would you perhaps, give up the concealed and open carry bills in order to kill the AWB and background check bills?

No

Nope

well, my thinking was, if it comes to compromise, perhaps we could give up the carry laws for the time being to avoid a rifle ban, since we still ahve that case pending in the courts that might overturn current carry laws anywyas.

well, my thinking was, if it comes to compromise, perhaps we could give up the carry laws for the time being to avoid a rifle ban, since we still ahve that case pending in the courts that might overturn current carry laws anywyas.

I don't think it matters.  We live in Hawaii; they're going to shoot down the carry laws in committee and every gun control measure will pass with vast bipartisan support.  I love this state!

The laws currently on the books NOW are in violation of the "infringed" section of the 2A.   Someone that has standing needs to sue ASAP.

what we need is nullification

The laws currently on the books NOW are in violation of the "infringed" section of the 2A.   Someone that has standing needs to sue ASAP.

good luck getting any court to buy that.

not saying you're wrong, but it wont go anywhere in court.

good luck getting any court to buy that.

not saying you're wrong, but it wont go anywhere in court.

This is why it is important to be political. The reality of it is that the majority of people who have stood in the lines at HPD either didn't vote or voted for the wrong person. There are thousands of gun owners in the state. That would be enough to put some pro-gun candidates in public offices. We live in a state of sheep, where people jump on bandwagons without thinking. I don't mean to come off all political and stuff but that is the reality of the world we live in. Unfortunately the political majority in this state are bleeding heart democrats but they were elected into office not appointed. The only weapon we have to combat these bans and restrictions is to let those in office where you stand every day by email, letters, phone calls even. They need to feel the pressure that they will not be re-elected if they vote for gun control. Right now they are not even sweating it. It really is up to all of us.

This is why it is important to be political. The reality of it is that the majority of people who have stood in the lines at HPD either didn't vote or voted for the wrong person. There are thousands of gun owners in the state. That would be enough to put some pro-gun candidates in public offices. We live in a state of sheep, where people jump on bandwagons without thinking. I don't mean to come off all political and stuff but that is the reality of the world we live in. Unfortunately the political majority in this state are bleeding heart democrats but they were elected into office not appointed. The only weapon we have to combat these bans and restrictions is to let those in office where you stand every day by email, letters, phone calls even. They need to feel the pressure that they will not be re-elected if they vote for gun control. Right now they are not even sweating it. It really is up to all of us.

I actually mentioned something along these lines in another thread. If the same amount of energy and focus was directed at a particular district candidate (s), maybe, just maybe, gun owners in Hawaii could make a difference in the political makeup of our state. Not the Mayor or Governor races, but potentially others. Seems most, not all, want their guns and will fight to the bitter end but often aren't even registered voters, and let's be frank, it's the legislators that will determine the outcome of our guns when the dust settles. JMHO

No. Firearms owners are always the ones having to compromise. We should get both!!!!

Thats like asking
Will you be ok with a AWB as long as their is a grandfathering clause

No. Firearms owners are always the ones having to compromise. We should get both!!!!

Thats like asking
Will you be ok with a AWB as long as their is a grandfathering clause

+100000000000

No. Firearms owners are always the ones having to compromise. We should get both!!!!

Thats like asking
Will you be ok with a AWB as long as their is a grandfathering clause

I'm with you...it's about the constitution and not about picking and choosing or compromising.

No. Firearms owners are always the ones having to compromise. We should get both!!!!

Thats like asking
Will you be ok with a AWB as long as their is a grandfathering clause

that isnt my question.    do you think i WANT this?

my point is, is that passing new laws is much easier than negating old ones.  i just think that its more important to defeat the AWB in hawaii, than to push for carry, especially given that carry is going to court.  the AWB effects most of us while the lack of carry doesnt change anything, as of yet. 

what im suggesting is, what is the possibility that these carry bills could be used as bargaining chips, or vice versa?  think about it: legislators often trade favors for support of one bill in support of another.  if it came down to it, these other pro gun bills may be considered in the big picture.

my thinking is thus.  in that event that bargaining must take place, i would go for dropping the carry laws and killing the AWB, since not having carry is far more reversible than any assault weapons ban, especially since at the moment there is no grandfathering involved, and any grandfathering wouldnt allow for sale or transfer, most likely.

you guys are acting like i want this scenario.  i dont.  this is just a thought exercise.  im thinking about possible scenarios in the legislature that might be and how they might be used to our advantage.

i think you do more critical thinking then any elected person ever.  i mean that in a good way just in case. 

Hopefully if it comes down to something like that we have a smart, well researched person who knows what they talking about to represent "gun owners", and they not using some star advertiser internet poll

im just bringing this up because as much as i think all of us abhor to compromise, this is something that we may be faced with, like it or not.  the question is, can we make it work for us, perhaps even in a way where we dont actually lose?

because if we dont consider how to react if faced with a compromise that we dont have a choice to refuse, the reality is we might be caught unawares.

Not to be a dick, but who is the "us" you speak of, and how do legislatures figure these things out?

I always thought it was closed door meetings, and then they come out with a bright new idea.  They vote, etc, etc.  Do they bring in non-biased experts? Let the public vote? put it on the ballot?

Not tryna be a dick, just tryna figure it out.

Not to be a dick, but who is the "us" you speak of, and how do legislatures figure these things out?

I always thought it was closed door meetings, and then they come out with a bright new idea.  They vote, etc, etc.  Do they bring in non-biased experts? Let the public vote? put it on the ballot?

Not tryna be a dick, just tryna figure it out.

i dont know, its just a hypothetical that came up in my mind while i was looking at the bills on the table, to see if those bills, for good or bad, might be leveraged against one another.  whether or not we'll know about it if it ever happens is unknown.  im just proposing a question, it doesnt necessarily have basis in reality or practicality, but it might, for all we know.

You give them a finger, they will then want your hand.  You give them your hand, they'll go for your arm.  You give them your arm...you get the idea. 

You give them a finger, they will then want your hand.  You give them your hand, they'll go for your arm.  You give them your arm...you get the idea.

I have a finger for them