Submitted:

I support this bill because I believe it will make Hawaii safer and reduce the number of home invasion robberies which occur on this Island. Criminals can break into a home and rob the home even threaten the owner with non deadly force and the home owner is powerless to stop them. Allowing a home owner to defend their home will level the power between the law abiding citizen and the criminal. This is particularly important with woman and the elderly members of our community

Submitted:

"I support this bill--in the situations for which it is written, legal uncertainty should not work to force the law-abiding to hesitate to act."

this is what I wrote:

I am in support of HB603 as it gives the homeowner the ability to protect home and family from criminals without hesitation.  It will also reduce home invasions because criminals can no longer have the upper hand against the homeowner.

Bump to the top. More testimony needed in support of this one.

Testimony submitted

didn't Lingle put a bill through just like this before she left office?   

This will be very interesting if it gets passed.... How many or who will it have to go thru to become law? This would be a huge leap forward if we could pass this law. I'll spread the word on social media site I frequent. Other should do the same. This would simply mean we would not get sued or charged even if a robber gets hurt on our property while trying to rob it!!! 

I miss Lingle being in office.  here are two bills she signed off on.

http://www.infowars.com/2nd-amendment-rights-protected-during-emergency-in-hawaii/

Submitted my support.

Bump. Deadline for online testimony is 2:00pm today.

How come we can't view any testimony yet. Shouldn't it already be posted ?

.

So many testimonies  marked LATE!!!

LIFE opposed and HRA opposed as too broad.

Hmm I see their points. But wouldn't they want to go "support but amend"?

Delete

Interesting.

All but one of the organizations who wrote in opposed the bill.

All but 4 of the individuals who wrote in supported it; three offered comments only, one opposed.

See, this says to me that there's a lack of clear communication on our side, which is a bit problematic. 

Interesting.

All but one of the organizations who wrote in opposed the bill.

All but 4 of the individuals who wrote in supported it; three offered comments only, one opposed.

See, this says to me that there's a lack of clear communication on our side, which is a bit problematic.

That's exactly what I was thinking.

LIFE opposed and HRA opposed as too broad.

They only opposed because it was too broad?  Or was there more to it than that?

Interesting.

All but one of the organizations who wrote in opposed the bill.

All but 4 of the individuals who wrote in supported it; three offered comments only, one opposed.

See, this says to me that there's a lack of clear communication on our side, which is a bit problematic. 

That's exactly what I was thinking.

I agree as well.

Although I don't think the current law is OK as written where I have to determine if the perp is committing a class A or B felony or is committing bodily harm to someone in my house before I can defend myself or them.

They only opposed because it was too broad?  Or was there more to it than that?

What's the theory BUD ?  Don't leave us guessing.