There’s a new legal theory against the Jones Act on the block, and I’m hoping that it has some legs.
My colleagues and I at the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii have been advocating for years that federal lawmakers reform the maritime law known as the Jones Act, which you might recall requires that all goods shipped between U.S. ports be U.S. flagged and built, and be mostly owned and crewed by Americans.
These regulations have resulted in higher prices for consumers nationwide, but especially in places such as Hawaii and Alaska, because they limit competition and force Jones Act carriers to use capital and labor that are among the most expensive in the world.
Most of our work at Grassroot has been focused on research showing how the 1920 law harms our livelihoods and increases our cost of living, such as our landmark 2020 report, “Quantifying the cost of the Jones Act to Hawaii,” which estimated that the law costs Hawaii residents and businesses about $1.2 billion per year, or about $1,800 a year for the average Hawaii family of four.
There also have been attempts to repeal or reform the law through the courts, but for reasons usually unrelated to the merits of the challenges, none of them have been successful.
However, a new legal theory has come to the fore, proposed by Joshua Thompson of the Sacramento, California-based Pacific Legal Foundation that could make a difference.
Writing this past Monday in Honolulu Civil Beat, Thompson explained that the Jones Act might violate Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution, otherwise known as the Port Preference Clause.
Simply put, this clause forbids laws that would favor one state’s ports over another’s, and Thompson is arguing that the Jones Act favors mainland ports over Hawaii ports.
Thompson wrote that “maybe that protectionist purpose was constitutional in 1920 when the object of the discrimination was only American ‘territories.’ But once Alaska and Hawaii became states in 1959, it became harder to justify.”
Thompson concluded: “Given that the effects of the Jones Act are felt acutely by residents and businesses in those states, the constitutionality of this century-old legislation is seriously suspect.
“If the Port Preference Clause means anything, it means Congress cannot pass laws that have the purpose and effect of putting Alaskan and Hawaii ports at a disadvantage. People in Alaska and Hawaii deserve better than to be shackled by this relic of a bygone era, and the Constitution mandates it. Where there’s a willing plaintiff, there’s a way to do it.”
No matter how this new theory shakes out, I can promise that the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii will continue its efforts to update the Jones Act for the 21st century.
Hawaii’s future depends on it. _____________
Keli‘i Akina is president and CEO of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii.
As any doctor will tell you, one lifestyle change isn’t necessarily enough to improve your overall health.
So it is with cutting taxation and spending.
Gov. Josh Green — who is also a doctor, by the way — put Hawaii onto the path of a healthier fiscal lifestyle earlier this year when he proposed implementing the largest personal income tax cut in state history.
The plan was wisely approved by every single member of the Legislature, and now is expected to save Hawaiii taxpayers upward of $7 billion by 2031. This will ease our high cost of living and possibly stem the tide of residents who have been leaving every year because they no longer can afford to live here.
But we have to do more. If we really want to improve our state’s financial health and ensure that our islands will become a place where we can all thrive and prosper, we need to better control state spending.
If the state continues to spend more and more each year — outpacing, even, the growth of Hawaii’s private sector — the positive impacts of the tax cut will get whittled away.
Remember, the state budget has grown by nearly $1 billion for each of the last three years, which suggests there is definitely room to rein in government spending without reducing essential services.
I understand there are many demands on the state treasury, including continuing to help Lahaina recover from the wildfires of August 2023.
In addition, revenues of the state are always uncertain. As we all know, just one natural disaster or other terrible event can throw everything into a tailspin.
Fortunately, there are many ways we could tackle the state’s budgetary excess without looking at extreme cuts. There are, for example, many vacant state government jobs that are unlikely to ever be filled that could be eliminated.
We also could consider a reasonable across-the-board budget cut and reductions to grant-in-aid funding, as some lawmakers suggested in the wake of the Lahaina wildfires.
Or our lawmakers could cut funding to the controversial Hawaii Tourism Authority, as I’ve suggested before, which would save taxpayers more than $60 million a year.
The bottom line is the 2024 personal income tax cut is just one step toward a healthier fiscal lifestyle for Hawaii.
Now, rather than compromise that admirable display of self-control, our lawmakers should also exercise spending restraint to further improve the economic health of our state.
I’d say it’s just what the doctor ordered. _____________
Keli‘i Akina is president and CEO of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii.
HONOLULU (September 18, 2024)— Broadway in Hawaii is thrilled to announce that a brand-new season is coming to Blaisdell Concert Hall. The season includes the Hawaii debut of SIX and TINA – The Tina Turner Musical, as well as a much-anticipated return of CHICAGO. Season tickets for the three shows start at $200 and are on sale now at www.broadwayinhawaii.com.
“Throughout the years of producing Broadway shows in Honolulu, it’s clear that Honolulu deserves to be a regular stop for touring Broadway in North America. The success of Hamilton, and the rest of our 2022-2023 season, put the spotlight on Hawaii once again,” said MagicSpace COO Steve Boulay, “We are thrilled that the Blaisdell is reopening after a year of renovations and, together with the support of Mayor Blangiardi and the Blaisdell team, we can come together to make this incredible season possible.”
“Bringing Broadway back to the Blaisdell is a remarkable opportunity for our community,” said Honolulu Mayor Rick Blangiardi. “We are truly grateful to be able to welcome this new season with improvements that will benefit Honolulu audiences. We encourage people to take advantage of this wonderful experience and enjoy these extraordinary shows that are sure to thrill and entertain everyone who sees these great performances.”
The 2025 Broadway in Hawaii season includes three shows.
APRIL 22-27, 2025
TINA – The Tina Turner Musical is the triumphant story of the Queen of Rock and Roll set to the pulse-pounding soundtrack of her most beloved hits! TINA–The Tina Turner Musical presents Tina’s journey against all odds to become one of the world’s most beloved artists of all time.
Featuring her much loved songs, TINA – The Tina Turner Musical is written by Pulitzer Prize-winning playwright Katori Hall.
JUNE 17-29, 2025
SIX – From Tudor Queens to Pop Icons, the SIX wives of Henry VIII take the microphone to remix five hundred years of historical heartbreak into a Euphoric Celebration of 21st century girl power! This new original musical is the global sensation that everyone is losing their head over! SIX won 23 awards in the 2021/2022 Broadway season, including the Tony Award® for Best Original Score (Music and Lyrics) and the Outer Critics Circle Award for Best Musical.
DECEMBER 2-7, 2025
CHICAGO – Is still the one musical with everything that makes Broadway shimmy-shake: a universal tale of fame, fortune, and all that jazz, with one showstopping song after another and the most astonishing dancing you’ve ever seen. In the whirlwind of Chicago’s Jazz Age, two of the Cook County Jail’s most notorious murderesses—vaudeville star Velma Kelly and chorus girl Roxie Hart—become fierce rivals as they compete for headlines amidst a media frenzy. Broadway’s longest-running musical has been razzle dazzling audiences for 27 years, and after more than 10,000 performances, 6 Tony Awards®, 2 Olivier Awards, and a Grammy®, we’re just getting started.
All performances take place at Blaisdell Concert Hall. Season ticket packages, including TINA, SIX, and CHICAGO, are on sale now from$200at www.BroadwayInHawaii.com. Customer service provided by American Theater Guild.
As we watched the current Presidential election campaign this year, a decision popped out of the U.S. Supreme Court that made some of our eyes glaze over. It was about Presidential immunity, and the decision said that the President of our country has the right to do certain things without worrying about civil liability or criminal prosecution for those things later.
It’s become an issue in the Presidential campaign because the Republican nominee, ex-President Trump, was indicted for federal and state crimes, and was convicted by a jury of state law felonies in New York. One of his cases, originating in the District of Columbia where the January 6 riots took place, was appealed to the Supreme Court where Mr. Trump argued that he couldn’t be held to account in criminal court.
The decision didn’t give Mr. Trump everything he wanted, but his team did score quite a few important points. The Court reasoned that many of the responsibilities that a President has come directly from the Constitution. In other words, the Constitution says, “Mr. President, you have the right or duty to do x.” The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, so its statement to the President also means, “…and so any lower ranking sources of law, like the laws Congress passes or any provision in the constitution or laws of any State, can’t interfere with your doing x.” From this reasoning the Court explained that the “official acts” of a President need to be immune from civil liability or criminal prosecution. The Court also explained that the official acts of a President cannot be used as evidence supporting civil liability or criminal prosecution, because that also would result in criminal or civil liability for an official act.
Here in Hawaii, you might not know this, but employees at our State, and the Department of Taxation in particular, have a lot of immunity too. Hawaii Revised Statutes section 662-2 says that the State is liable for the torts of its employees in the same manner as any other employer (except for prejudgment interest or punitive damages). But there are exceptions in section 662-15, including for any claim “arising out of assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, libel, slander, misrepresentation, deceit, or interference with contract rights,” or “arising in respect of the assessment or collection of any tax.” Thus, in a case called Doe Parents No. 1 v. State Department of Education, 100 Haw. 34 (2002), the court held that a teacher who molested kids in his classroom could not be held to answer in civil court for the harm that his conduct caused, but that the Department of Education could be held liable for negligence or negligent infliction of emotional distress because of its hiring, or refusing to fire, the employee once it became known that the employee had a proclivity to molest kids. Now if the employee in question were a tax collector who punched someone in the nose in trying to collect overdue state taxes, then neither the employee nor the Department of Taxation would be answerable in court.
Unlike the immunity of a sitting President of the United States, the immunity of state employees, in the Department of Taxation or otherwise, is prescribed by state law. If enough of us think that the law needs to change, then our lawmakers do have the power to change it.
In this past year’s legislative session, there was a a lot of squabbling about a bill proposed by the Department of Taxation. That bill would have penalized a taxpayer under audit who was requested to give documents to the auditor if the taxpayer couldn’t or didn’t produce those documents within a certain number of days after the auditor’s request. The penalty proposed in that bill was a ban on the taxpayer using those documents in a tax appeal if they were found after the auditor’s deadline. We expect that the bill will be reintroduced in the 2025 legislative session.
But what kind of documents are auditors after, anyway?
An auditor can ask for accounting records, for example. The auditor could ask for a “trial balance,” which is what any business with an accounting system should be able to produce. But not every business has an accounting system; instead, some of them have a checkbook. If such a business gets asked to produce a trial balance and tells the auditor, truthfully, that they don’t have one, what happens then? In theory, the auditor can reconstruct parts of a business’ trial balance from analyzing the checkbooks and bank records. That way the auditor can figure out how much money came in and went out, if all the business’ money went through the bank account. (If the taxpayer used their left pocket rather than a bank account, that presents another set of problems for which there are different audit techniques to verify.) It seems fair enough for an auditor to ask a taxpayer for a trial balance, if one exists, or for checkbooks and bank records, if there is no trial balance. But if the taxpayer is unwilling or unable to produce those records, for example if the audit is of activity 10 years ago and both the taxpayer and the bank have purged their records, can the auditor just make a number up (“Well, businesses of your size typically made $1 million in sales per year”) and force the taxpayer to disprove it? If the bill passed, would the taxpayer be unable to reconstruct its own records to disprove the auditor’s number?
Another common request from auditors here in Hawaii is that the taxpayer produce a schedule reconciling income reported for General Excise Tax purposes to income reported on the taxpayer’s income tax return. One problem with the request is that the vast majority of taxpayers have never made such a schedule and thus don’t have one that is lying around somewhere. Actually, this kind of reconciliation is a work paper that the auditor is supposed to prepare and is trained to prepare. Taxpayers who have never seen such a work paper before are at a disadvantage unless they are lucky enough to have an attorney or accountant who is familiar with this type of schedule. So, let’s say the auditor asks for one and the taxpayer, having no idea how to prepare one, miserably fails. What then? Is the taxpayer’s schedule then used as the basis for a tax assessment? (This has happened before.) If the taxpayer isn’t able to comply with the auditor’s request to produce the schedule, can the auditor then make a number up and force the taxpayer to try disproving the number? And if the bill passes, is the taxpayer then prohibited from using general excise tax records AND income tax records to disprove the auditor’s number?
As mentioned earlier, I expect the Department’s bill to resurface in the 2025 legislative session. It’s obvious, perhaps only to me at this point, that such a bill needs to be thought through a LOT more before it can be allowed to become law. At the very least, any penalty for non-production of requested records should depend on: (1) whether the records currently exist, (2) the burden on the taxpayer required to produce or create the items requested, and (3) whether the penalty for non-production is reasonable given the records the taxpayer does have.
When my good friend the late Dick Rowland founded the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii 23 years ago, he purposely chose the singular form of “grassroot” for the organization’s name, instead of the more common plural use, because he believed in the power and importance of the individual.
A good example of that is how listening to and investigating the struggles of just one person led to the Grassroot Institute recently producing a policy brief that could benefit the lives of many.
It originated with a complaint from Syd Smith, owner of Maliko Estate Coffee in Upcountry Maui and a member of the County Council’s Agriculture Working Group.
Talking with my Grassroot colleague Joe Kent in March on the former “Hawaii Together” program on ThinkTech Hawaii, Smith lamented Maui County’s extremely long wait times and high fees to obtain water meters and add fixtures needed to renovate older homes or build ohana units.
Water fixtures are appliances that use water, such as kitchen sinks, dishwashers, toilets, showers and outdoor faucets called hose bibs. They are assigned scores, measured in water-fixture units, that are supposedly based on how much water each is estimated to use. Maui County sets the maximum number of water-fixture units allowed per water meter, which it charges to install.
Unfortunately, Maui County’s fees for water meters and water-fixture units are among the highest in the state, and the county’s water-fixture-unit scores have not been updated since 1995.
For example, the Uniform Plumbing Code of the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials rates hose bibs at 2.5 fixture units, with each additional bib at 1 fixture unit. Maui County, on the other hand, rates all hose bibs at 3 fixture units. Additionally, the Uniform Plumbing Code assigns dishwashers a lower score than toilets, whereas Maui County does the opposite.
Maui’s higher water-fixture unit scores for various fixtures quickly add up, which can force property owners to purchase larger water meters to accommodate more fixtures.
To that point, Smith told Joe that where she lives, needing a new water meter necessitates joining the “dreaded Upcountry water meter list” — a process so drawn-out that, as she remarked, “Everybody knows you’re probably going to die before you ever get to the top.”
To help ease Maui County’s housing crisis, the Grassroot report recommends updating or eliminating the county’s water-fixture-unit requirements and transferring ownership and management of water meters from the county to Maui homeowners.
Homeowners could work with licensed plumbers to determine a water meter’s capabilities, and would be motivated to ensure their water-fixture usage didn’t go over that limit.
In the grand scheme of Hawaii’s pervasive housing crisis, Maui County’s water-fixture rules might seem like a small, obscure issue. But making the right fixes to this unique barrier could make a big difference toward increasing the county’s much-needed housing supply. _____________
Keli‘i Akina is president and CEO of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii.
Grassroot Institute of Hawaii researchers find that the county’s policies regarding water fixtures are outdated and need reform
HONOLULU, Sept. 4, 2024 >> A new report from the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii shows how small changes to plumbing regulations could have a big impact on Maui County’s housing crisis, especially as thousands of Maui residents remain displaced by the devastating August 2023 wildfires.
Keli‘i Akina, Grassroot president and CEO, wrote in the report that Grassroot has previously identified zoning, permitting, taxation and fees among the barriers to homebuilding, “but one of the most interesting — and somewhat obscure — issues our researchers have encountered is how water-fixture regulations are stifling housing growth in Maui County.”
As the report explains, water fixtures are household features and appliances that use water, such as kitchen sinks, toilets, showers and washing machines. The county assigns each fixture a score based on how much water it is estimated to use, measured in water-fixture units, and sets the maximum number allowed per water meter, which the county charges to install.
“If calculated properly, the water-fixture units assigned should align closely with the physical capacities of the water meters,” the report explains. “However, this doesn’t seem to be the case with Maui County,” where the scores have not been updated since 1995.
For instance, the Uniform Plumbing Code of the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials rates an outdoor water faucet, officially known as a “hose bib,” at 2.5 fixture units, with each additional bib at 1 fixture unit. Maui County, on the other hand, rates all hose bibs at 3 fixture units. Additionally, the Uniform Plumbing Code assigns dishwashers a lower score than toilets, whereas Maui County does the opposite.
“Policymakers should prioritize updating or eliminating the county’s water-fixture-unit requirements and related fees, which are the highest in the state,” the report says. “County policymakers also should consider transferring ownership and management of water meters to homeowners, which would encourage homeowners to use their water appliances more efficiently.”
According to the report, some residents in Upcountry have been waiting to buy water meters for more than 20 years.
“Maui had a housing problem prior to the August 2023 wildfires, which destroyed about 3,000 homes,” the report concludes. “Now that it needs even more new housing, the county’s existing fixture-unit rules stand as a greater roadblock.”
For more information or to arrange an interview with Akina, Helton or Lief, please contact Mark Coleman at 808-386-9047 or info@grassrootinstitute.org.
Front Street, Lahaina, circa 1910. Photo by R.J. Baker
By Keli‘i Akina
I can still picture Front Street, Lahaina. I miss the charm of its historic buildings as well as its sense of community.
I know that I’m not alone in wanting to see a rebuilt Lahaina that evokes the same spirit of the one that was so tragically destroyed.
State and county policymakers have been grappling for the past year over what to do about the rebuilding of Lahaina. But for me and many others, the answer is simple: Let the people who have lost their properties and are bravely committed to rebuilding do just that — and enable them to do it quickly.
Remove the many regulatory barriers and delays that make building in Hawaii, and especially in Maui County, a long, expensive process. Once the area is clear and safe, let the people of Lahaina rebuild what was there before without having to wait months for costly approvals and permissions.
According to Front Street Recovery, a group formed recently by landowners of commercial properties on Front Street, 834 businesses were destroyed by the August 2023 fires. And that doesn’t mean just physical structures, but commercial vehicles, furniture, food, inventory and more.
The destruction of so many businesses also means about 7,000 jobs disappeared. Many people lost their homes, vehicles, properties and jobs all in one terrible day.
Facing such loss and a great deal of economic uncertainty as well, more than 4,000 Lahaina residents have moved away from Maui — another loss that the Maui community has to cope with.
I worry that If we get too entangled in strategic plans and arguments over what should be done, Front Street might never be rebuilt — or that whatever does get rebuilt will be a shadow of what it once was. Too much time will have passed; too many people will have given up and moved away.
The good news is that the clean-up from the fires is nearly done, so property owners in the area can finally focus on moving ahead with their rebuilding plans.
Unfortunately, complying with current county regulations and paying all the required fees will add time and cost to their efforts — possibly too much time and cost.
That’s why it is important for lawmakers to expedite the process for these businesses and landowners to rebuild as soon as possible, whether through emergency proclamations or by streamlining state and county laws.
Specific actions could include waiving certain building and special management area permits and fees, and allowing buildings that didn’t conform to the current zoning codes at the time they were destroyed to be rebuilt as they were.
I’m happy to say that Maui County Council members seem to be looking favorably toward ideas such as these.
Now they should pick up the pace in adopting them, lest the Front Street we all loved remains but a fond memory. _____________
Keli‘i Akina is president and CEO of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii.
Editor’s Note: This piece originally ran three years ago. I was very happy with this product when I first reviewed it. Then, fairly recently (as explained in the Appendix below) the ear pad of this fancy (and quite expensive) product busted. I was ready to trash it until I realized the ear pads could be replaced. Easily fixed. No help from 3M, the manufacturer which didn’t respond to my inquiries. You can read about the “fix-it saga” below.
**********************
Folks of a certain demographic may recall a TV ad where some old guy proclaims “when you’ve got your health you have everything”.
As kids we rolled our eyes on that one. What advice could some old fart give us anyway?
What a difference a few decades make.
As a Boomer I’m well aware of my aging body. One of the first things I note (no jokes please) to go is my hearing. Obviously visiting the range on a regular basis does not enhance things in that department.
Science is tells us that hearing matters—a lot.
A long term study conducted by Johns Hopkins explored the relationship between hearing loss and dementia. The upshot: participants who reported hearing loss at the beginning of the study were much more likely to develop dementia. They determined the more severe the hearing loss, the greater the likelihood of developing dementia.
The precise reasoning behind hearing declination and the onset of dementia is unclear but for my purposes, it’s a moot point.
Protecting your hearing is not just a matter of not wanting to devolve into Mr. Magoo. Lousy hearing can lead to cognitive loss and this is not where we want to go.
The heart of this headset is the superb microphone system (covered by foam) which can be tweaked for volume and frequency. Note the hourglass shaped toggle control at the bottom.
Enter the ComTac V
That brings us to the subject of the article, thePeltor Comtac V Hearing Defender, a product of 3M. This is top of the line, military grade hearing protection.
How so?
It’s all about design.
The cups are slender. That’s what you want, especially if you’re shooting rifles. A big bulbous earmuff is going to get in the way when you bring the stock up to your cheek. It will in effect pop the cup off your ear and you’ll end up hearing a lot more than you want. (Think dementia protection!)
The battery life which is rated at about 150 hours on a set of two AAA lithium batteries. Of course, that’s under ideal conditions. In the real world it will be less depending on the weather conditions, usage, etc. The battery compartments on either cup are water and dust proof but easily accessible. You just snap off a flange and pop out the AAA battery.
At the bottom of the right cup are the controls.They are easy to operate, just push the forward button to turn the headset on and off. Backward turns the volume up and forward lowers volume until it reaches a silent mode (before you click it off).
The ComTac V is powered by AAA lithium batteries. They are both water and dust proof.(Rob Kay photo)
There’s also a balance setting that will adjust volume for each ear which is pretty cool if one ear is a bit more audio challenged.
To get into the menu you’ll need to press both forward and rear buttons down. The rear button will take you through the various menu options. Each step through menu land is accompanied by a ghost message (a female ghost) to let you know where you are. One of the modes is equalizer which has four settings that adjust for frequency ranges for the microphones, changing slightly what ambient sounds the headset will pick up. (I left mine on normal).
“Ear Plug Mode,” will boost volume for situations where enhanced hearing protection is required. Essentially it increases the volumes of ambient sound and the external input by about 6dB. It should only be used only with a properly fitted ear-plug under the headset. Thus your ears are well protected, but you can still hear as normal.
The “active volume troubleshooting” mode ensures that the volume control is in order and your batteries haven’t lost power.
The biggest plus with this nearly $500 headset is are the mics, which of course pick up the ambient sounds. They are really top notch and that’s what you’re paying the big bucks for.
I put the headset on a friend who does professional voiceover work at radio stations and she practically squealed with joy over the mic audio quality which she said was equivalent to the gear in her studio.
You can practically pump up the audio pickup to the point where you can hear what your next door neighbors are talking about at the breakfast table.
What’s nice is that you don’t have to turn the volume too high to hear what’s going on around you. You don’t necessarily want to hear the guys on the firing line complaining about someone’s flatulence or what they forgot to bring. However, you definitely do want to hear what the rangemaster is saying and you’ll get that even at the lowest level.
There’s even a silent mode if you want to shut out the world. Keep in mind, on silent the headset is turned on so if you want to keep it silent without running down the batteries, just turn the headset off.
The bottom line is that this headset is optimal for the range (or hunting) so that you can fine tune your audio environment both in volume and frequency.
The noise cancellation technology worked wonderfully. Fredrik Johansson, Global Product Marketing Manager, Hunting & Shooting, 3M Personal Safety Division explained that when the headset detects sound above 82 db, it will decompress the sound to below 82db.
The ComTac V headset (right) is compact compared to some of the other brands. It stays out of the way of your rifle stock.
How much below 82 db is dependent on how high the volume is set on the headset. Johansson explained that the system does not switch off, which used to be the case. He reasoned that in models where it does switch off, you are more likely to miss instructions if you are on the range.
Johansson says the 3M technology said the ComTac system handles sound decompression and amplification of to provide a comfortable experience.
Finally, the thing I really appreciate about this model is that it comes standard with Gel-filled Ear Seals (also manufactured by 3M).
The Gel-filled seals have become popular over the last couple of years and are standard for higher-end earmuffs. In my opinion, they are a vast improvement over the traditional foam seals. They differ from the foam pads because they are wrapped in a super-thin polyurethane outer skin. This gives them a soft, quasi-squishy feel that conforms to the shape of your head.
They are super comfortable but just as importantly, provide a much better level of passive hearing protection because they envelope the ears in a way that foam just can’t do. Essentially, they are more effective at closing up the gap around eye-pro temple stems.
If you get sweaty, they are less prone to produce “hot spots” where they contact the head or ears.
The ComTac V comes standard with Gel-filled ear seals which are both comfortable and effective at passive hearing protection. You can order seals separately if you with to upgrade an existing headset. (Rob Kay photo)
If you have an older pair of Peltor or another brand you can upgrade them with the ear seals quite easily. Once you do so, you’ll never go back to foam.
Conclusion
I fired a range of weapons with this headset, including an AR with a 7.62 x39 upper, a S&W 357 magnum and a Winchester Model 92 chambered in 357. This was at the Kokohead Range, an open space. I did not test this indoors.
The hearing protection response time and the headset’s ergonomics were excellent. At no time did I ever have a problem hearing the rangemaster, or anyone else for that matter.
The ComTac V is the gold standard. It’s a proven, durable product that has seen service by police and military personnel throughout the world. My only suggestion is add recharging capabilities, particularly since the preferred battery is Lithium.
My test unit was in coyote brown but they also come in black and foliage green.
This product shines with the quality of it’s sound. You can tweak the mic to your precise needs and of course it will protect your ears when the guy in the slot next to you insists up shooting his S&W 500.
Who knows, it may even prevent premature Alzheimer’s.
2024 Addendum — Busted, but there’s hope…
OMG, nothing like a busted gel pad to ruin your day. Yuck. But couild it be fixed? Fortunately the answer was yes…(Rob Kay photo)
Following Covid, my range visits diminished. Our range had closed for a while and to be frank, I was busy updating a book and writing newspaper columns. I used the ComTac V perhaps three or four times during the post-Covid period. One day a month or so ago I decided it was time to start regularly hitting the range again.
I unzipped my range bag to load up and noted, with horror, that the ear pad of my fancy ComTac V had split and gel was spilling out. It seemed to have spontaneously fallen apart just sitting in my bag.
Could it be fixed?
Super easy to replace. Just pop out the “compromised” gel pad with your utility knife (Rob Kay photo)
I called 3M to inquire. I emailed 3M. No reponse. I was ready to toss this once, quite expensive product. (They now run $499.99 on Amazon!). I’m glad I didn’t.
Then came a minor epiphany. I realized there are other folks who manufacture gel ear pads that would fit this product.
In fact, I had done a story on a company called Ready UpGear which manufacturers hearing protection (see Ready Up Roger 22) and their line of products called the SoftSeal Gel Ear Pad which is also available on Amazon.
Once removed snap on the new gel pads from Ready Up and you’re set.They fit perfectly.(Rob Kay photo)
But I digress. Not only does Ready Up makes gel ear pads abut they manufacture a product that fits this Peltor model (at $34.99). That was all I need to know. I acquired a set (thank you Ready Up) and quite easily swapped out the busted pads with a brand new set. It took all of 5 minutes to fix this. I popped out the old pads with my trusty utility knife and snapped in the new ones. Could not have been easier.
Robert F. Kay is a columnist for the Honolulu Star Advertiser, a health nut, the author of two Lonely Planet guidebooks and Fijiguide.com.He appreciates a good pair of earmuffs on the range.
One of the worst kept secrets in Hawaii law is that there is a statute allowing for payments under protest. The good news is that it provides a basis for the courts to get involved if there is some question as to the legitimacy of any fee or tax imposed by any state agency (not just the Department of Taxation). The law was enacted in 1907, more than a century ago, and it has a few quirks surrounding it that can spell big problems for people who don’t know about it and what it does.
High on the tough luck list is Captain Andy’s Sailing. The good captain helmed a catamaran that was based in Port Allen on Kauai and gave commercial tours and fishing trips. One not-so-fine day, he learned that the Department of Land and Natural Resources was going to charge him 2% of his gross receipts for an Ocean Recreation Management Area permit to sail in the area. That didn’t land very well because he was already paying 1.85% of his gross receipts to the State Department of Transportation as a commercial use fee. So, he decided to sue in federal court to have the DLNR permit and fee declared unconstitutional as an impermissible tonnage duty, and won in federal court. Captain Andy’s Sailing, Inc. v. Johns, 195 F. Supp. 2d 1157 (D. Haw. 2001).
However, the good captain couldn’t sue the State or any of its agencies in federal court because of the Eleventh Amendment. So, he sued in state court to get back the money he had been paying to DLNR while the litigation was ongoing – a little more than $40,000. And that is where he ran into problems. Why? Because lawsuits against the State for allegedly illegal taxes, fees, or charges must use the payment under protest mechanism if there is no law providing for an appeal. The way that mechanism works is that a person who has a disagreement with the State over the applicability or legality of a fee needs to pay that fee to the State with something in writing detailing the reasons why the fee is illegal. Then, within 30 days after paying the fee, the payor needs to sue in court. If the disputed payment is a tax, the payor sues in Tax Appeal Court. Otherwise, the payor sues in regular state court (Circuit Court for the $40,000 amount at issue there). When that happens, the payee agency is supposed to set that money aside while the court figures out if the exaction is legal. The problem that the good Captain ran into is that his payments to DLNR were not accompanied by any kind of written protest. Which meant that the state court couldn’t decide the issue of legality and DLNR got to keep the $40,000. Captain Andy’s Sailing, Inc. v. Department of Land and Natural Resources, 113 Haw. 184, 150 P.3d 833 (2006). Too bad, so sad!
It turns out that the payment under protest mechanism is one of three independent ways to get into court when you have a tax dispute. It can be used, for example, if the Department of Taxation has sent out a final assessment of tax and the 30 days within which to appeal the assessment to court has come and gone. The good news is that the taxpayer can get into court even after missing the deadline. The bad news is that the taxpayer has to pay the tax in dispute.
And, last but not least, it is possible to blow the appeal by paying too early. There is a case, Grace Business Development Corp. v. Kamikawa, 92 Haw. 608, 994 P.2d 540 (2000), which says that it’s too early, and the suit needs to be dismissed, unless the agency has made some kind of formal determination, such as a notice of assessment or a ruling, indicating that it has made up its mind about what to do about the taxpayer before it.
The moral of the story here is that there is a way to challenge payments made to state agencies that are thought to be illegal. But the law allowing that challenge has tricks and traps in it, so people attempting to use it should do so carefully.
Is Jones Act unconstitutional as it applies to Hawaii, Alaska?
By Keli’i Akina
There’s a new legal theory against the Jones Act on the block, and I’m hoping that it has some legs.
My colleagues and I at the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii have been advocating for years that federal lawmakers reform the maritime law known as the Jones Act, which you might recall requires that all goods shipped between U.S. ports be U.S. flagged and built, and be mostly owned and crewed by Americans.
These regulations have resulted in higher prices for consumers nationwide, but especially in places such as Hawaii and Alaska, because they limit competition and force Jones Act carriers to use capital and labor that are among the most expensive in the world.
Most of our work at Grassroot has been focused on research showing how the 1920 law harms our livelihoods and increases our cost of living, such as our landmark 2020 report, “Quantifying the cost of the Jones Act to Hawaii,” which estimated that the law costs Hawaii residents and businesses about $1.2 billion per year, or about $1,800 a year for the average Hawaii family of four.
There also have been attempts to repeal or reform the law through the courts, but for reasons usually unrelated to the merits of the challenges, none of them have been successful.
However, a new legal theory has come to the fore, proposed by Joshua Thompson of the Sacramento, California-based Pacific Legal Foundation that could make a difference.
Writing this past Monday in Honolulu Civil Beat, Thompson explained that the Jones Act might violate Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution, otherwise known as the Port Preference Clause.
Simply put, this clause forbids laws that would favor one state’s ports over another’s, and Thompson is arguing that the Jones Act favors mainland ports over Hawaii ports.
Thompson wrote that “maybe that protectionist purpose was constitutional in 1920 when the object of the discrimination was only American ‘territories.’ But once Alaska and Hawaii became states in 1959, it became harder to justify.”
Thompson concluded: “Given that the effects of the Jones Act are felt acutely by residents and businesses in those states, the constitutionality of this century-old legislation is seriously suspect.
“If the Port Preference Clause means anything, it means Congress cannot pass laws that have the purpose and effect of putting Alaskan and Hawaii ports at a disadvantage. People in Alaska and Hawaii deserve better than to be shackled by this relic of a bygone era, and the Constitution mandates it. Where there’s a willing plaintiff, there’s a way to do it.”
No matter how this new theory shakes out, I can promise that the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii will continue its efforts to update the Jones Act for the 21st century.
Hawaii’s future depends on it.
_____________
Keli‘i Akina is president and CEO of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii.