?  I posted straight off the webpage, registered and the page that comes back that says if you cannot appear in person send your email testimony in so that's what I did.  This is not submitting testimony?

Please make it easier for us.

I don't think that the HPD would even consider a voluntary move to include multiple locations for registration as that would not only cause some logistical issues, but most important would demand an increase in, or reallocation of staffing, including sworn and non sworn personnel.  The HPD is already around 300 sworn short staffed and unk on civilian staffing.  With budgets as tight as they are right now for all City departments / agencies, the HPD is neck deep in the cuts.  So much so, that staffing for other non investigative, non patrol and even some plain clothed investigative units are not being filled.  Staffing shortages, mandatory working hour changes (often with little notice) to avert overtime, plus much of the normal or necessary overtime resulting from investigations being cut (crime doesn't just happen during normal scheduling hours) means a very tight ship being run.  Want to get promoted inside the HPD?  CUT your District / Divison / Unit budget dramatically.  Almost at all costs. 

What does this mean?  In essence this means that there is a huge reason that the HPD can cite to not increase staffing in the firearms section as it can be directly tied to public safety and budget in that it would require hiring of new personnel or re-directing of personnel from essential enforcement type positions to non essential positions.  I am not trying to be negative as I would love to see a better, more efficient and more convenient way to register a firearm, but this is what the opposition will be citing.  Heavily.  So indeed, I would think that it would need to be a mandated thing. 

As was mentioned by HiCarry, I too attended and spoke at the NRA Instructor hearing.  Very much the numbers in support count, but this proposal unlike the NRA Instructor proposal does not include the same type of inference of safety of liability.  This is where the HPD would hit the council also, when it comes to public safety and liability concerns.  Now if the City would allocate monies and positions then that is a good thing.  Just some things to consider from where the stance from opposition to such a bill will come from.     

I don't think that the HPD would even consider a voluntary move to include multiple locations for registration as that would not only cause some logistical issues, but most important would demand an increase in, or reallocation of staffing, including sworn and non sworn personnel.  The HPD is already around 300 sworn short staffed and unk on civilian staffing.  With budgets as tight as they are right now for all City departments / agencies, the HPD is neck deep in the cuts.  So much so, that staffing for other non investigative, non patrol and even some plain clothed investigative units are not being filled.  Staffing shortages, mandatory working hour changes (often with little notice) to avert overtime, plus much of the normal or necessary overtime resulting from investigations being cut (crime doesn't just happen during normal scheduling hours) means a very tight ship being run.  Want to get promoted inside the HPD?  CUT your District / Divison / Unit budget dramatically.  Almost at all costs. 

What does this mean?  In essence this means that there is a huge reason that the HPD can cite to not increase staffing in the firearms section as it can be directly tied to public safety and budget in that it would require hiring of new personnel or re-directing of personnel from essential enforcement type positions to non essential positions.  I am not trying to be negative as I would love to see a better, more efficient and more convenient way to register a firearm, but this is what the opposition will be citing.  Heavily.  So indeed, I would think that it would need to be a mandated thing. 

As was mentioned by HiCarry, I too attended and spoke at the NRA Instructor hearing.  Very much the numbers in support count, but this proposal unlike the NRA Instructor proposal does not include the same type of inference of safety of liability.  This is where the HPD would hit the council also, when it comes to public safety and liability concerns.  Now if the City would allocate monies and positions then that is a good thing.  Just some things to consider from where the stance from opposition to such a bill will come from.     

Then we can tell them dont let legal firearm owners in Hawaii burden you.  Free yourself up more and get rid of registration!!!!   
Thanks for offering a different perspective though.
Hopefully as Hicarry points out, small steps set in motion will set us up for bigger plays later.
Im just happy 2a advocates are finally on the offensive.  1st and 10, here we go!!!!

well said, bassm

we need to keep up the momentum

Im glad that 2a supporters are finally taking the battle to "them", instead of always having a defensive position.  No matter what type of outcome, it will show everyone that the 2a community can and will stick together and fight for our rights.

All I can say from this distance is "Best of luck to you."

And even if a person doesn't intend to register/permit any more firearms in the future, go down and testify (or e-mail) anyhow.  I have seen too many incremental bites taken out of our freedoms because of the "It doesn't affect me, so why bother?" attitude.of too many people. 

The other self-defeating attitude comes from the folks who think, "Ah, hell, they'll rairoad it through and it'll pass (or be defeated) anyhow, so why bother?"

I can't remember how many times I heard the argument against the Gun Control Act of 1968 that, "Hey, that'll never pass!  Why, hell, it's clearly against the Second Amendment!"

I... was... one... of... them. 

And nowadays the concept of owning and bearing arms as an inalienable and individual civil right of all citizens in all States squeaked by in only a 5 to 4 vote!

Sincerely, go testify.

Make notes and take names.

Those who go but don't testify.... you can carry a sign that says,

I'M MAKING NOTES!
I'M TAKING NAMES!
AND I VOTE!

Terry, 230RN

A public safety issue/concern or regulatory/enforcement requirement or something of that magnitude would be needed to make them take immediate notice but public outcry or fear of reelection can also push people to take action. Can't speak for C&C but unfunded requirements and mandates are the norm that occur in DoD, and the mandates get accomplished one way or the other and senior leadership fights unfunded requirements every year in the never ending budget battles. Some never get funded, while others do. Right now, I believe HPD views multiple locations as a "nice to have" vice a true requirement, so somehow that needs to change and/or enough public outcry or dissatisfaction needs to occur in order to make lawmakers be concerned about their own future and unwanted negative media coverage. Near-term, we can continue to bombard our legislator's with email and testimony.

Do the City and County employees who register firearms need to be policemen? If not, I don't see why a few civilian employees would not be up to the task by taking a one- or two-day firearms training course.

I don't think that the HPD would even consider a voluntary move to include multiple locations for registration as that would not only cause some logistical issues, but most important would demand an increase in, or reallocation of staffing, including sworn and non sworn personnel.  The HPD is already around 300 sworn short staffed and unk on civilian staffing.  With budgets as tight as they are right now for all City departments / agencies, the HPD is neck deep in the cuts.  So much so, that staffing for other non investigative, non patrol and even some plain clothed investigative units are not being filled.  Staffing shortages, mandatory working hour changes (often with little notice) to avert overtime, plus much of the normal or necessary overtime resulting from investigations being cut (crime doesn't just happen during normal scheduling hours) means a very tight ship being run.  Want to get promoted inside the HPD?  CUT your District / Divison / Unit budget dramatically.  Almost at all costs. 

What does this mean?  In essence this means that there is a huge reason that the HPD can cite to not increase staffing in the firearms section as it can be directly tied to public safety and budget in that it would require hiring of new personnel or re-directing of personnel from essential enforcement type positions to non essential positions.  I am not trying to be negative as I would love to see a better, more efficient and more convenient way to register a firearm, but this is what the opposition will be citing.  Heavily.  So indeed, I would think that it would need to be a mandated thing. 

As was mentioned by HiCarry, I too attended and spoke at the NRA Instructor hearing.  Very much the numbers in support count, but this proposal unlike the NRA Instructor proposal does not include the same type of inference of safety of liability.  This is where the HPD would hit the council also, when it comes to public safety and liability concerns.  Now if the City would allocate monies and positions then that is a good thing.  Just some things to consider from where the stance from opposition to such a bill will come from.     

Do the City and County employees who register firearms need to be policemen? If not, I don't see why a few civilian employees would not be up to the task by taking a one- or two-day firearms training course.

Police departments use desk positions for cops who are unable to do field duty for whatever reason.  Gives them the work they need to reach retirement.  Also, any cop involved in an internal investigation, a shooting, etc. can be placed on desk duty until returned to the field.

There are probably other examples of this, but the point is, the cops working in the firearms division may not have been hired just to do that.  Replacing them with civilian employees, or even private contractors, may not be an option if the PD feels they need those positions to be available for other reasons.

Also remember, there was an appropriation part of SB69 which didn't get any allocation.   We were hoping that some of the monies from that failed appropriation could have been used to help with costs of permit/registration, but that didn't happen.

This would make life so much easier.

Also remember, there was an appropriation part of SB69 which didn't get any allocation.   We were hoping that some of the monies from that failed appropriation could have been used to help with costs of permit/registration, but that didn't happen.

Tell me again why HRA supported SB69?

email sent to councilmember chang and his chief of staff

Tell me again why HRA supported SB69?

According to HRA, the bill has been morphed into a non issue bill that doesn't change anything except lengthening the time required for out of state imports to be registered, or something like that....

According to HRA, the bill has been morphed into a non issue bill that doesn't change anything except lengthening the time required for out of state imports to be registered, or something like that....

So two points:

1.) The first point is correct, the bill really didn't do anything different.  HPD already did NICS checks on people registering firearms from out of state. The only real difference is now you pay the $16.50 when coming in to register, and not just when doing a permit to acquire.

2.) Regarding registration - my comment is this: People are babies. There are two scenarios - 1.) They know you have guns, they come, you fight them. or 2.) they know you have guns, they come, you give them up.   This scenario doesn't really play different if they know, or don't know you have guns.  During Katrina, they went door to door.  If you aren't willing to defend yourself if they came door to door, you wouldn't be willing to defend yourself if they knew you had them to begin with, so what's it matter?

So two points:

1.) The first point is correct, the bill really didn't do anything different.  HPD already did NICS checks on people registering firearms from out of state. The only real difference is now you pay the $16.50 when coming in to register, and not just when doing a permit to acquire.

2.) Regarding registration - my comment is this: People are babies. There are two scenarios - 1.) They know you have guns, they come, you fight them. or 2.) they know you have guns, they come, you give them up.   This scenario doesn't really play different if they know, or don't know you have guns.  During Katrina, they went door to door.  If you aren't willing to defend yourself if they came door to door, you wouldn't be willing to defend yourself if they knew you had them to begin with, so what's it matter?

You had to get your prints and were charged the fee prior to the passage of SB 69. So, the only thing SB 69 did was extend the 72 hours to 5 days.....

You had to get your prints and were charged the fee prior to the passage of SB 69. So, the only thing SB 69 did was extend the 72 hours to 5 days.....

...yes folks apparently "had to" get the prints/fees up till effective date of SB69CD1.   ....but for those folks visiting from out of state (or perhaps those folks moving here from out of state w/ previously acquired firearms), the existing statute didn't require the finger printing/fee. De Facto, the police may have"required it", but it was not in the statute- and that was the "loophole" I believe the AG and others were referring to closing.  So did you have to "do it"?  Yes, or they would most likely deny your registration.  Was it legally required. No- I don't think so.  I'm not saying adding the fingerprinting/fee to these registrants is wrong or right.  I'm not asking "should fingerprinting be required".  It's great to extend from 3 to 5 days.  The closing of the loophole does make this consistent with the rest of the process, but while folks "had to do it to get their guns registered", the law didn't state they had to.  I think the Police just told folks they "had to".

When the registration dept/police take this liberty- to require when it wasn't in the statute- it indicates,IMO. how much latitude and discretion they have in the process.  Or at least how much discretion they may have taken. I relate this act of discretion in registration process to the same problems within the process to get CCW approved.  I don't think there are any written rules for some parts of the CCW permit approval process.  The Chief of each county gets to "decide" if folks are "of good mental standing" (or what ever the wording is) without any "rules or procedures" for how they get to decide this.  They will continue to approve or deny based on their "discretion".  Currently, they are allowed to do this.  Isn't there a potential conflict of interest between the legal CCW approval process and the will or opinion of the Chiefs?  If they are going to misuse their discretion for the 134-3 acquire (fingerprinting process), they certainly may misuse their own "rules" to deny the CCWs.... and the way that statuate is written up, they have a right to use their "discretion" to deny CCW without any written rules for what constitutes "good mental standing". 

I still wonder- if someone sued them for "requiring" fingerprinting when it was not in the statute- would this somehow be useful to those who are challenging the CCW approval/denial process?  Seems like saying "look, they forced folks to fingerprint to complete registration process when it wasn't in the statute. This demonstrates they are willing to require things that are not in the law.  We need to have some written procedure for how they determine what constitutes a "person of good mental standing" to avoid this same abuse of discretion in the CCW process."   

It just seems like it would somehow help.
 
Here's the text from SB69CD1, and it looks like there's a little more than only extending the three days to five days....The Underlined part is new.

THE SENATE S.B. NO. 69 C.D. 1  TWENTY-SEVENTH LEGISLATURE, 2013  STATE OF HAWAII
A BILL FOR AN ACT RELATING TO FIREARMS.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF HAWAII:
SECTION 1.  Under Hawaii's existing laws, a person arriving in the State with a firearm is required to register the firearm, but no permit process or background check is required.  Therefore, individuals who might have been prohibited from acquiring a firearm in Hawaii can acquire a firearm outside of this State, where a permit process or extensive background check may not be required, then possess and be considered registered firearm owners after registering with the county police department.
     The purpose of this Act is to require persons arriving in the State with firearms to undergo a background check before registering a firearm with the county police department.  In addition, this Act extends the time period for persons bringing a firearm into the State to register the firearm, for consistency with the time period for registering firearms obtained in or imported into the State.
     SECTION 2.  Section 134-3, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is amended as follows:
     1.  By amending subsection (a) to read:
     "(a)  Every person arriving in the State who brings or by any other manner causes to be brought into the State a firearm of any description, whether usable or unusable, serviceable or unserviceable, modern or antique, shall register the firearm within [three] five days after arrival of the person or of the firearm, whichever arrives later, with the chief of police of the county of the person's place of business or, if there is no place of business, the person's residence or, if there is neither a place of business nor residence, the person's place of sojourn.  A nonresident alien may bring firearms not otherwise prohibited by law into the State for a continuous period not to exceed ninety days; provided that the person meets the registration requirement of this section and the person possesses:
     (1)  A valid Hawaii hunting license procured under chapter 183D, part II, or a commercial or private shooting preserve permit issued pursuant to section 183D-34;

     (2)  A written document indicating the person has been invited to the State to shoot on private land; or

     (3)  Written notification from a firing range or target shooting business indicating that the person will actually engage in target shooting.

The nonresident alien shall be limited to a nontransferable registration of not more than ten firearms for the purpose of the above activities.
     Every person registering a firearm under this subsection shall be fingerprinted and photographed by the police department of the county of registration; provided that this requirement shall be waived where fingerprints and photographs are already on file with the police department.  The police department shall perform an inquiry on the person by using the National Instant Criminal Background Check System before any determination to register a firearm is made."
     2.  By amending subsection (e) to read:
     "(e)  No fee shall be charged for the registration[.] of a firearm under this section, except for a fee chargeable by and payable to the registering county for persons registering a firearm under subsection (a), in an amount equal to the fee actually charged by the Federal Bureau of Investigation to the registering police department for a fingerprint check in connection with the registration.  In the case of a joint registration, the fee provided for in this section may be charged to each person."
     SECTION 3.  Statutory material to be repealed is bracketed and stricken.  New statutory material is underscored.
     SECTION 4.  This Act shall take effect on July 1, 2013.

 
Report Title:
Firearm Registration
 
Description:
Requires county police departments under certain conditions to fingerprint, photograph, and perform background checks on individuals who wish to register a firearm that was procured out-of-state.  Authorizes the police departments to assess a fee for conducting a fingerprint check and specifies the amount of the fee.  Extends the time period for registering a firearm procured out-of-state for consistency with the time period for registering firearms obtained in or imported into the State.  (CD1)
 

     

When the registration dept/police take this liberty- to require when it wasn't in the statute- it indicates,IMO. how much latitude and discretion they have in the process.  Or at least how much discretion they may have taken. I relate this act of discretion in registration process to the same problems within the process to get CCW approved.  I don't think there are any written rules for some parts of the CCW permit approval process.  The Chief of each county gets to "decide" if folks are "of good mental standing" (or what ever the wording is) without any "rules or procedures" for how they get to decide this.  They will continue to approve or deny based on their "discretion".  Currently, they are allowed to do this.  Isn't there a potential conflict of interest between the legal CCW approval process and the will or opinion of the Chiefs?  If they are going to misuse their discretion for the 134-3 acquire (fingerprinting process), they certainly may misuse their own "rules" to deny the CCWs.... and the way that statuate is written up, they have a right to use their "discretion" to deny CCW without any written rules for what constitutes "good mental standing". 

I still wonder- if someone sued them for "requiring" fingerprinting when it was not in the statute- would this somehow be useful to those who are challenging the CCW approval/denial process?  Seems like saying "look, they forced folks to fingerprint to complete registration process when it wasn't in the statute. This demonstrates they are willing to require things that are not in the law.  We need to have some written procedure for how they determine what constitutes a "person of good mental standing" to avoid this same abuse of discretion in the CCW process."   

It just seems like it would somehow help.

I get where you're going and it makes good sense to me but I gotto believe making it an objective determination vice subjective will not be an easy battle. Would be great if it can be changed though.

From the NRA

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2013/5/hawaii-city-council-committee-to-consider-resolution-tomorrow-to-ease-compliance.aspx

   

 
Hawaii:  City Council Committee to Consider Resolution Tomorrow to Ease Compliance

 
Tomorrow, May 14 at 9:00 am, the Honolulu City Council Committee on Public Safety and Economic Development will be hearing Resolution 13-74 requesting the Honolulu Police Department (HPD) to open the Kapolei and Kaneohe Police Stations to firearm permitting and registration in an effort to make the process less time-consuming and more convenient.  Currently, registration and permitting is only offered at the main police station on Beretania Street where the process can take several hours.  While the NRA is firmly opposed to firearm registration, we encourage our members to support this effort to make compliance with current law more convenient.  This meeting will take place tomorrow morning in the Committee Meeting Room at 530 South King Street in Honolulu.
Using the following information, please contact members of the City Council Committee on Public Safety and Economic Development, and respectfully urge them to adopt this resolution:
Carol Fukunaga, Chairman
Phone: (808) 768-5006
 E-mail cafukunaga@honolulu.gov
 
Kymberly Marcos Pine, Vice Chairman
Phone: (808) 768-5001
E-mail  kmpine@honolulu.gov
 
Ikaika Anderson
Phone:  (808) 768-5003
E-mail ianderson@honolulu.gov
 
Stanley Chang
Phone:  (808) 768-5004
E-mail ccldistrict4@honolulu.gov
 
Breene Harimoto
Phone:  (808) 768-5008
E-mail bharimoto@honolulu.gov

 

ooh
kym pine is an R
and i've seen pics of her firing an AR
i've met her before- sending an email tonight

please, everyone, send emails!

From the NRA

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2013/5/hawaii-city-council-committee-to-consider-resolution-tomorrow-to-ease-compliance.aspx

I emailed the while council only ernie Martin replied.  He said he's not on the safety committee but if it passes out of committee tomorrow hewill ssupport the bill