trying to shame Pro2A property owners by requiring placement of signage saying "GUNS ALLOWED" is ridiculous.

Just my 2 cents

so, infringement of 2A.  okay, got it.
You're exercising your 1A, good for you.  Although, as you said, not a popular opinion on a 2A forum.

Anytime a government entity (HPD) tells you what training is required, what instructors are certified by them, and what proficiency you must attain yet the only public shooting range prohibits you from training to acquire that proficiency, already shows they are trying to discourage, deny, and severely restrict your ability to exercise your 2a rights.

It's probably an unpopular opinion here, but I actually agree with the guy...

I don't think a permit should be required for any long gun (AR to shotgun to musket) unless you want to carry it in public.
I think a permit should be required to own a handgun, and if you want to carry it in public, you also should have a permit demonstrating you have the skills necessary to carry and deploy that firearm safely.

My reasoning for this is simply because long guns are rarely used in crimes and cannot really be concealed. In situations where a long gun is used, you can usually take your time (e.g. hunting or skeet shooting) and there probably aren't a lot of people around. However, when you carry a handgun, we need to make sure you don't have a criminal history since gun crimes are usually committed with handguns. In addition, carrying a concealed handgun requires skills that people don't naturally have. People fumble holstering/unholstering a weapon in giant outside-the-waistband holsters... I think people should be required to demonstrate they can remove a layer of clothing and deploy a concealed weapon without injuring themselves or someone else. Also, since CCWing means you'll be carrying in public, there are a lot of people around who could be hurt. I see police who have "training" running, one-handed, indiscriminately firing at a target 20-30 yards away at an obviously unclear backdrop. It's troubling to think what someone who has absolutely no training will do. In exchange for this training though, the state shouldn't have such a wide "Sensitive Place" ban when police officers are allowed to carry in those same places while off duty, and their tactic of trying to shame Pro2A property owners by requiring placement of signage saying "GUNS ALLOWED" is ridiculous.

Just my 2 cents

I understand your concern for a CCW holder to be trained and proficient.  That can be attained without the stranglehold of government authority.

The current rules of the Chief of Police is a good example of government intervention and it won't stop there.

It's probably an unpopular opinion here, but I actually agree with the guy...

I don't think a permit should be required for any long gun (AR to shotgun to musket) unless you want to carry it in public.
I think a permit should be required to own a handgun, and if you want to carry it in public, you also should have a permit demonstrating you have the skills necessary to carry and deploy that firearm safely.

My reasoning for this is simply because long guns are rarely used in crimes and cannot really be concealed. In situations where a long gun is used, you can usually take your time (e.g. hunting or skeet shooting) and there probably aren't a lot of people around. However, when you carry a handgun, we need to make sure you don't have a criminal history since gun crimes are usually committed with handguns. In addition, carrying a concealed handgun requires skills that people don't naturally have. People fumble holstering/unholstering a weapon in giant outside-the-waistband holsters... I think people should be required to demonstrate they can remove a layer of clothing and deploy a concealed weapon without injuring themselves or someone else. Also, since CCWing means you'll be carrying in public, there are a lot of people around who could be hurt. I see police who have "training" running, one-handed, indiscriminately firing at a target 20-30 yards away at an obviously unclear backdrop. It's troubling to think what someone who has absolutely no training will do. In exchange for this training though, the state shouldn't have such a wide "Sensitive Place" ban when police officers are allowed to carry in those same places while off duty, and their tactic of trying to shame Pro2A property owners by requiring placement of signage saying "GUNS ALLOWED" is ridiculous.

Just my 2 cents

I dont think you mean to say that you agree with his opinions in his testimony. because that would mean that you believe that many legal gun owners and LTC permit carriers should not be allowed to own guns or carry guns. You would also believe that the legislation that the whole meeting was about(sb1230) is completely constitutional and you would have no issues with it. But you have expressed concerns with sensitive places which was a large part of sb1230.

I believe you are saying that education/training/competancy should be required, and thats not an unpopular opinion. In fact, that was already required from day 1. Every legal gun owner and LTC permit holder has already done all that.

Regarding education/training, you have to ask yourself, who determines exactly what that entails. Is it lawmakers who know next to nothing about the subject matter and are demonstrably anti-2A? Because thats where we are at.

My perspective is:  how many gang bangers and other criminals carrying without a permit are trained to carry a handgun?

Seems the government is more concerned with law abiding people carrying than the criminals who carry.  The evidence is obvious.  Has Hunter Biden not become the poster boy for government turning a blind eye when gun laws are violated?  How many others have we read about who used or possessed a gun illegally, but no gun charges were filed?

Did you know the state can't prosecute someone for failing to register a gun they are prohibited from owning?  Yet, a person who follows the law and can pass a background check can be prosecuted for not registering a firearm.  The 5th amendment shields the criminal, but the person who isn't prohibited is fair game.

As for the logic of forcing people to become trained to carry, who decides what those standards are?  The same people in government trying to get the states to pass gun control laws the feds are Constitutionally barred from passing?  These are the same people who believe a 10 round magazine saves lives, that an 11% additional tax on ammunition is going to offset the "cost" of guns in America, and that the Second Amendment only applies to muskets?

Ask yourself whether your logic can also apply to other civil rights.  Would you support passing a test in order to vote?  How about getting certified training at your cost to speak about government in public so you know what's legally permitted?

When the same government that the 2A was created to protect the people against is given the power to establish limits on that right, is that not the very definition of conflict of interest? 

The odds that anyone will ever have to draw their concealed firearm is extremely small.  Even cops report they went from rookie to retired without ever drawing, much less firing, their weapons.  And in a comparison, cops hit more innocent bystanders and miss their targets more often than do concealed carriers who confront an active threat.

There are more than half the states now allowing Constitutional/Permit-less carry.  There has not been an increase in concealed carriers committing crimes or irresponsibly shooting at others.

Even if there has been an uptick in criminals carrying guns in Constitutional Carry states, it is offset by the decrease in the number of murders.

CDC Data Shows Constitutional Carry States Have
Fewer Total and Gun-Related Homicides

As of 2020, the most recent year for which detailed CDC data is available, 16 states
had already embraced constitutional carry. By looking at the homicide rates in those
states as well as their gun homicide rates in particular, we can get an idea of whether
constitutional carry states actually are more dangerous than the nation as a whole.

If the anti-gun argument is correct, constitutional carry states should be far more violent,
especially in the crime-surge year of 2020.

Fortunately, the CDC provides very detailed statistics on public health, including data
on underlying causes of death, so we can check. The statistics are reported online
through the CDC’s WONDER tool, an acronym which stands for “Wide-ranging ONline
Data for Epidemiologic Research.” All of the data I am about to discuss can be found
through that tool.
...
With that in mind, the results are as follows: the average overall homicide rate among
the sixteen constitutional carry states in 2020 was 6.9 per 100,000, beating the national
average of 7.5 per 100,000. Perhaps more surprisingly, constitutional carry states also
saw a lower gun-related homicide rate: 5.3 per 100,000, compared to the national figure
of 5.9 per 100,000.

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/cdc-data-shows-constitutional-carry-states-have-fewer-total-and-gun-related-homicides/

Maybe instead of wanting government to mandate training requirements, we should use actual logic and trust that the majority will seek training and practice on their own, and trust the stats that prove few gun incidents involve law abiding individuals and violent crime rates drop in places where everyone is allowed to carry -- making the environment less safe for criminals to ply their trade.

My perspective is:  how many gang bangers and other criminals carrying without a permit are trained to carry a handgun?

...

if the police in, say, Chicago or NYC, actually enforced a CCW training requirement on the lawless vibrant yutes, instead of just the law abiding, them being proficient might actually result in more of them becoming deaded.  not a good look.  doesn't fit the narrative.

not sure where that logic leads us...

if the police in, say, Chicago or NYC, actually enforced a CCW training requirement on the lawless vibrant yutes, instead of just the law abiding, them being proficient might actually result in more of them becoming deaded.  not a good look.  doesn't fit the narrative.

not sure where that logic leads us...

Better than collateral damage...

When many/most of the deaded gangsters are under 21, seems to be common sense that current legal age limits are not working.  Maybe firearm safety training in schools would eliminate the mystique around guns for young people and increase safety practices -- like never pointing a gun at anything/anyone you don't wish to destroy.

It's probably an unpopular opinion here, but I actually agree with the guy...

I don't think a permit should be required for any long gun (AR to shotgun to musket) unless you want to carry it in public.
I think a permit should be required to own a handgun, and if you want to carry it in public, you also should have a permit demonstrating you have the skills necessary to carry and deploy that firearm safely.

My reasoning for this is simply because long guns are rarely used in crimes and cannot really be concealed. In situations where a long gun is used, you can usually take your time (e.g. hunting or skeet shooting) and there probably aren't a lot of people around. However, when you carry a handgun, we need to make sure you don't have a criminal history since gun crimes are usually committed with handguns. In addition, carrying a concealed handgun requires skills that people don't naturally have. People fumble holstering/unholstering a weapon in giant outside-the-waistband holsters... I think people should be required to demonstrate they can remove a layer of clothing and deploy a concealed weapon without injuring themselves or someone else. Also, since CCWing means you'll be carrying in public, there are a lot of people around who could be hurt. I see police who have "training" running, one-handed, indiscriminately firing at a target 20-30 yards away at an obviously unclear backdrop. It's troubling to think what someone who has absolutely no training will do. In exchange for this training though, the state shouldn't have such a wide "Sensitive Place" ban when police officers are allowed to carry in those same places while off duty, and their tactic of trying to shame Pro2A property owners by requiring placement of signage saying "GUNS ALLOWED" is ridiculous.

Just my 2 cents

So who gets to evaluate and decide if YOU are “qualified”, therefore has the power to control (within context of CCW permits) how you are able to choose to defend yourself and those you love?

Better than collateral damage...

When many/most of the deaded gangsters are under 21, seems to be common sense that current legal age limits are not working.  Maybe firearm safety training in schools would eliminate the mystique around guns for young people and increase safety practices -- like never pointing a gun at anything/anyone you don't wish to destroy.

The best kind

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The best kind

....
Darwin is my hero.

Better than collateral damage...

When many/most of the deaded gangsters are under 21, seems to be common sense that current legal age limits are not working.  Maybe firearm safety training in schools would eliminate the mystique around guns for young people and increase safety practices -- like never pointing a gun at anything/anyone you don't wish to destroy.

..
Educate, don't legislate.

Kit says he has zero sales since 1/1/24 due to the law change.

Here's the article in today's Civil Beat featuring Kit.

https://www.civilbeat.org/?p=1620744&utm_source=Civil+Beat+Master+List&utm_campaign=b37ced3fd3-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2023_11_29_12_00_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_-82a4618625-%5BLIST_EMAIL_ID%5D&mc_cid=b37ced3fd3&mc_eid=351795060a

Kit says he has zero sales since 1/1/24 due to the law change.

"Due to the law"

Here's the article in today's Civil Beat featuring Kit.

https://www.civilbeat.org/?p=1620744&utm_source=Civil+Beat+Master+List&utm_campaign=b37ced3fd3-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2023_11_29_12_00_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_-82a4618625-%5BLIST_EMAIL_ID%5D&mc_cid=b37ced3fd3&mc_eid=351795060a

how's his pink shirt and yellow fanny pack

Kit says he has zero sales since 1/1/24 due to the law change.

madafaka cryebaby

Here's the article in today's Civil Beat featuring Kit.

https://www.civilbeat.org/?p=1620744&utm_source=Civil+Beat+Master+List&utm_campaign=b37ced3fd3-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2023_11_29_12_00_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_-82a4618625-%5BLIST_EMAIL_ID%5D&mc_cid=b37ced3fd3&mc_eid=351795060a

I like what Butch Helemano said at the end of the article.  I kinda customized it:

"We're not in Kansas anymore, you boto."

This message goes out with Aloha to all the Dorothy's in that fantasyland called the State Capitol.

I'd be very interested to know whether
all other Hawaii gun stores
have sold zero firearms
since Jan 1st.