Posted: 10/15/2008 9:00:09 PM EDT
Atty general's office is for it. Points are healthcare reform and education among others... one thing, law reform to protect crime victims, sounds like it could be good or bad... but with the political climate here... OHA is against it, which is an indicator that I will be voting for it. Seems to me that a concon would only be bad for you if you currently reap benefits you don't deserve. The whole "special interests takeover" threat seems far fetched since any amendments will be put to election anyway. The cost issue is retarded IMO. So we should never have one? Is it ever going to get cheaper? The constitution isnt worth spending the money on to revisit? What's the HRA stance on this? Seems like a good opportunity to get some 2nd amendment rights restored... or taken away. What say you ARFCOM hawaii? |
An individual or conglomerate opinion indicates motive behind their position. The AG will influence the results of a concon in no small way. Yes, you will vote on delagates, but I believe the language is fairly open about how the potentials are selected. If they had no agenda or no capability to push said agenda, why waste resources becoming such a vocal proponent? Thats like saying you don't care about Lingle's or on a larger scale Obama's opinion on political matters. Example: OHA doesn't want a con con because "hawaiians may lose their special protections". In other words, they know that they exist needlessly, wasting millions of dollars and countless resources to line the pockets of their executives under the guise of "protecting" a people, and are scared that given the opportunity, lawmakers and the general public will dissolve them. If they were confident in their own necessity, what danger would a convention be? The AG's stance revolves around law reform which is basically what a convention is for. That potentially affects everyone who lives here. Maybe for better... maybe for worse. Since this is a gun board, the most relevant concern is the opportunity to restore 2nd amendment rights we currently do not enjoy... or the fact that they may be restricted further. Anyway... its not about whether you care about opinions or not. What matters is yours, and the vote you cast. The focus of the post was to make opinions known on the convention. As of right now I'll probably be voting for it. Also, be aware that in this case leaving the box "unchecked" is the equivilant of voting "no". "Yes" votes must beat "nos" and unanswered ballots combined. |
Concur. That's my only problem with all this. Liberal and powerful enough to impose further restrictions that wouldn't have been otherwise possible? Or is there a possibility of actually recovering some gun rights? There has already been the promise of a review of our current laws as a result of Heller. Maybe I'm just doing some wishful thinking. |
I wish, but just don't see it happening. Heller will not affect our rights in Hawaii, because it does not cover any prohibitions already in effect. The real reason that the Con Con will be hurtful, is the state of apathy in the general citizenry that will hand all leverage over to the monied interests. People are disgusted with the morally bankrupt political process, and will not participate. Mo betta jus go beach. |
| Id vote yes if regaining firearms rights were being considered, but I havent read a thing to show that firearms rights were even being considered during a con-con if it were to take place. Im gonna vote no for con-con and wait until the next fight for standard pistol magazines and shall issue ccw. |
The Hawaii Constitution does contain the 2nd Amendment verbiage. That being said, with the ruling of Heller, the high cap mag ban should be overturned the next time it's taken up. What I don't see happening is changing the "may issue" to "shall issue" since Chief Justice Scallia specifically stated that the 2nd Amendment doesn't include conceal carry and FA and the individual states can still regulate that. The only way I see HI changing to a shall issue state is to vote the people out of office and get the good guys/gals in. Just spent half the day at the beach today. South side had some waves with the swell that just arrived.    |
Decentralizing public schools, setting terms for lawmakers and judges, imo, is a good thing. In theory, the 14th Amendment prevents the states from creating laws that conflict with the Constitution. I believe that the ruling of Heller keeps us pretty safe from losing any more rights in the near future. Not sure what happens if Obama takes office. 
|
If it could potentially set term limits for Akaka and Inouye that would be a good thing, those old goats need to go.
|
I didn't look at it in detail, but what part of the ruling pertains to hi-cap mags for handguns? |
I don't have the pdf anymore, but something about the "commonly used" clause. Since high cap mags are in common use across the nation, it goes against the ruling. There was a thread here linking to another forum and to one of the news sites talking about overturning the ban. |
Don't count on having any Hawaii gun laws overturned in the near future. It isn't that simple and, perhaps more importantly, the case did not address the issue of incorporation. The Heller decision clearly protects, to some extent, an individual's right to have firearms from federal laws. However, the second amendment has not been been held incorporated against states. The issue did not arise because DC is a federal enclave. |
We will find out soon if the 2nd Amendment will apply via the 14th once there's a ruling on Nordyke v. King. |
|
Unless you got the time, money and the wherewith all to go to court and gamble........the ASSAULT PISTOL LAW and MAGAZINE CAPACITY LAW is still there.
Those laws should have never seen the light of day IF the HRA, Ex-HPD Chief Nakamura and the politicians really cared about their oath to protect and defend the citizens and The Constitution of the United States (including the 2nd Amendment). And were serious about, "shall not be infringed." YES, the 2nd is incorporated into the Hawaii State Constitution. But, that didn't stop the "machine." "Who really cares?" When the politicians will say that a particular law is a, "reasonable restriction." And, some will still buy that argument. Plus, Hawaii will still vote for the same old "good ol' boys." Not to mention that they'll back OBAMA. Respect 2nd Amendment, but local gun bans ok
Q: You said recently, "I have no intention of taking away folks' guns." But you support the D.C. handgun ban, and you've said that it's constitutional. How do you reconcile those two positions? A: Because I think we have two conflicting traditions in this country. I think it's important for us to recognize that we've got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of law-abiding citizens use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families. We also have a violence on the streets that is the result of illegal handgun usage. And so I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets. And cracking down on the various loopholes that exist in terms of background checks for children, the mentally ill. We can have reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure that I think respect the Second Amendment and people's traditions. Aloha, Mark PS........before anyone goes there........I no longer live on Oahu because (among other reasons), I owned several of the dreaded (outlawed) 20 and 30 round AR-15 magazines that I refused to convert to a max. 10 rounds capacity. For those that may not know........... HRS 134-8 Ownership, etc., of automatic firearms, silencers, etc., prohibited; penalties.
(c) The manufacture, possession, sale, barter, trade, gift, transfer, or acquisition of detachable ammunition magazines with a capacity in excess of ten rounds which are designed for or capable of use with a pistol is prohibited. This subsection shall not apply to magazines originally designed to accept more than ten rounds of ammunition which have been modified to accept no more than ten rounds and which are not capable of being readily restored to a capacity of more than ten rounds. (d) Any person violating subsection (a) or (b) shall be guilty of a class C felony and shall be imprisoned for a term of five years without probation. Any person violating subsection (c) shall be guilty of a misdemeanor except when a detachable magazine prohibited under this section is possessed while inserted into a pistol in which case the person shall be guilty of a class C felony. I was lucky enough to flee the Democratik Pepoles Republik of Hawaii before the police caught me. Sorry, back to the subject of the ConCon.......all I got to say is: "How much more, waste, fraud and abuse, is needed?" And.... "It's called ConCon for a reason." |
|
Quoted:
The 20 and 30 round magazines for the AR-15 rifle and carbines are legal in Hawaii. Its gray, but generally accepted statewide until some asshole builds a pistol that circumvents the "assault pistol" clause. Can you imagine how fat a grip would be if it had an AR mag running through it? 
|
|
Quoted:
The 20 and 30 round magazines for the AR-15 rifle and carbines are legal in Hawaii. Not true, mauiblue. (Hey, that rhymes.) But, thank your local LEO, that he doesn't enforce such a STUPID law. Note my previous post on HRS 134-8(c) and take special note of the green wording. Now, have you ever heard of a Bushmaster Pistol? Well, it uses an AR-15 magazine. So, because the AR-15 magazine could be used in a pistol, the magazine has to be blocked to 10 rounds. Or, face a misdemeanor charge for possession. And, it doesn't matter that you don't happen to own a Bushmaster Pistol or that it's inserted into a rifle (or not) at the time you're observed to be in possession. That is what your local LEO is taught. IF, his trainers did their job correctly. BTW, the Bushmaster Pistol is outlawed by the ASSAULT PISTOL ban. Except for the "grandfathered" ones. Which brings up the next subject. "Assault pistol" means a semiautomatic pistol which accepts a detachable magazine and which has two or more of the following characteristics:
(1) An ammunition magazine which attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip; (2) A threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward hand grip, or silencer; (3) A shroud which is attached to or partially or completely encircles the barrel and which permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the second hand without being burned; (4) A manufactured weight of fifty ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; (5) A centerfire pistol with an overall length of twelve inches or more; or (6) It is a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; but does not include a firearm with a barrel sixteen or more inches in length, an antique pistol as defined in this section or a curio or relic as those terms are used in 18 United States Code §921(16) or 27 Code of Federal Regulations 178.11. HRS 134-4 Transfer, possession of firearms.
(e) After July 1, 1992, no person shall bring or cause to be brought into the State an assault pistol. No assault pistol may be sold or transferred on or after July 1, 1992, to anyone within the State other than to a dealer licensed under section 134-32 or the chief of police of any county except that any person who obtains title by bequest or intestate succession to an assault pistol registered within the State shall, within ninety days, render the weapon permanently inoperable, sell or transfer the weapon to a licensed dealer or the chief of police of any county, or remove the weapon from the State. [L 1988, c 275, pt of §2; am L 1992, c 286, §2] So, Hawaii is sort of like Washington DC. In that, it believes that "certain types" of firearms can and should be prohibited by law. i.e. Bushmaster, Desert Eagle, HK SP89, Micro Uzi, Mac 10, etc.... Is the Hawaii Legislature about to repeal the ASSAULT PISTOL ban, after the Heller case? Or, will another Supreme Court Case have to be decided? Ask your Hawaii Politician, what is he/she going to do about it? I wouldn't be surprised IF he/she gives you an OBAMA like response. Aloha, Mark |