http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/breaking/189099391.html?id=189099391

Looks like the machine has started now.  The biased media will be relentless.
They don't even address what this bill was about. 

Alternative news like Hawaii Reporter needs more support.  SA has no incentive to report real news unless it fits their agenda.

Wow. We're a gun lobby?

Which one of us was getting paid to go to the offices of the representatives and sell our perspective?

A groups of citizens voicing their support or opposition of a bill does not a lobby make.

This is the part that pisses me off: "Rep. Karl Rhoads, a Democrat who chairs the Judiciary committee and supported the bill, says he wasn’t swayed by the crowd of opposition. “In the aftermath of Newtown, I don’t think it’s responsible not to do something,” Rhoads said, referring to the Connecticut town where 20 first-graders and six adults were killed in a Dec. 20 shooting rampage."

I read that as, "Who cares what people think. We have do something regardless of whether it makes sense or not." What a self-righteous elitist prick. If you live in his district, I would demand an explanation. Let him know he's in office to represent the people, not go rogue and do whatever the hell he wants.

I don't know about you folks, but my state has a "Volunteer Lobbyist" registration available, which allows you in-house access to the state sens and reps.  Just like a paid lobbyist.  You also get a little pink booklet that lists names, addresses, occupations of your senreps. You  might look into that.

I don't know, that article looked fairly Normal" to me, unless y ou do a line count of pro-versus-anti quotes.

Hm..

"House Majority Leader Rep. Scott Saiki, who introduced the bill relating to firearm instructors’ liability"

When's he up for re-election?

This is the part that pisses me off: "Rep. Karl Rhoads, a Democrat who chairs the Judiciary committee and supported the bill, says he wasn’t swayed by the crowd of opposition. “In the aftermath of Newtown, I don’t think it’s responsible not to do something,” Rhoads said, referring to the Connecticut town where 20 first-graders and six adults were killed in a Dec. 20 shooting rampage."

I read that as, "Who cares what people think. We have do something regardless of whether it makes sense or not." What a self-righteous elitist prick. If you live in his district, I would demand an explanation. Let him know he's in office to represent the people, not go rogue and do whatever the hell he wants.

Exactly!  They are there to represent their constituents, and NOT to push their personal (or other) agendas.

I don't know about you folks, but my state has a "Volunteer Lobbyist" registration available, which allows you in-house access to the state sens and reps.  Just like a paid lobbyist.  You also get a little pink booklet that lists names, addresses, occupations of your senreps. You  might look into that.

I don't know, that article looked fairly Normal" to me, unless y ou do a line count of pro-versus-anti quotes.

Hm..

"House Majority Leader Rep. Scott Saiki, who introduced the bill relating to firearm instructors’ liability"

When's he up for re-election?

Rep Saiki represents my district and I sent him a couple of emails requesting an explanation of why he proposed HM 426.  I received an email that I will get a detailed response in about a week. 

We still dont know the truth about which guns were really used in the Newtown shootings. 

Luckily i dont support the StarAd no more.

I just fired off e-mails to House Speaker Souki and the Karl Rhoads. I let Speaker Souki know that someone with Rhoads' attitude should not be the Chairman of a Committee, much less Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. I reminded Rhoads that his duty is to represent the people, not himself. I also told him if he wants to solve Newtown's problems, then he can pack his backs, move to Connecticut, and run for office there.
I kept it civil, but I admit his comments still have me riled up.

I also ask that you guys do the same. We have to let them know that anti-gun comments in Hawaii come at a price. We can't let him get away with this. Write the Speaker, your reps, Rhoads, and even the Star Advertiser. If we let them get away with his comments on HB 426, then he'll think he can get away with anything. The time is now. It only takes a few minutes. Don't wait until it's too late (which in our case is only a few weeks or a couple months from now). Mahalo.

So these people think that it would have been a victory if they passed a bill that would ultimately discourage people from going into a profession that promotes safe firearm handling? Wow. That's what we have come to. And that bill has nothing to do with Newtown, Rhoads is on a delusional crusade...

I reminded Rhoads that his duty is to represent the people, not himself. I also told him if he wants to solve Newtown's problems, then he can pack his bags, move to Connecticut, and run for office there.

LOL  LIKE  LOVE

Terry, 230RN

What Terry said!

 

Link to Hawaii Reporter article:

http://www.hawaiireporter.com/firearms-legislation-sparks-heated-debate-on-process-power-and-politics/123

This shows me a few things:

1. our voices totally do matter
2. As i suspected, we are both far more aware of legislation than the anti's, and the anti's in the public kind of dont really care or know about it.
3. the legislators are clueless

also note the infighting that is going on inside the democratic party
it is clear that saiki and rhodes are trying to run roughshod over a lot of the Bill of Rights, not only 2a

the antis may just be starting to wake up
we need to not be complacent over this tiny victory that we nearly lost

This shows me a few things:

1. our voices totally do matter
2. As i suspected, we are both far more aware of legislation than the anti's, and the anti's in the public kind of dont really care or know about it.
3. the legislators are clueless

This is the part that pisses me off: "Rep. Karl Rhoads, a Democrat who chairs the Judiciary committee and supported the bill, says he wasn’t swayed by the crowd of opposition. “In the aftermath of Newtown, I don’t think it’s responsible not to do something,” Rhoads said, referring to the Connecticut town where 20 first-graders and six adults were killed in a Dec. 20 shooting rampage."

That pissed me off as well, but there was something else he said at the hearing that demonstrates even more clearly that not only is he not representing the views of the people, but that his choice to support the bill was a clear personal bias against gun owners. I'll need to set up the context of his comments so bare with me for a moment.

Before "our" bill was heard, there was a bill relating to the ethics committee. One section of the bill that drew Mr. Rhoads' attention was related to possible sanctions if "accurate" information was not provided. Mr. Rhoads called the gentleman back up to answer some questions and made comments, asking if someone would be sanctioned if they provided inaccurate information thru no fault of their own. In other words, Rhoads pressed, if someone provided information that he believed accurate, but was inaccurate because somebody else erred, would the Ethics Board still consider that "inaccurate" for the purposes of any disciplinary action.

So Rhoads knows well the concept that sometimes bad things happen despite all due diligence and precautions, and appeared to advocate for some consideration of that fact when facing possible disciplinary action by the ethics board, but when the same concept was applied to firearms instructors, teaching State mandated training that the State does not provide, somehow that escapes him?

What a two faced *ss!

also note the infighting that is going on inside the democratic party
it is clear that saiki and rhodes are trying to run roughshod over a lot of the Bill of Rights, not only 2a

the antis may just be starting to wake up
we need to not be complacent over this tiny victory that we nearly lost

The Antis are waking up.  Just take a look at the comments section and you'll see the attempts to draw out fear in the sheeple by insinuating we are nuts and wakkos.  This bill had nothing to do with guns rights per se, but all to do with safety.

That pissed me off as well, but there was something else he said at the hearing that demonstrates even more clearly that not only is he not representing the views of the people, but that his choice to support the bill was a clear personal bias against gun owners. I'll need to set up the context of his comments so bare with me for a moment.

Before "our" bill was heard, there was a bill relating to the ethics committee. One section of the bill that drew Mr. Rhoads' attention was related to possible sanctions if "accurate" information was not provided. Mr. Rhoads called the gentleman back up to answer some questions and made comments, asking if someone would be sanctioned if they provided inaccurate information thru no fault of their own. In other words, Rhoads pressed, if someone provided information that he believed accurate, but was inaccurate because somebody else erred, would the Ethics Board still consider that "inaccurate" for the purposes of any disciplinary action.

So Rhoads knows well the concept that sometimes bad things happen despite all due diligence and precautions, and appeared to advocate for some consideration of that fact when facing possible disciplinary action by the ethics board, but when the same concept was applied to firearms instructors, teaching State mandated training that the State does not provide, somehow that escapes him?

What a two faced *ss!

I wish I realized that!  I would have TOTALLY called him out on that when I went up to speak or when I was called back up for questions!!