Measure Title: RELATING TO CONCEALED CARRY LICENSE OF PISTOLS OR REVOLVERS. 
Report Title:  Pistols or Revolvers; Concealed Carry License 
Description:  Authorizes chiefs of police to issue licenses to carry a concealed pistol or revolver. Details processes for license applications, renewals, and record keeping. Strictly prohibits carrying concealed pistols or revolvers under certain circumstances. Repeals HRS section 134-9. 
Companion: 
Package: None 
Current Referral:   
Introducer(s): SLOM 

1/18/13 SB274: Passed First Reading.
18 January 2013, 3:00 am

1/18/13 SB274: Senate Status Update

Source: SB274 Status Feed

1/18/13 SB274: Introduced.
18 January 2013, 3:00 am

1/18/13 SB274: Senate Status Update

Source: SB274 Status Feed

1/22/13 SB274: Referred to PSM, JDL.
22 January 2013, 3:00 am

1/22/13 SB274: Senate Status Update

Source: SB274 Status Feed

The idea of self defense being a personal responsibility issue was well brought to the forefront with Milwaukee Sherrif David Clarke http://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2013/01/28/milwaukee-county-sheriff-promotes-self-defense-and-gun-ownership/ and really the effectiveness of 911. The idea of responsible ownership of firearms is integral to personal safety of individuals.

As for SB36 on recurrent training, that is interesting especially since we don't really allow concealed carry in Hawaii so why the need. As for home owners, its a point and shoot scenario and a short barrelled semi-automatic with a enough ammo to seal the deal is the safest thing for a young homeowner or single woman. A faceful of 45 or buckshot on the street is due respect for an aggressor in my opinion as well. What's funny about homeowners, they allow them to purchase a pistol here in Hawaii with zero training at all, and I'm not complaining about that, but it shows how ill informed some of our elite legislators really are.

Much Aloha,

Huumm, wonder why all the anti gun bills are getting hearings so soon and these pro gun bills are sitting in committee?

Huumm, wonder why all the anti gun bills are getting hearings so soon and these pro gun bills are sitting in committee?

That is the exact same thing i was thinking!!!
I should look up who introduced in and point that out to them

wow reading through the bill i notice a few things. i wonder if, because they possibly know they will lose in court with chris, they are trying to change the laws now to be more strict for if/when there is an influx of applications.

1. The wording makes it sound like hunters ed will not be enough for a cc permit.  Now you need specifically listed training.
"photocopy of an affidavit from the certified instructor or standard government form from the government agency providing the training, attesting to the successful completion of the training, shall constitute evidence of qualification under this paragraph;"

2. it sounds like you can be disqualified for a misdemeanor of violence?
"may deny a license if the applicant has been found guilty of one or more crimes of violence constituting a misdemeanor,"

3. A psychological evaluation will now be required.
"A written psychological evaluation that finds the applicant to be free from any emotional or mental condition that might adversely affect the ability of the applicant to carry a concealed pistol or revolver in a safe, lawful, and responsible manner.  The psychological evaluation shall have been performed within six months prior to the date of application.  Emotional and mental condition shall be evaluated by either of the following:

(A)    A licensed psychiatrist who has at least the equivalent of five full-time years of experience in the diagnosis and treatment of emotional and mental disorders, including the equivalent of three full-time years accrued after completion of the postgraduate medical residency education program in psychiatry; or

(B)    A licensed psychologist who has at least the equivalent of five full-time years of experience in the diagnosis and treatment of emotional and mental disorders, including the equivalent of three full-time years accrued post-doctorate."

          Any costs associated with obtaining the psychological evaluation shall be borne by the applicant.

wow reading through the bill i notice a few things. i wonder if, because they possibly know they will lose in court with chris, they are trying to change the laws now to be more strict for if/when there is an influx of applications.

1. The wording makes it sound like hunters ed will not be enough for a cc permit.  Now you need specifically listed training.
"photocopy of an affidavit from the certified instructor or standard government form from the government agency providing the training, attesting to the successful completion of the training, shall constitute evidence of qualification under this paragraph;"

2. it sounds like you can be disqualified for a misdemeanor of violence?
"may deny a license if the applicant has been found guilty of one or more crimes of violence constituting a misdemeanor,"

3. A psychological evaluation will now be required.
"A written psychological evaluation that finds the applicant to be free from any emotional or mental condition that might adversely affect the ability of the applicant to carry a concealed pistol or revolver in a safe, lawful, and responsible manner.  The psychological evaluation shall have been performed within six months prior to the date of application.  Emotional and mental condition shall be evaluated by either of the following:

(A)    A licensed psychiatrist who has at least the equivalent of five full-time years of experience in the diagnosis and treatment of emotional and mental disorders, including the equivalent of three full-time years accrued after completion of the postgraduate medical residency education program in psychiatry; or

(B)    A licensed psychologist who has at least the equivalent of five full-time years of experience in the diagnosis and treatment of emotional and mental disorders, including the equivalent of three full-time years accrued post-doctorate."

          Any costs associated with obtaining the psychological evaluation shall be borne by the applicant.

Yes, all items you pointed out, I disagree with.  some in part.

I do agree that training should be in there. But I believe that the training one receives through a handgun safety course is sufficient to satisfy the requirement.  I, for one, would seek additional training due to the responsibility one is taking on carrying, especially the legal aspects.

Misdemeanor violence is something that I don't agree with.  Some people may have got a little scrap in the scrappy days, and now is of a grown mature mind.  We all have our little bouts with idiocy,  and those who are charged may have had legit reasons. 

Making you pay for a full on psyc eval is just unacceptable, and we all know that it would be totally up to a, perhaps, anti gun dr. to give you the go ahead.  You know that this doc will have a hell of a time with the media if ever he was to make a mistake...  that in itself will make it very hard, and expensive, to have this requirement met.    The insane can happen to anyone at any time.  Even the most 'trusted' people can go 'postal' at any time.

I do agree that training should be in there. But I believe that the training one receives through a handgun safety course is sufficient to satisfy the requirement.

Hell no. A simple handgun safety class is not good enough for someone to carry concealed. Really!!!!  You have to be able to hit your target under stress and not kill the 6 year old standing to the right.

Misdemeanor violence is something that I don't agree with.  Some people may have got a little scrap in the scrappy days, and now is of a grown mature mind.  We all have our little bouts with idiocy,  and those who are charged may have had legit reasons. 

Domestic violence is a misdemeanor. Under the Lautenberg amendment you are prohibited from owning a firearm if convicted of domestic violence.

Making you pay for a full on psyc eval is just unacceptable, and we all know that it would be totally up to a, perhaps, anti gun dr. to give you the go ahead.  You know that this doc will have a hell of a time with the media if ever he was to make a mistake...  that in itself will make it very hard, and expensive, to have this requirement met.    The insane can happen to anyone at any time.  Even the most 'trusted' people can go 'postal' at any time.

This is one of the most important things. It is a huge responsibility to carry a firearm. I wouldn't want someone with a psychological problem carrying a loaded gun in public. There is no way around this requirement with the recent events.

I'm sure they will add more restrictions if it passes.

Hell no. A simple handgun safety class is not good enough for someone to carry concealed. Really!!!!  You have to be able to hit your target under stress and not kill the 6 year old standing to the right.

Domestic violence is a misdemeanor. Under the Lautenberg amendment you are prohibited from owning a firearm if convicted of domestic violence.
 

This is one of the most important things. It is a huge responsibility to carry a firearm. I wouldn't want someone with a psychological problem carrying a loaded gun in public. There is no way around this requirement with the recent events.

I'm sure they will add more restrictions if it passes.

Guess we disagree then.

But as it is, anyone can do anything, at anytime.  If a person wanted to carry a loaded gun around right now, they don't need any of this.  The only difference is that person is breaking the law.  So, how can we, as law abiding citizens, counter that person who has no regard for the law and needs not follow all those strict requirements?

Guess we disagree then.

But as it is, anyone can do anything, at anytime.  If a person wanted to carry a loaded gun around right now, they don't need any of this.  The only difference is that person is breaking the law.  So, how can we, as law abiding citizens, counter that person who has no regard for the law and needs not follow all those strict requirements?

True, that is the dilemma we face, and the logic our politicians don't possess.

I agree with the comment that ample training should be needed to carry a firearm, wether it be Conceal or Open Carry. But I disagree that a handgun safety course would suffice in this training. I've seen people come out of the safety course not even knowing how to unload a gun or that could properly cock a handgun.

Carrying, IMO, is a huge responsibility and much like being a Pilot, not only should you have the proper training, but also in some way should need to show a history of courses/training completed and time logged both going through training in stress situations, shooting, and handling that SPECIFIC firearm that you will carry. There are people who are willing to take on the responsibility and others who aren't. I for one, think, that for myself, the risk and responsibility of carrying greatly outweigh the probability that shit will happen and I will actually need to use one of my firearms.

While this won't stop criminals from doing whatever they want. I doubt a beginner (myself included) should a situation arise, react reasonably and properly, in the proper mindset, trying to stop some whack job that has a gun and shooting up the place. I can see instances where more harm then good would ensue.

As you all saw these crazy guys getting their gun jammed trying to kill people (Oregon and that political one in Europe) got the crap kicked out of them because their weapons failed and it wasnt second nature to them to clear the jam and proceed (in this instance good) but imagine that happening to a good guy whom was trying to stop a crazy who hasnt shot anyone? After than instance the crazy would panic and bullets will fly ultimately injuring and killing people who may have been better off in the first place and possibly giving the crazy yet one more loaded weapon.

I speak for only myself in saying this  (and you can call me a pussy if you want) but I for one am not sure that i could shoot or kill someone. I know both military and police who also aren't sure that they could do this either and some of them are marines who are trained to kill!.

In summary, I believe there are non military, non leo citizens out there who should, are trained for, and are mentally equipped, to carry. But to give someone that responsibility, whom isnt trained, whether they want to carry or not, could make a bad situation worse.

Hell no. A simple handgun safety class is not good enough for someone to carry concealed. Really!!!!  You have to be able to hit your target under stress and not kill the 6 year old standing to the right.

At what point is one qualified to carry, then?  If the standard is more than simple operational competence with a firearm, there's no end to the bullshit they can heap on.  I would argue to you that rookie cops, fresh out of the academy are not competent to take a high stress shot with a little girl near the target.  At some point you have to say, "Ok, this guy's good enough."  Since we're talking about the exercise of a Constitutionally-protected right, we would be wise to err on the side of the less restrictive.

Domestic violence is a misdemeanor. Under the Lautenberg amendment you are prohibited from owning a firearm if convicted of domestic violence.

The Lautenberg Amendment is a POS.  Stripping a human right for life based on an act that isn't even punishable by more than a year in jail is absolutely ridiculous, and Frank Lautenberg is a idiotic windbag.

This is one of the most important things. It is a huge responsibility to carry a firearm. I wouldn't want someone with a psychological problem carrying a loaded gun in public. There is no way around this requirement with the recent events.

This last quote blows my mind.  By that inane logic, I don't want someone with a psychological problem owning guns at all, so the permit to acquire should force applicants to show a mental health waiver from a board-licensed psychiatrist, who shall have spent no fewer than 25 office hours studying the applicant's mental health.  That'll be $6,000; please.  You can settle that bill with the receptionist on your way out, and your waiver will be in the mail by the end of the week.

I'm sure they will add more restrictions if it passes.

Count on that.  Dis ain't da mainland!

At what point is one qualified to carry, then?  If the standard is more than simple operational competence with a firearm, there's no end to the bullshit they can heap on.  I would argue to you that rookie cops, fresh out of the academy are not competent to take a high stress shot with a little girl near the target.  At some point you have to say, "Ok, this guy's good enough."

So you know about LE training enough to assume that a rookie would not be competent enough to stop a threat in a situation? Or are you just talking out your ass? LE training involves at least 40 hours of basic firearms handling and qualifications. Then they go through scenario based training that is pass or fail. When its all done and complete they (LE) have likely completed at least 200 + hours of firearm based training. So do you still think a 8 hour handgun safety class is sufficient? I think not!

The Lautenberg Amendment is a POS.  Stripping a human right for life based on an act that isn't even punishable by more than a year in jail is absolutely ridiculous, and Frank Lautenberg is a idiotic windbag.

Really!!! So you think that a guy that beats the shit out his wife and, or kids should be able to get a gun? A guy that has a history of stalking, threatening, choking, hitting, a family member should be able to get a gun? Why! So the next time he flips out he can get that gun and kill his whole family and potentially kill the officers responding to the call. You still think the Lautenberg amendment is a POS? If you do, then I truly believe that you don't deserve to carry concealed because something is seriously wrong with your logic.

So we do not allow 4'-7" 90lb grandma permission to carry her .380 to the open market, to fend off the chronics that will beat her ass for the $20 she has in her pocket, because she has not the physical strength to complete a rigorous training requirement?

So we do not allow 4'-7" 90lb grandma permission to carry her .380 to the open market, to fend off the chronics that will beat her ass for the $20 she has in her pocket, because she has not the physical strength to complete a rigorous training requirement?

I don't think the goal should be that everyone is carrying, it should be just enough so that if the 4'7". 90 lb grandma gets attacked there is a good chance that someone near by is, and can assist in defending her. Just my 2 cents? You really think 4'7" 90lb and probably 9- year old grandman would be able to draw and take a safe shot at her attackers before she got beat down anyway?

I doubt she would even have enough time to react. I dont think attackers come at you straight on and will say ma'am in about 10 seconds I am going to attack you and steal your bag, so you might want to take your gun out of your purse first so you can defend yourself?

Attacks happen in a split second, and are by surprise. Most normal people wouldnt be able to draw and defend in time, must less an older woman who probably carries in her purse.

I don't think the goal should be that everyone is carrying, it should be just enough so that if the 4'7". 90 lb grandma gets attacked there is a good chance that someone near by is, and can assist in defending her. Just my 2 cents? You really think 4'7" 90lb and probably 9- year old grandman would be able to draw and take a safe shot at her attackers before she got beat down anyway?

I doubt she would even have enough time to react. I dont think attackers come at you straight on and will say ma'am in about 10 seconds I am going to attack you and steal your bag, so you might want to take your gun out of your purse first so you can defend yourself?

Attacks happen in a split second, and are by surprise. Most normal people wouldnt be able to draw and defend in time, must less an older woman who probably carries in her purse.

  it's the 3-5 rule. Statistically Most attacks happen within 3-5 feet, and take 3-5 seconds

So you know about LE training enough to assume that a rookie would not be competent enough to stop a threat in a situation? Or are you just talking out your ass? LE training involves at least 40 hours of basic firearms handling and qualifications. Then they go through scenario based training that is pass or fail. When its all done and complete they (LE) have likely completed at least 200 + hours of firearm based training. So do you still think a 8 hour handgun safety class is sufficient? I think not!

Really!!! So you think that a guy that beats the shit out his wife and, or kids should be able to get a gun? A guy that has a history of stalking, threatening, choking, hitting, a family member should be able to get a gun? Why! So the next time he flips out he can get that gun and kill his whole family and potentially kill the officers responding to the call. You still think the Lautenberg amendment is a POS? If you do, then I truly believe that you don't deserve to carry concealed because something is seriously wrong with your logic.

This type of thinking is the reason why the country is going to he'll in a hand basket.

The "Only police officers should have guns because they're trained" thinking is bullshit.

I could post twenty links to negligent, or accidental discharges from police officers in thirty seconds via YouTube.

The truth is that possession of firearms is your right already.

The simple fact is that in localities where "untrained" civilians can carry their guns on them, the crime rates are lower than in places where gun laws are strictest.

These are the facts.

This type of thinking is the reason why the country is going to he'll in a hand basket.

The "Only police officers should have guns because they're trained" thinking is bullshit.

I could post twenty links to negligent, or accidental discharges from police officers in thirty seconds via YouTube.

The truth is that possession of firearms is your right already.

The simple fact is that in localities where "untrained" civilians can carry their guns on them, the crime rates are lower than in places where gun laws are strictest.

These are the facts.

I'm not saying that only police should carry guns. I'm saying that if a civilian is going to carry one they need to have adequate training. A simple handgun safety course is NOT good enough. Some people believe that it is their right and any required training is unacceptable. That's bullshit. Have some personal responsibly.

When the shit hits the fan and someone that carrying concealed decides to fire I want to be confident that they won't be killing someone innocent because they panicked and started just squeezing off rounds. You have to be accountable for each round fired from your gun.  Just because there is a threat does not mean you are justified to shoot. You have to be able to identify the different factors present then make the decision to shoot. All of this has to be done in your mind within 3-5 seconds. Sorry, but I don't think a normal civilian can do that without training.

I'm all for concealed carry, but there are people out there that should not carry concealed because they are a liability.

I'm all for concealed carry, but there are people out there that should not carry concealed because they are a liability.

There are police officers that should not carry a gun because they're a liability.

We should disarm all LEO's immediately.

http://www.todaysthv.com/news/article/244279/288/Nevada-police-officer-kills-family-self

http://www.copblock.org/22406/police-officer-kills-family-dog-then-commits-felony-by-washing-evidence-away-video/

http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2009/09/report_detroit_police_officers.html