email to Senator Slom

imported post

Here is a copy of an email I sent Hawaii State Senator Samuel Slom concerning his bills currently SB 327 and SB 328:

To the Honorable Senator Samuel Slom,



I FULLY support the Bill of Rights and the Constitution of the United States of America. In my opinion, the 2[suP]nd[/suP] Amendment is the most important one because it provides protection for the rest. I’m a firm believer in the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.



My “Home of Record” was of the State of Montana up until 2002 but as active duty Navy was a resident of the State of Hawaii since 1986. I was surprised how restrictive the laws are here concerning firearms, specifically with respect to the carry laws.



I was extremely interested when I heard of two bills you authored; specifically SB327 and SB328. I searched the Hawaii.gov website and found .pdf files of the bills and printed them for easier reading.



Here are some comments by page/line number:



Page 1: 13-14 “shall issue” – This IS the change we are looking for. Really, all the bill needs to say is: “The Chief of Police SHALL ISSUE a license to carry a firearm concealed if the applicant meets the requirements to purchase/own a firearm. The Chief of Police SHALL ISSUE a license to openly carry a firearm if the applicant meets the requirements to purchase/own a firearm.” Any more verbiage than this provides loopholes the Chief of Police can exploit to circumvent any changes to Chapter 134 we can make.



Page 3: 5 This is a loophole for the Chief of Police to deny a permit based on any intangible knowledge or aptitude he deems necessary. Even if his aptitude requirement is that you to “be able to hit a bullseye from 6000 yards with iron sights” he can say he is meeting the intent of the law but would effectively still be able to deny everyone as unilaterally as he does now.



Page 5: 9-11 Another loophole. A face to face interview with the issuing officer will provide the Police Department another single point means of denying a permit based on a “suitability” judgment. The person making this judgment is not required to be licensed as a psychologist or psychiatrist.



Page 5: 12 and Page 9: 1-14 This makes the RIGHT to carry an exclusive right to people with money. Psychiatrists and Psychologists with at least 5 years practicing in their respective field do not come cheap. This is an exceptionally cumbersome requirement. Anyone who can legally purchase a firearm should already qualify and should not need an extra check by a psych doctor.



Page 10: 22 and Page 11: 1-5 This grants the Chief of Police a loophole the size of Ford Island! All he has to do is sit on an application for 45 days and it is automatically deemed denied. Do we think he would process ANY application prior to the 45 day period if this is still in the bill and it became law? The wording should be that after 45 days it is deemed approved.



Page 16: 1-7 Current wording: “Permits to acquire a pistol or revolver shall require a separate application and permit for each transaction.” I recommend changing to “Permits issued to acquire any pistol, revolver, rifle or shotgun shall entitle the permittee to make subsequent purchases for a period of one year from the date of the issue without a separate application and permit for each acquisition, subject to the disqualifications under section…”.



Here is a link to the bills for the 2009 session:



http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2009/bills/SB327_.PDF

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2009/bills/SB328_.PDF

imported post

So why is it that in other states (Pennsylvania for example), a person can walk into a gun shop, lay down the cash, get an instant background check performed, and walk out with his/her purchase (handgun, rifle, shotgun or any combination thereof) without first obtaining permission from the authorities? Doesn't seem to be a problem here in Pennsylvania. Oh, and handguns/rifles/shotguns are not registered with the authorities, either. Again, doesn't seem to be a problem here in Pennsylvania.

Perhaps it's because the Hawaii government doesn't trust Hawaiians?

imported post

Statkowski wrote:

Perhaps it's because the Hawaii government doesn't trust Hawaiians?

Click to expand...

Actually, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is word for word the same in the Hawaii State Constitution as it is in the Bill of Rights. The problem with Hawaii is that Chapter 134 (the state law concerning weapons) creates a situation where a right becomes a priviledge by giving someone the authority to deny or approve applications on an individual basis.

If the state insists (which it does) on having permits to carry a gun the verbiage needs to be changed from "may issue" to "shall issue" to persons who are not disqualified from owning a gun by any of several means, including felony convictions, psychiatric evaluations, etc.

So; the government is not the one with the trust problem - the Police Department is the one with the trust problem. The Chief of Police unilaterally denies applications submitted by anyone who is not a Hawaii Law Enforcement Officer.

imported post

Statkowski wrote:

So why is it that in other states (Pennsylvania for example), a person can walk into a gun shop, lay down the cash, get an instant background check performed, and walk out with his/her purchase (handgun, rifle, shotgun or any combination thereof) without first obtaining permission from the authorities? Doesn't seem to be a problem here in Pennsylvania. Oh, and handguns/rifles/shotguns are not registered with the authorities, either. Again, doesn't seem to be a problem here in Pennsylvania.

Perhaps it's because the Hawaii government doesn't trust Hawaiians?

Click to expand...

You pretty much nailed it bro. The local/state government feel that citizens shouldn't have to be armed for self-defense...."thats what the police dept is for"..as I have been told several times since I got stationed here.

imported post

MarlboroLts5150 wrote:

You pretty much nailed it bro. The local/state government feel that citizens shouldn't have to be armed for self-defense...."thats what the police dept is for"..as I have been told several times since I got stationed here.

Click to expand...

And the Ewa Beachmurder of Royal Kaukani by her ex-boyfriend is a recent example of how well the police department can handle that responsibility to protect people.

http://www.khnl.com/Global/story.asp?S=10026073&nav=menu55_2

Don't get me started on the Supreme Court rulings that the PD does not have any responsibility to protect individual people - only to protect the public...

imported post

"The local/state government feel that citizens shouldn't have to be armed for self-defense...."thats what the police dept is for"..." -- MarlboroLts5150

Well, maybe back in Steve McGarret's time with Five-0 (!) the police took more interest in being proactive, but I suspect even thenMcGarret would not have supported citizens carrying openly OR evenmoving to a "shall issue" CC permit policy. [Yes, I know it was just a TV show...just saying...] Sothat kind of "citizens don't need to carry guns"thinkingseems to be pretty entrenched there and I wonder if any HI state politicians could be found to sponsor bills for change and enough peoplecould be found tosupport pro-gun changes to make them happen.

And with the high population of Asians there, I wonder which side of the issue THEY (as a voting bloc) would be on, let alone how native Hawaiians feel about it (leaving things as they are or voting to change them).

This coming Spring I am planning a month's visitto Hawaii (eitherMakahaor Hawaii Kai areas) but will leave my guns here at home in my safe (as if I were going to Washington DC, MD, or Canada)...so I will be unarmed for that period of time (do not like that at all).

It's a real shame, however, thatone of the bignegatives re: moving to Hawaii to live is the oppressive anti-gun atmosphere there.

-- John D.

imported post

cloudcroft wrote:

I wonder if any HI state politicians could be found to sponsor bills for change and enough peoplecould be found tosupport pro-gun changes to make them happen.

And with the high population of Asians there, I wonder which side of the issue THEY (as a voting bloc) would be on, let alone how native Hawaiians feel about it (leaving things as they are or voting to change them).

It's a real shame, however, thatone of the bignegatives re: moving to Hawaii to live is the oppressive anti-gun atmosphere there.

-- John D.

Sen. Slom authored the bills to change the wording from "may issue" to "shall issue", but there were other parts of the bills that need to be changed to close and/or not create loopholes.

As far as the local communities, there are a LOT of gun enthusiests here. We just need to keep drumming up support for these bills.

imported post

Mach1...have you had any responses from your letters yet?

imported post

MachOne.45ACP wrote:

The problem with Hawaii is that Chapter 134 (the state law concerning weapons) creates a situation where a right becomes a priviledge by giving someone the authority to deny or approve applications on an individual basis.

Click to expand...

"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime."
Miller v. United States

imported post

MarlboroLts5150 wrote:

Mach1...have you had any responses from your letters yet?

Click to expand...

Nothing yet. Not really expecting one. I believe Senator Slom does not really want to change things - I think he is only doing this to try to win votes from the Pro-gunners by letting us think he is fighting for us to be able to freely exercise our rights yet also winning votes from the anti-gun camp by craftily wording the bills to have no effect even if they were signed into law.

Exposing that potential two-facedness was the real intent of my sending that letter out.

imported post

KBCraig wrote:

MachOne.45ACP wrote:

The problem with Hawaii is that Chapter 134 (the state law concerning weapons) creates a situation where a right becomes a priviledge by giving someone the authority to deny or approve applications on an individual basis.

Click to expand...

"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime."
Miller v. United States

Click to expand...

Yes, but sadly the interpretation of what that right is can cause exercising it to bea crime. Even in Heller vs. DC they only address the right to keep arms and the descision was that the individual has the right to keep arms. They have not addressed the right to bear arms (which is what open [or concealed] carry is all about). The end result? YES, until the matter goes to the Supreme Court and the state law is declared unconstitutional, it is illegal for me to carry a firearm in the State of Hawaii (whether in the open or concealed) unless specific conditions have been met.

One of the problems is that the majority of the organizations which fight for our rights water down the importance of the 2nd amendment.That the right to keep & bear arms is part of our heritage - hunting and outdoor sports andthat we have the right to keep arms for self defense, blah blah blah...

I can't state it any clearer than one of my all time heroes, Thomas Jefferson:

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and beararms is, as a lastresort to protect themselves against tyranny ingovernment."
The founding fathers who had just fought to free us from a tyrannical government (who strove to disarm us) knew damn well that our real enemy of our freedom would be our own government. The right to keep and bear arms was conveyed to the public as a final check & balance to keep the government under control.

The Brady Bunch and the current liberal administration is trying to get all weapons which are not "sporting weapons" banned.

England in the not too distant past banned all gun ownership. It started "innocently" enough by banning assault weapons, then large caliber weapons, then any guns not classified as "sporting weapons". Once those steps were taken, they took the next step and said to turn in all large caliber sporting weapons as well, leaving them basically with .22's. At that point, the government felt very safe saying "you may as well just give us all the rest of your guns".

A little more historical information on the same situation:



[align=center]Nazi Weapons Act of 1938 (Translated to English)[/align]

• Classified guns for "sporting purposes".
• All citizens who wished to purchase firearms had to register with the Nazi officials and have a background check.
• Presumed German citizens were hostile and thereby exempted Nazis from the gun control law.
• Gave Nazis unrestricted power to decide what kinds of firearms could, or could not be owned by private persons.
• The types of ammunition that were legal were subject to control by bureaucrats.
• Juveniles under 18 years could not buy firearms and ammunition.

Sound eerily familiar, no?

The Gun Control Act of 1968 as signed byLyndonB Johnsonwas based on.... yep - the NAZI Weapons Act of 1938.

The right to keep and bear arms is essential to protect all of the other contents of the Bill of Rights.

http://usa-the-republic.com/jurisprudentia/firearms_1.html

imported post

I need court case decisions to help in the fight here. I'm new to most of this, never been too political, so I'm on a STEEP learning here. I already have "Nordyke vs. King", "Heller", the AG memo in WI......I'd like more than just these, I don't want to bring "just enough" ammunition to the fight, I want to overwhelm to the point that they say "WE GIVE UP!!!" Any help at all is greatly appreciated. I'm posting this in the Hawaii Forum as well. Thks.

Click to expand...

Although I have been at this only in my spare time for the last few weeks, I have found a great amout of ammunition for the fight here, court case decisions(big ones), editorials, press statements...etc. Give me some time to get it all organized, then maybe we cat get together over a few cold ones and see if what I have has the capability to grab some major attention.

I may be new to all this legal stuff, but I'm a quick study when I can stay focused. I'll fill you in next week.

imported post

One thing we are DEFINATELY going to need is big support, maybe the District Rep. you were telling me about.

We need support on here as well. I wonder if the gunshops and ranges around the island would be willing to lend a hand. I bet Art at Magnum would be, I'll tell you about something I saw there next time I see you.

imported post

No response from the Senator yet. I will post here if one is received.

imported post

Hey Machone, is that a typo concerning FDR signing the Gun Control Act of 1968? He had been dead for nearly 25 years by '68, so he couldn't have signed it then.

imported post

Task Force 16 wrote:

Hey Machone, is that a typo concerning FDR signing the Gun Control Act of 1968? He had been dead for nearly 25 years by '68, so he couldn't have signed it then.

Click to expand...

Whoops, thanks for the notice there - corrected my original post. FDR was the President for the National Firearms Act of 1934...

imported post

KBCraig wrote:

MachOne.45ACP wrote:

The problem with Hawaii is that Chapter 134 (the state law concerning weapons) creates a situation where a right becomes a priviledge by giving someone the authority to deny or approve applications on an individual basis.

Click to expand...

"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime."
Miller v. United States

Click to expand...

I agree that a right is a right. But, until the state law or the implementation of it has been found to be unconstitutional, exercising that right is a crime.

imported post

MachOne.45ACP wrote:

MarlboroLts5150 wrote:

Mach1...have you had any responses from your letters yet?

Click to expand...

Nothing yet. Not really expecting one. I believe Senator Slom does not really want to change things - I think he is only doing this to try to win votes from the Pro-gunners by letting us think he is fighting for us to be able to freely exercise our rights yet also winning votes from the anti-gun camp by craftily wording the bills to have no effect even if they were signed into law.

Exposing that potential two-facedness was the real intent of my sending that letter out.

Click to expand...

I have known Senator Slom for many years and believe you me he really does want to change things. As one of only two conservatives in the state senate it is virtually impossible to get any gun measure passed.

Sam can not do it by himself either. He has been standing alone on this issue for many years. The only way to get things changed is to quit bitchin about what he can't do all by himself and get involved by helping him.

Apparently there is not enough support from the electorate to make the changes.

Sam Slom two faced? Not on your life! What have you done to change things besides deriding the one man in the whole of the Islands that is doing something?

If Sam is not dedicated to "Gun Rights" then why is he on Board of Directors for the SAF and attends the Gun Rights Policy Conference every year no matter what city its in?