Honorable Senators of the State of Hawaii,
I am writing to you today to voice my opinion on the subject bills.
First of all, a little about myself. I am mentally stable and have never been accused or convicted of felony crimes. I served 20 years and 6 months on active duty in the United States Navy, serving on 5 different fast attack submarines - 4 of them home ported in Pearl Harbor. I am a US citizen, born and raised in the State of Montana but am now a legal resident of the State of Hawaii. I registered to vote (and voted for several of the people this email is addressed to in the past election) and actively exercise that right. I am a lifetime member of the National Rifle Association and havedecided to join the Hawaii Rifle Association as well.
I am strongly supportive of Senate Bill 358. The 2nd Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America explicitly guarantees the right to keep and bear
arms. The unconstitutional confiscation of firearms from law-abiding citizens in the wake of Hurricane Katrina brought the issue to national recognition that our rights have eroded. The firearms were confiscated as a "protective security measure" and the seizure of weapons and firearms during that declared state of emergency did not provide security for law abiding citizens - it left them unarmed to defend themselves if necessary, reducing public security.
The 2nd amendment already takes the necessity for security into account. 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. If this is still the "Home of the Free" and we still believe in the Bill of Rights as guaranteed in the Constitution this bill should pass unanimously.
I will save my discussion on the fact that I cannot carry a firearm whether concealed or in the open although that is also a part of the right guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment (keep and bear arms) for another time as that is not up for House or Senate action at this time.
Now on to House Bill 412:
I strongly oppose this bill. The 2nd amendment (once again) wants the civilian population to be a well regulated militia to maintain the security of our free state. If we are to be an effective militia, we ought to have the ability to arm ourselves to the same extent any entity, foreign or domestic, may be armed when threatening our free state.
Yes, the .50BMG is a very powerful round with a very long range. A fatal shot with that .50 caliber round will not make a person any more dead than a fatal shot with the smallest commercially produced round - the .22 Short.
I realize there will be a lot of opposition to this bill but am hoping that the pros and cons are fairly represented and considered. I don't need a .50BMG for home security. I will not likely ever buy a .50BMG even if they were legal and I could walk around town with one strapped on my back. But just because there isn't a need for something doesn't mean it should be illegal. If that was the case, you wouldn't see any BMW, Mercedes Benz, Lexus or other luxury/exotic cars in Honolulu - we would all ride bicycles or drive economy cars becauseall we NEED is basic transportation.
The basis for the assault weapons ban under the Clinton administration relied heavily on the rhetoric thatif it isn't a sporting weapon it must only be for killing people. Many sporting weapons themselveds are actually designed to kill (animals)and many weapons designed for shooting competitions are useless as sporting weapons. There is also misrepresentation
about semi-automatic guns as being machine guns with a rate of fire of 600 rounds per minute. Even with a fully automatic M-16 machine gun as used in the Vietnam War you would be very challenged to shoot 600 rounds in a minute.