MachOne.45ACP
Regular Member
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
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