I know this should probably go in the existing discussion about the reduction in range hours, but I thought it unique and inspiring enough to warrent its own "topic" here. In addition, it also speaks to getting more women involved. While we are all passionate about regaining some of our lost Second Amendment rights, it seems women talking about guns just strikes a more resonant cord with lawmakers. As such, the writer of the letter has agreed to help at this year's legislative session. I am sure the sight of an elderly woman speaking to the need to be able to protect herself and her equally elderly husband will be extremely valuable to our cause. So, without further delay, and for your reading pleasure:

A new anti-gun mayor takes control, and suddenly the Koko Head Firing Range hours are greatly reduced.  Surely, you are aware this is the only public firing range available on O'ahu. 
Operation of Koko Head Firing Range should be a public service,  just like public parks.  Public parks are generally open from dusk to dawn - we expect the same of Koko Head Firing Range.  At a minimum, the range should be available to all persons at least eight hours every day, and ten hours on weekends.  Any charges should be minimal.
 
Unfortunately, in today's world, there are too many limitations on immediate police assistance when required.  Therefore, you should be very supportive of any Citizens who are still willing to pay your unconstitutional 'price'  to arm themselves, and to give their personal time to achieve comfort in the skill of arms.  Hawaii already has the Nation's most onerous restrictive gun laws.  At the very least, please allow us ample opportunity to hone our skills at the firing range after we jump through all your fiery hoops to be able to 'legally' possess a gun in Hawaii.  Guns are not bad!   Joe Citizen is not bad.  Please enforce your existing criminal laws if you want to stop the 'bad guys' from using guns.
 
As a young girl. my Grandpa and Dad taught me gun safety and how to shoot correctly.  My Grandpa gave me his single-shot .22 when I turned twelve.  At fourteen, I  could go to the store and buy my own ammunition.  In high school, the boys had their rifles or shotguns in gun racks in their unlocked pick-up trucks at school.  There simply were no restrictions, and no problems with American Citizens of any age possessing guns.  Folks own guns to put food on the table, protect themselves and their families if necessary, and simply for the sheer pleasure of whacking a few targets on the weekend to improve their aim.   What in the world has happened to this Country?  What has happended to my freedoms?
 
We, the People, have a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, and to use those arms to protect ourselves, our family, our neighbors, and our property.  You, Hawaii, have passed laws contrary to our Constitutional rights.  You say we can't shoot someone breaking into our home and threatening our family.  You say we can't carry a gun anywhere except between our home and the gun shop, or our home and the firing range.  You make it very burdensome for us even to own a gun - we are fingerprinted, submit to 'mugshots,' forced to sign medical releases for all our medical and mental records, and we are required to pay to undergo FBI checks and purchase permits, as if we are the criminals.  I protest.  Why don't you go after the criminals instead of law-abiding Citizens? 
 
How does that saying go?  "An armed society is a polite society."  A little target practice can only make us more polite.  Please open the range full-time.
 
 
Thank you for your consideration,
 
Name Redacted
   American Citizen, with a God-given, Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms
   Grandma, Gun owner
   Member Hawaii Rifle Association
   Member Gun Owners' of America
   Member Second Amendment Foundation
   Member National Rifle Association

HiCarry, I have a question. Would it be possible for Koko Head to run unsupervised like some ranges are run in the Mainland? Has anyone thought of that? Maybe it could even be split where they keep the supervised hours they have now, but the other daylight hours run unsupervised. Just a thought. Thanks for sharing the letter by the way.

A very nice letter!  Hopefully it will send a message.

Nice letter!  She really makes me miss the main land ranges.  Sigh....................

HiCarry, I have a question. Would it be possible for Koko Head to run unsupervised like some ranges are run in the Mainland? Has anyone thought of that? Maybe it could even be split where they keep the supervised hours they have now, but the other daylight hours run unsupervised. Just a thought. Thanks for sharing the letter by the way.

That's certainly a possibility considering that the current clubs can run the "normal" hours while they are there using the range for club purposes. Clubs that run the shotgun games, the silhouette range, the IPSC shoots, and such have been given permission to start at 0800 and end at 1600. Not sure the best way to approach it at this point. Maybe try to talk to Carlisle??

I would love to find out how these guys are "running" the range, I just cant spare the time to find out lol.

That is one fine letter.

That is one fine letter.

Personally, I really like the line: "Grandma, gun owner"

And, she's already agreed to help this legislative session if needed.....

If that don't whack the legislative mule between the ears with a 4 x 4........

Gotta get her and the Wife together.  Instead of talking cooking, they can talk guns.
     The guys can talk cooking......

My kinda Grandma.

 Bet she's from the midwest, just like my Wife.

She and the Wife can hold the fort, to hell with the cavalry, they're on their own.....

I sent the letter to my legal friend this is what he said:

   "The reduced range hours took place well (Oct 1) before the new mayor and he is not anti-gun. He has been very neutral these many years, But falsely accusing him of being anti-gun and accusing him of intentionally reducing the range hours doesn't help us at all.

Remember Kaneshiro actually set up a ban gun committee with police chief Nakamura and AG Teddy Baker. The new mayor did nothing like this in all the years he was prosecutor

The trouble with gun folks that have a Custer mentality and lash out at everyone. Letter like this don't help and we need to cultivate a pro gun relationship with the new mayor.

Did you know Sen. Clayton Hee was pro gun until xxxxxx xxxxx   went in his office and yell  at him. Gun people have virtually zero political smarts

This letter is bad news. "

If I didn't run stuff past him, I'd be in deep do do.  Keeps me more or less Honest.   He is a Gold Mine of political info for me.  He NEEDS to write a book.

 

So why isn't he a member of this forum?! 

I think it is very common for avid gun owners (myself included) to interpret "neutral" as basically anti. Particularly when a person holds an office for an extended period of time. I'm not saying that this is right, and your lawyer friend makes a very good point; but here is how I look at it:

The issue of guns, gun violence, and gun ownership (keeping and bearing) are VERY VERY black and white to anyone who is willing to take the time to research the issues and is willing to apply 2nd-grader reading skills (note that this is not an insult, but an opinion that sometimes higher education unnecessarily clouds certain issues). Anyone with an iota of applied common sense can realize that criminals do not acquire weapons legally, thus gun control laws do not prevent gun crime. Additionally, there are countless statistics to reinforce this fact. Furthermore, If you asked a 2nd grader to break down the 2nd Amendment word-by-word, they would tell you that "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" means that people can own (keep) and carry (bear) guns without restriction. It's not even remotely complicated...even if it was before, the SCOTUS has even helped us out by clarifying further.

What worries me about people who are "neutral" about this issue is that if they can't figure something this simple out, then how the hell can I trust them to do the proper research on issues that are much more complex. I don't want a politician who runs on ideals, I want one that operates based on fact and reason.

- Alex

The Mayor could have prevented the hour reduction (current). He could have worked against it, it really makes no sense... I don't see the savings. 

Carlisle is not for guns and he approves of our current gun laws.  Which means, he does not support the laws or the constitution. Our laws are beyond unconstitutional.

The HRA classifies him as Anti-Gun, as he opposes shall issue laws.  He has also ensured those that have clearly acted in self-defense have spent the night in jail.,

Aside from all that, he wastes lots of money prosecuting very minor cases.

Did you just say that DUI and excessive speeding are minor offenses?!

- Alex

They are, which why you don't get a jury trial.  The state however, will spend thouuuuuuuusands fighting some bogus stuff where they really don't have any evidence. And get like a few thousand out of someone.. they could have just cut a deal, hit the person with reckless or got them to plea down.

You don't need a full blown prosecution attempt to get the people who are going for DUI. Hawaii has it's own retarded setup for evidence, feel free to go sit in a courtroom and watch judges violate the law!

I think we're talking about this from two different standpoints. You're talking about from a legal standpoint, not from the standpoint that driving drunk is fucking retarded. Right?

- Alex

I think we're talking about this from two different standpoints. You're talking about from a legal standpoint, not from the standpoint that driving drunk is fucking retarded. Right?

- Alex

I'm talking about the agenda and expense to gain ratio of the prosecutors office. Driving drunk is against the law and they should be punished. But yea, strictly off a legal standpoint -- they could step up their game and prosecute some cases and actually have credible evidence instead of complaining about not having it.    From a financial standpoint If we spend say 15k tax dollars prosecuting a DUI and all that happens is license revocation, SR-22 insurance, and a fine... you probably could have gotten that with a plea for reckless driving.  The person would be punished and the people would not end up footing 12k dollars in tax money.  Picking your battles and not wasting excessive money on certain cases is a good idea to; there is just a certain point when the loss / gain ratio is not in favor of the state, and I believe the prosecutors office could do better.  He could have saved some litigation time and instead kept the range open!


 
Back on topic -- the guy is *ANTI* Gun... don't let anything fool you, and there were other places they could have saved money other than the range; it only has a few operators, and I know they are not making a huge salary there.

My "legal" friend and I go back at least 30+ years.  We both were around and members of MPPL when it started.

I do know he is a very active member of the organization that puts on the Gun Show.  He is very active in "certain" very public firearms related activities.

I do know that he is a member of both HRA and NRA.

He probably knows More about firearms and related subjects than I do or think I do.

He leaves it to me to send him interesting tidbits of info, like the Grandma letter.

If he is a member here, that's his business.  I just let him know of things.

He and his cohorts do things at the Shooting Sports Fair and other events at Kokohead.

He is an avid hunter, locally and did a safari in Africa.   Should see his trophies.......

He could probably Teach law at the UH.  He has enough Credentials. 

He is a world traveller. 

I am First in line when he writes his book about people, families and personal history in Hawaii.  It is a MUST have.  Probably could make James Michner's "Hawaii"
look like a comic book.

Who he knows and has met reads like a Who's Who of Hawaii.  I am just surprised who he's ribbed shoulders with.

He does his thing, this is mine.

Hrm... I think we missed something =p. I am just saying Peter has a stance against guns, and hasn't held it back.  I don't buy the "pro-gun" statement.  I Think a large portion of Hawaii has distorted views on what is really constitutional, of course this state hasn't been at it as long as others, so were behind to begin with.

Heck, the UH Constitutional law professor told Alan Gura he didn't know what he was talking about during a debate at UH. (prior to his supreme court cases).

I sent the letter to my legal friend this is what he said:

   "The reduced range hours took place well (Oct 1) before the new mayor and he is not anti-gun. He has been very neutral these many years, But falsely accusing him of being anti-gun and accusing him of intentionally reducing the range hours doesn't help us at all.

Remember Kaneshiro actually set up a ban gun committee with police chief Nakamura and AG Teddy Baker. The new mayor did nothing like this in all the years he was prosecutor

The trouble with gun folks that have a Custer mentality and lash out at everyone. Letter like this don't help and we need to cultivate a pro gun relationship with the new mayor.

Did you know Sen. Clayton Hee was pro gun until xxxxxx xxxxx   went in his office and yell  at him. Gun people have virtually zero political smarts

This letter is bad news. "

If I didn't run stuff past him, I'd be in deep do do.  Keeps me more or less Honest.   He is a Gold Mine of political info for me.  He NEEDS to write a book.

 

The "legal guy" has a point...Carlisle, as Mayor had little or nothing to do with the reduction in range hours. Nor, do I believe he really could have done much in the short time he's been Mayor to get the range back to the hours we previously enjoyed. And, "we" as gun owners do sometimes act in ways that may not be to our best advantage. I understand that most times this is because of frustration with both the politicians themselves and the political machine that creates the issues we find ourselves fighting against.

I disagree with the assessment that Carlise is not anti-gun. His administration has supported every "police package" presented during his tenure, including an attempt to ban .50 cals, ammunition coding, microstamping firing pins, and a host of other restrictive measures. He may not have actively campaigned for gun restrictions ala Kaneshiro, but his support of the police packages, the lack of support for concealed carry and use of force to defend yourself in general, has certainly branded him as an "anti." If he's actually "pro gun" but has hid or concealed that fact for political motives, well, that says alot about his ethics and morals....more of the "guns for me (or the special few) but not for thee..." mantra so popular with the liberal leaning politicos....Do we need to go into the history with Dianne Finestein, Rosie O"Donnald, and a host of other liberal elites that think they should be allowed to have guns (or armed body guards) but the lowly masses shouldn't??

In this election, more so than in the past, IMHO, we are asking politicians to take a stand on a host of issues, from civil unions, rail authority, school board, etc. Why shouldn;t we be asking them to take a stand on their interpretations of the Second Amendment. In the past, Carlisle has be silent on the Hawaii Supreme Court's interpretation of our 2A analog as not conferring an individual right, but a collective right. Does that mean he agrees? I don't know, but as a practical, legal matter, I would like to hear him tell us his stance now, in light of Heller and McDonald. I'm bettin' he'll dance around the subject and say something vague like he supports the Second Amendment but doesn't belive anything in Heller or McDonald prevents "reasonable" laws that regulate them. Or, that he'll say the ruling were wrong and need to be revisited....Now, I have nothing to base that on, but using his historical perspective, I don't think I'm too far off base....I'd be happy if I were, but......

As for the letter being "bad news" I can see where he's coming from, but don't think it is a problematic as he perceives. My intent in sharing the letter was not to present a factually correct template for others to use to complain about the reduction in range hours. But, rather an example of someone "doing something" for "the cause." I wanted to show that anyone can participate in the process, and if I work with Grandma to present factually correct testimony, I think a articulate, pro-gun grandma is a perfect venue to show the legislators that we pro gun types aren't all white, redneck, macho male, police wanna be's. I think we need more of our "non-stereotypical" gun owners to be a little more vocal and if we did, we'd be much more successful.   

Hrm... I think we missed something =p. I am just saying Peter has a stance against guns, and hasn't held it back.  I don't buy the "pro-gun" statement.  I Think a large portion of Hawaii has distorted views on what is really constitutional, of course this state hasn't been at it as long as others, so were behind to begin with.

Heck, the UH Constitutional law professor told Alan Gura he didn't know what he was talking about during a debate at UH. (prior to his supreme court cases).

Were you at the debate between Gura and Van Dyke?? Could you believe the childish and emotion driven argument Van Dyke presented in rebuttal to Gura's argument? It was laughable and frightening at the same time. To think Van Dyke is the best UH can do in terms of a "Constitutional Scholar" is really sad...I mean he didn't even present an argument so much as he whinned that if Heller passed you'd be able to "take guns anywhere..."