Mr. Abercrombie, 

           Recently the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the Second Amendment  to the constitution is a fundamental constitutional right of all American  citizens, see Heller vs. District of Columbia 554 U.S. 128; and that this right  applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment -- see McDonald v. City  of Chicago. The Second Amendment clearly states, "A well regulated  Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the  people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."  The structure  of this sentence has been widely contested and debated. As such, the Supreme  Court has determined that the clause applies to the people, not the militia. A  well regulated Militia, being a preparatory clause, thus has no bearing on the  core meaning of the constitutional amendment, "the right of the people  to keep and bear arms."

          Additionally, the term bear has also been debated inside and out of the  courts. In order to ease the strain of understanding of this term the courts  have been kind enough to define that term as well. Bear, as defined in Heller  v. District of Columbia 554 U.S. 128 , citing Muscarello v. United States 524  U.S. 125, is defined as "to wear, bear or carry upon the person, in the  clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose of use, or for the purpose of being  armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in case of a conflict with another  person."  This provides a clear definition of the manner of keeping  and carrying that we as citizens should be authorized.

           Currently in our wonderful state crime is on the rise. Robberies,  assault, murder, property theft and rape are all rapidly climbing; even the  state university is showing soaring trends of this claim.  With budget  cutbacks, increased call volume, and reduced hiring for the police department,  this escalation of crime is of no surprise. Combine the normal factors of crime  with an increasing population of drug abusers island wide and a steady upward  trend on un-employment, the outlook seems like it will not change anywhere in  the near future.

           Considering these previous factors, the existence of a fundamental constitutional  right, which should not be infringed upon by the state, rising crime rates, and  a decrease in police presence, our personal safety is seriously threatened. We,  the people, are being severely oppressed, and would like to know who we are  putting in office. Therefore, I would like to question your stance on the state  of our current gun laws and your standing on our Second Amendment.

           Do you as Governor have any intentions of supporting our constitutional right  to bear arms?

           Hawaii is one of only two states in the country where the lawful carrying of  firearms is unable to be exercised, either openly or concealed. Do you have any  intentions on supporting legislation that will allow citizens of Hawaii to  carry firearms upon their person for the lawful purpose of self-defense, open  or concealed?

           Do you support an appeals process for those citizens who are denied concealed carry permits? Currently, the Chief of Police is the sole deciding  authority, which should not be the case for the exercise of a fundamental  right. Not even the President of the United States is given this power.

           If you do not support this right, would you be willing to support legislation  to allow citizens to possess and carry non-lethal weapons such as: expandable  batons, Tasers (firing), or Tasers (hand held, non-firing).

           In closing, the firearm community would like to encourage you to review current  studies to ease any myths with which you have become accustom to. Myths like more  guns equal more crime, which has been consistently proven false. Myths like  people carrying weapons will go crazy and shoot others --- another blatantly  false statement, with little or no evidence to back it (See Chicago's crime  rate or Washington, D.C.'s).  The truths are citizens with firearms are  respectful, law abiding, and tolerant; they are a support structure that the  city can count on for those real emergencies, where the police are commonly  nowhere in sight, who can defend and protect themselves or others in case of an  emergency.

           Hawaii's Firearm Community urges for  you to respond.

Respectfully,
Christopher  Baker

Owner: Hawaii  Conceal Carry
Member of the  NRA, Hawaii Rifle Association, Second Amendment Foundation and 2AHawaii.com  Forums.


--- Should have had my wife read for grammar, kind pissed I missed like six things. --

Very well worded letter.  I am interested to see the response.

I had an interesting series of emails exchanged with Neil's office... I think they're archived on my work computer.  I'll post them this week if I can find them. 

I had an interesting series of emails exchanged with Neil's office... I think they're archived on my work computer.  I'll post them this week if I can find them.

Interested in the responses as well but I'm wary/skeptical, and not in a paranoid way. It is election season and the campaign knows that they have to be appealing to all groups to garner as much votes as possible.

Abercrombie is a career politician, and a very anti-gun one. I would personally love to see a positive change in Hawaii's gun laws but this is an ugly election year outcome.

I can remember him as a pot smoking hippie when we were both at the UH.
 
I do believe he did INhale.
 
We did not know each other than and we still don't.
 
The Wife judges a Man by how he shakes hands, will let you know when he shakes her hand.
 
She says, most politicians she shaken hands with in Her opinion are wussies.

Great letter, I hope you get a response.

I'm interested in seeing what Tom has too.

I can remember him as a pot smoking hippie when we were both at the UH.

He still looks like one now! haha

Fantastic letter Chris, very well structured and thought out. I am thinking that you will certainly get a response, although I wonder what, exactly, it will contain.

Now you just need to type out similar letters for the rest of us to send out! 

- Alex

Well worded letter, Funtimes.  Did you happen to send it to Duke Aiona as well? 

Well worded letter, Funtimes.  Did you happen to send it to Duke Aiona as well?

I did

Ok, my memory plays tricks on me.  Neil never actually wrote me back about the issues I raised with him, but I did exchange emails with an assistant.

Aloha Mr. Abercrombie!

 My name is Tom Galli.  I am a professor at Chaminade University, an activist with Olelo Community Television, an NRA certified firearms
safety instructor, and I sit on the board of the Hawaii Rifle Association.

I wrote you in the past, asking you as my Congressman to be more supportive of second amendment rights.  Your reply was carefully
crafted to imply that you did support those rights while taking reasonable measures to protect public safety.  I do appreciate the time you spent in that response.

Now, however, you seek to be my governor.  In that position, you have will have the ability to implement changes on the local level.  I would like to know if you will support the following:

1.  Abolishing HRS 134-2, the permitting and application process to acquire firearms.  Instead, allow any Hawaii resident who passes the instant NICS check to make same-day purchases of any legal firearms.

2.  Abolishing HRS 134-3, the requirement to register firearms. Additionally, requiring the destruction of all existing registration and firearms records.

3.  Rewriting HRS 134-9 so that any resident who applies for a permit  to carry a firearm, concealed or openly, and who passes the NICS check, shall be issued that permit.

4.  Removing the restriction in HRS 134-8 (c) which requires Hawaii residents to modify the standard magazines which are shipped with  their handguns, reducing the ammunition capacity to 10 rounds.

5.  Abolishing HRS 134-8, making Hawaii a Class III state in which residents can own silencers, fully automatic firearms, and other  related items, in accordance with all BATFE and NFA regulations.

In addition, I would like to hear your position on so-called "assault weapons" bans.  What are your thoughts on bans which target firearms on purely cosmetic criteria without regard to the actual operations or capabilities of those same firearms?

I thank you for your time, and look forward to your responses!  Should you ever want to discuss any firearms-related issues, or maybe even join me on a trip to the range, I am available at your convenience.

Mahalo,
Tom Galli

Hello Mr Galli. Thank you for your email. I will make sure Neil knows of your comments.  However, Neil's position on guns in Hawaii has not changed. Aloha, Kay

Kay Hoffman
Abercrombie for Governor
Campaign Relations

To which I replied...

Aloha Kay,

Thank you for the speedy reply!  Honestly, though, I am hoping for a little more of an in-depth answer.  Saying that Mr. Abercrombie's position on guns "has not changed" evades the thrust of the questions; namely, what IS his position on guns in Hawaii?  Knowing his responses to the specific items I asked would be quite educational in that regard.

Mahalo,
Tom Galli

To which Kay replied...

Frnakly, I am not the person to give detailed answers.  I have marked your email for discussion with the policy person and Neil.  Bare with me.
Aloha,
Kay

We exchanged a couple of more pleasantries that there is no reason to share.  Then, weeks later, I got an email back from the man himself.  I can't find this one, sadly, but it said, and I paraphrase:

Thank you for writing to be about your issue.  As your Senator, I worked very hard on your issue.  Now, since I am running for Governor, I can't take time to discuss your issue.  Vote for me.

Thank you for writing to be about your issue.  As your Senator, I worked very hard on your issue.  Now, since I am running for Governor, I can't take time to discuss your issue.  Vote for me.

Yep, when he was rep, I wrote to him also about some of the other issues being voted on.  His reply was very similar to yours.

Good letter. May I offer a few comments?
 

Hawaii is one of only two states in the country where the lawful carrying of  firearms is unable to be exercised, either openly or concealed.

 
Technically, incorrect. We are afforded the opportunity to carry either open or concealed, but that exercise of the right is curtailed by the subjective decisions of the Chief of Police and effectively nullified by the Chief's decision to not issue permits. Currently Illinois is the only state without a provision in statutes to allow either open or concealed carry. Wisconsin does not allow concealed carry but courts have determined that since there is no provision to allow concealed carry, open carry is legal, without any permission for the state.
 

In closing, the firearm community would like to encourage you to review current  studies to ease dispell any myths with which you have become accustom to. Myths like more  guns equal more crime, which has been consistently proven false. Myths like  people carrying weapons will go crazy and shoot others --- another blatantly  false statement, with little or no evidence to back it .[maybe cite stats from Florida and Texas where such a database is kept by the state?] Or that preventing lawabiding citizens from obtaining firearms for self defense by enacting draconian gun restrictions will reduce gun crime. (See Chicago's crime  rate or Washington, D.C.'s).

I hope that helps. Keep up the good work.

Aloha,


 

Good letter. May I offer a few comments?
 
Technically, incorrect. We are afforded the opportunity to carry either open or concealed, but that exercise of the right is curtailed by the subjective decisions of the Chief of Police and effectively nullified by the Chief's decision to not issue permits. Currently Illinois is the only state without a provision in statutes to allow either open or concealed carry. Wisconsin does not allow concealed carry but courts have determined that since there is no provision to allow concealed carry, open carry is legal, without any permission for the state.
 

Quote

In closing, the firearm community would like to encourage you to review current  studies to ease dispell any myths with which you have become accustom to. Myths like more  guns equal more crime, which has been consistently proven false. Myths like  people carrying weapons will go crazy and shoot others --- another blatantly  false statement, with little or no evidence to back it .[maybe cite stats from Florida and Texas where such a database is kept by the state?] Or that preventing lawabiding citizens from obtaining firearms for self defense by enacting draconian gun restrictions will reduce gun crime. (See Chicago's crime  rate or Washington, D.C.'s).

I hope that helps. Keep up the good work.

Aloha,

If a provision is in the law, and not able to be exercised (which Hawaii is not able to be exercised, as seen by my request) then it's a functional ban, which is the center of our future legal prospects here. I haven't seen anyone that is afforded the right to bear, thus far. So I would stand by my statement that Hawaii is one of two states where the common person is unable to bear a firearm for self defense outside of the home, in any manner what so ever.

I could get into the specifics with these guys, but I don't think they will listen that much.. so I didn't include it.  If someone takes the bait, I can work on that.. Thanks for the response.

If a provision is in the law, and not able to be exercised (which Hawaii is not able to be exercised, as seen by my request) then it's a functional ban, which is the center of our future legal prospects here. I haven't seen anyone that is afforded the right to bear, thus far. So I would stand by my statement that Hawaii is one of two states where the common person is unable to bear a firearm for self defense outside of the home, in any manner what so ever.

I could get into the specifics with these guys, but I don't think they will listen that much.. so I didn't include it.  If someone takes the bait, I can work on that.. Thanks for the response.

    I understand your argument, but I think it wrong to post something on a site that can come back to haunt you later. I think it's best to be as clear, unemotional, and factual as possible from the beginning...this is politics, and somewhere, at the worse possible time, someone is going to pull something from an old, forgotten post and try to use it against you at the most opportune time. Imagine you're testifying at the legislature for a concealed carry bill. An elected "anti" asks you some questions after you read your testimony:     
Anti: Can you tell me which two states don't have the provisions under the law to carry a concealed firearm?   
You: Hawaii and [I assume you'd say] Illinois 
Anti: But doesn't Hawaii, under HRS Ch. 134-9, afford one the right to obtain a CCW?   
You: Well, yes, but [here's where you'd try to explain the problems with "may issue" and the inability of "most" folks to get a CCW in Hawaii but couldn't due to....]   
Anti: OK, thank you. That's all on that matter. I have another question. 
You: But, I want to explain... 
Anti: Has anyone ever been issued a permit? 
You: Yes, but it is only..... 
Anti: So, there are permits that have been issued in Hawaii.   
You: Yes, but....   
Anti: I have no further questions, you may step down.     
 
You get the picture...you have an opportunity to start off "clean" in this effort. It can't hurt to have as few skeletons in the closet as possible...if that means ammending something that is on your website now, something that is cached and could be saved for later use, I'd suggest you consider revising it....     As I said, I understand your argument and think it has merit. But I also see the possibility of it being used against you. And even if it doesn't create an insumountable problem, or, in this instance, a friendy legislators lets you get in your rebuttals, why let it be a distraction from the real message? Just my two cents worth.....     Keep up the good work.      Aloha,

I get what your going for. I would have answered that different though, as I never said we don't have the provision in the law, just that the right is unable to be exercised, which is truth.  The statement is meant to encompass areas where it is prohibited by law or by functional practice. In your example, I would have corrected them and told them there is only one state without a provision in the law.  The second question would have been a no, since only 'exceptional' cases may receive them, the normal cases were already barred from carrying, so those people were never afforded the right to begin with.  We would have to establish a standard for the the normal cases in order to find out which ones would qualify as exceptional.
Overall, I am with you man. Thank you for the insight and probing of thought. Unfortunately, I can't recall any messages, in fact, I sent out a few more to their other addresses. Gotta head to work!

Well crap... info@neilabercrombie.com just sent me a "mail box" full message lol. Don't think I will get a response from him. 

Well crap... info@neilabercrombie.com just sent me a "mail box" full message lol. Don't think I will get a response from him. 

Wow, it's kind of strange that you would get a mailbox full message days after you sent him the email. Maybe they have a monkey filtering the emails and saying "mailbox full" to all the ones they don't want to answer.

Sorry, need to clarify.
 
Message to neil@neilabercrombie went through, info@neilabercrombie was mailbox full.  It's possible, probably some noob admin.