If you don't understand what I'm explaining.  Understand that I have the most knowledge of anyone in Hawaii on 2A legislative affairs for the past 10 years and the the most conservative republican in the legislature, Elijah Pierrick, who is very strict on voting for 2A, individual, and religious rights, sponsors and fully supports this bill being mentioned, along with 2 other Republicans.  They are trying to restrict the Governor's current emergency powers with this bill.  An OPPOSE testimony will allow more of the BAD THINGS TO HAPPEN.  A SUPPORT testimony will put some limits on the current emergency powers you are complaining about.

^^^THis.

Zipps knows a lot, not only about bills/law, but the legislative process too.

Elijah is a firm 2A supporter too.

The part that does concern me is the severe weather that seems very lemient.

This whole back-and-forth must be how conversations in Hell usually go ….

Trying to remediate this law is like arguing over the color of the box cars that are literally designed to haul us off to the death camps

The checks it puts on the governors power are manini compared to the vast expansion of scenarios that he can apply legalized piracy and capricious violence.

Trying to remediate this law is like arguing over the color of the box cars that are literally designed to haul us off to the death camps

The checks it puts on the governors power are manini compared to the vast expansion of scenarios that he can apply legalized piracy and capricious violence.

Precisely.

This is why I’m so glad this was posted, as I was ignorant of the preexisting (and potentially deadly) threat in the first place.

Now I’m less so, with respect to the same (and potentially deadly) continuing threat, for which I’m very grateful.

Thanks for posting this!

This isn't perfect and should be significantly stricter.  But they have to present something that would be signed off by the governor or 2/3rds vote of the legislature.  This is just enough to possibly do that.

Currently there are no limits to emergency powers and it was vetted in the recent Hawaii supreme court ruling.  This bill is the only way to get some limits imposed other than a constitutional convention.

Now you've confused me.

You say "Currently there are no limits to emergency powers," yet the text everyone here is discussing begins, "Except as provided in section 134-7.2...'.  That's the statute that prohibits confiscation of firearms and ammo and the suspension of permits and licenses in an emergency:

§134-7.2 Prohibition against seizure of firearms or ammunition during
emergency or disaster; suspension of permit or license. (a) Notwithstanding
any provision of chapter 127A or any other law to the contrary, no person or
government entity shall seize or confiscate, under any emergency or disaster
relief powers or functions conferred, or during any emergency period, as
defined in section 127A-2, or during any time of national emergency or crisis,
as defined in section 134-34, any firearm or ammunition from any individual who
is lawfully permitted to carry or possess the firearm or ammunition under part I of
this chapter and who carries, possesses, or uses the firearm or ammunition in a
lawful manner and in accordance with the criminal laws of this State.

(b) Notwithstanding any provision of chapter 127A or any other law to the contrary,
no person or government entity shall suspend, revoke, or limit, under any emergency
or disaster relief powers or functions conferred, any lawfully acquired and maintained
permit or license obtained under and in accordance with part I of this chapter.

(c) For purposes of this section, "government entity" means any unit of government
in this State, including the State and any county or combination of counties, department,
agency, institution, board, commission, district, council, bureau, office, governing
authority, or other instrumentality of state or county government, or corporation or other
establishment owned, operated, or managed by or on behalf of this State or any county.
[L 2010, c 96, §1; am L 2014, c 111, §7]

https://law.onecle.com/hawaii/title-10/134-7.2.html

Does that not limit the executive's emergency powers?  The phrase "Notwithstanding any provision of chapter 127A or any other law to the contrary,..." means no other laws on the books can override this one.  Given that fact, i don't see the benefit of trying to restrict the governor's power in an emergency as it pertains to firearms.  Existing law already prohibits enforcing any other law over 134-7.2.

Am I missing something?  Is the bill aimed at something other that what's in 134-7.2, like sensitive places designations, etc.?

The question nobody seems to be asking is what sort of situation would require all these emergency powers? If an army of radioactive zombies starts marching out of the ocean it’s not like we are going to have a statewide debate about the legality of extreme measures. There’s a general understanding that we do the best we can given the circumstances, and in the right situation even cannibalism has been forgiven.

That means laws like this are specifically written to normalize tyranny. They want to make these powers part of everyday life, and the only way to get us to accept them is by selling it as a temporary solution to a problem that will conveniently present itself and never fully go away. If things get too hot they back off and say “mistakes were made”. People pass legislation that’s supposed to control emergency powers but in reality it just expands the definition of triggering events.

We are getting played here. Covid was a test run to see how we would react. Nobody went to jail for destroying the economy and poisoning the population, which means they are going to circle back and try again.

The question nobody seems to be asking is what sort of situation would require all these emergency powers? If an army of radioactive zombies starts marching out of the ocean it’s not like we are going to have a statewide debate about the legality of extreme measures. There’s a general understanding that we do the best we can given the circumstances, and in the right situation even cannibalism has been forgiven.

That means laws like this are specifically written to normalize tyranny. They want to make these powers part of everyday life, and the only way to get us to accept them is by selling it as a temporary solution to a problem that will conveniently present itself and never fully go away. If things get too hot they back off and say “mistakes were made”. People pass legislation that’s supposed to control emergency powers but in reality it just expands the definition of triggering events.

We are getting played here. Covid was a test run to see how we would react. Nobody went to jail for destroying the economy and poisoning the population, which means they are going to circle back and try again.

Yes.

This technique of “drawing the box” is extremely powerful with respect to basic human psychology.

First and above all, you set out the context / conceptual paradigm you want the discussion / debate to “own” or be about.

People naturally tend to accept that conceptual framework without critically analyzing it.  Once they do, you can go virtually anywhere from there with it, and your assessment here is a perfect example of stripping that box away - and what you are left with now clearly makes no sense in relation to it.

Anyone really skilled in persuasion makes use of this, either consciously or unconsciously.

Like all such things, it can be used for good (I.e. prevent bad actors from hijacking a debate, etc.), or like here, most times for evil.

It is an absolutely critical skill to have and understand in the modern dystopian world.

As we all know, the most basic tools they use in Hawaii are “For the keiki” or “kapuna” or “public safety,”

Good job in pointing this out.

Sorry for the long post, but it is very seldom that anyone points this tactic out - that’s how ubiquitous and invisible it is:  It’s like how you can’t see the ground you’re standing on …

 

Thank you Zippz for explaining the situation here. 

 

Thank you Zippz for explaining the situation here. 

 

I am also grateful to Zippz for getting the facts straight, however it’s still deeply disturbing to find out that most this stuff is already law since it’s so profoundly unconstitutional. I’m really surprised to hear that after all Gov Greed’s abuses of power they are just going to make it worse by expanding the range of scenarios for him to go even harder next time.

As far as 2a lawsuits this seems extremely low hanging fruit. There is no emergency clause to the constitution.

I am also grateful to Zippz for getting the facts straight, however it’s still deeply disturbing to find out that most this stuff is already law since it’s so profoundly unconstitutional. I’m really surprised to hear that after all Gov Greed’s abuses of power they are just going to make it worse by expanding the range of scenarios for him to go even harder next time.

As far as 2a lawsuits this seems extremely low hanging fruit. There is no emergency clause to the constitution.

That, and the reality that in Hawaii, the Governor is just the Party General Secretary, and the members of the legislature (aside from a handful of “accidents”) is the Party - as Mr. Quiet previously noted.

There are no checks on the Party here, whatsoever.

Hawaii Firearms Coalition
1h
 ·
Statement on SB2151
We have received numerous messages expressing concern that SB2151 is an attack on firearms or the Second Amendment. After carefully reviewing the bill in full, we want to address those concerns directly.
The firearm language referenced in SB2151 is not new authority. It already exists in Chapter 127A of the Hawaii Revised Statutes. Most importantly, §134-7.2 remains fully intact. That statute explicitly prohibits the seizure or confiscation of firearms or ammunition from lawful owners during an emergency and prohibits the suspension or revocation of valid firearm permits. Lawful ownership and lawful carrying during a declared emergency are already protected under current law, and SB2151 does not repeal or override those protections.
The bill specifically states that emergency powers operate “except as provided in section 134-7.2,” which means those protections remain in place. SB2151 does not authorize confiscation from lawful gun owners, nor does it authorize the suspension of valid permits. Claims suggesting otherwise are not supported by the text of the bill.
The primary focus of SB2151 is emergency governance. It addresses how emergencies are declared and terminated, clarifies definitions within Chapter 127A, and includes provisions related to public records and agency response deadlines during emergency periods. The core policy discussion is about emergency management structure and governmental accountability — not an attack on lawful firearm ownership.
We encourage everyone to read proposed legislation carefully and review the actual statutory language. Social media commentary often isolates phrases without context. Informed civic engagement requires looking at the full bill and understanding how it interacts with existing law before drawing conclusions.

It sounds like there are two opposing sets of laws on the books when it comes to firearms confiscation during an emergency.

This will inevitably create a situation where a tyrant will chose the version they need to make a power grab and then by the time it goes to court people will already dead. 

Since we are amending the law anyway why not use this chance to remove the unconstitutional firearms language?

It sounds like there are two opposing sets of laws on the books when it comes to firearms confiscation during an emergency.

This will inevitably create a situation where a tyrant will chose the version they need to make a power grab and then by the time it goes to court people will already dead. 

Since we are amending the law anyway why not use this chance to remove the unconstitutional firearms language?

Exactly! - why is this language still there?

“(12)  Except as provided in section 134-7.2, whenever in the governor's opinion, the laws of the State do not adequately provide for the common defense, public health, safety, and welfare, investigate, regulate, or prohibit the storage, transportation, use, possession, maintenance, furnishing, sale, or distribution of, as well as any transaction related to, explosives, firearms, and ammunition, …”

At any rate, the difference of opinion between folks on our side seems to be between those who are focused specifically on these new bills, and those who are now looking at the totality of what these “laws” collectively mean for us as U.S. citizens here.

It’s one of the ongoing torturous psychic penalties of being an American living in a stone-age communist banana republic.

Exactly! - why is this language still there?

“(12)  Except as provided in section 134-7.2, whenever in the governor's opinion, the laws of the State do not adequately provide for the common defense, public health, safety, and welfare, investigate, regulate, or prohibit the storage, transportation, use, possession, maintenance, furnishing, sale, or distribution of, as well as any transaction related to, explosives, firearms, and ammunition, …”

At any rate, the difference of opinion between folks on our side seems to be between those who are focused specifically on these new bills, and those who are now looking at the totality of what these “laws” collectively mean for us as U.S. citizens here.

It’s one of the ongoing torturous psychic penalties of being an American living in a stone-age communist banana republic.

Why do you keep ignoring the first 6 words?

Except as provided in section 134-7.2 ...

Why do you keep ignoring the first 6 words?

I’m obviously not.

On the contrary, I’m asking, now that they’re busy “revising it to include checks and balances” - why they clearly intend to keep this whole section in the law?

It’s not about unregistered firearms etc.

So, in that context, I ask YOU - why do you so glibly ignore everything that follows those six words?

Don’t bother responding, because you certainly do not know why it’s there anymore than I do - given 134-7.2.

Further, and more to my point of view - in its totality, there is absolutely nothing to be sanguine about when a one-party state demands the right to go to full-on police state - any f^*cking time for any reason - kapish?

…oh yeah, almost forgot - ON AN ISLAND POPULATION 2000 MILES FROM ANYWHERE.

Have a nice day everyone.

Hawaii's government:  Make it clear as mud, and WE control the narrative.

HIFICO posted on their social media to not worry.

focus
https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=58398.msg513108#msg513108

HIFICO posted on their social media to not worry.