BY TOM LODGE – Speaking of Hawaii in particular, but gun laws in general, there is a saying floating around that “It’s only a politician that can turn a lawful citizen into a criminal with a stroke of a pen.”
I see a proposed bill online today that bans a plethora of semi-automatic firearms, in fact wants to confiscate them. I see another that wants training of all gun owners on a biennial basis and if you miss, it leads to confiscation. There is yet another that wants you to prove you own the gun you buy ammunition for! Why? You only need to just record who bought ammunition. It’s not complicated and there is no legitimate reason to burden lawful gun owners or shooters with additional requirements and by doing so, you limit opportunity to take advantage of opportunity, something it seems our elected don’t take the time to consider.
I can think of a specific instance in where this would have been the case, in fact. Recently, twenty-two caliber ammunition was on sale at a really good price when I walked into this store, and had I had to go home, rifle my safe for my permits and return, the opportunity would have been lost for they sold out before I could have got back. More burdens, no benefits.
If you want to accomplish something constructive, endow the home and business owner the right to shoot to kill without being arrested for murder if someone invades your establishment or home. Empower the righteous, you know, the ones who pay your salary and contribute to society.
So let’s start with the confiscation of semi-automatics. It’s absolutely amazing that anyone could even consider calling these guns “assault weapons”. This is such a blatant lie that I’m actually disgusted that the HRA, NRA, Gun Owners of America, and just residents of Hawaii aren’t screaming at the top of their lungs about this, one, and two, why are you infringing upon our right to enjoy our firearms on the range and for hunting?
Let’s be accurate!. Assault weapons are machine guns. What Assault weapons aren’t is semi-automatic rifles or pistols, regardless of what it looks like. Magazine limits! This is just another irrelevant restriction that doesn’t touch on the problem. The problem is you have evil in this world and in Hawaii we do not have effective concealed carry laws, meaning we don’t permit them, and here in Hawaii, and everywhere else that you’ve had mass shootings you didn’t have anyone shooting back.
Our military returnees will tell you clearly, you keep your head down when someone returns fire, but we don’t permit it here. Around the country, where it is permitted, there are thousands of instances where the armed citizen has prevented continued carnage and in most cases, from the bloodshed to start with.
The other misconception and in furtherance of the LIE, is that no one needs to hunt with a semi-automatic with a 30 round magazine. AR-15’s, a semi-automatic firearm and nothing else, is the most popular target rifle on the range. Is it because we have a nation of mass murderers? No it is because the AR types are low recoil, accurate, and for self-defense, especially slight individuals, women, small males and children, it is the most compact, accurate and logical home defense system you can have. So what does this tell you? It almost seems that politicians are more about endorsing evil than protecting the innocent!
AR-15’s are extremely popular hunting rifles. They are more than appropriate for all kinds of animals with the varying caliber options available from goats to ground hogs, from big deer to feral hogs, and the argument “no one needs a 30 round magazine to shoot a deer” is correct, but you might just want it on the range during practice. This is hysterical sensationalist rhetoric. Solve the problem rather than unlawfully attacking the most provable of the law abiding by taking their guns away. If you have a gun owner next door, he or she has been tested. Hunting is more than just hunting. Shooting is a wholesome, exhilarating pastime, with hunting being a result of accuracy practice and woodsmanship.
So let’s talk about recurrent training. Again why? We don’t have concealed carry laws in Hawaii so why the requirement for biennial training? Harassment! That is all it is, pure and simple. Register every two years? Why? Annoyance! That is all it is. Why are you trying to harass the law abiding and not the criminal? You might as well require home invaders to have lock picking classes so that they don’t damage our doors and windows.
While I don’t begrudge training, people that hunt prepare for hunting before they go. They train. People that own a handgun for protection only need to know how to point and shoot and understand safe gun handling.. And guess what, that is a requirement you need in order to get a handgun permit. So what is the purpose of the requirement? It is clearly an aggravation and one that leads to confiscation if one misses class.
Why do some of our legislators condemn legitimate gun owners? I don’t see them condemning the police or the military, so why permitted gun owners? We all have a right to keep and bear arms. We all have a right to defend ourselves with the least amount of governmental intrusion. Is there an agenda going on here? Why do they coddle the criminal and persecute the taxpayer? When you look at the police blotter every day, we have criminals being re-arrested time after time after time… why don’t you do something about that instead, or at least let a gun owner do it for you if they are found invading your home?
Let’s be proactive! Let’s enact Castle Doctrine Laws for Hawaii. We have had a number of vicious home invasions in Hawaii and the elderly especially, or anyone else confronted with a crazed aggressor, rarely stand a chance and if one survives the brutality, the physical and mental after affects are long lasting! Let’s empower, not deflower!
Tom Lodge
Hawaii Hunting Association
since today is martin luther king day, i think people need to be reminded that the second amendment helped protect the civil rights movement in the '50's and '60's.and my understanding that nra made sure that blacks in the south had guns in their homes and on their possession to protect them from kkk and other racist organisations and in some cases from local police forces.the second amendment protects all americans from a tyrranical government.we have one now for sure.
MLK felt threatened enough to apply for a concealed carry permit. But, as was expected, the Jim Crow law of "May Issue" concealed carry laws meant he was denied that permit. So, his followers provided armed protection for him where ever he went. He had many guns around him at all times, one famous story says one of his house guests sat on a revolver he had stashed in a chair.
Many people, and especially those that would prefer you be disarmed, don't know that, or conveniently choose to forget that fact….gun control has many ties to racism.
Carry, I'm not disputing what you are saying about MLK, but he was under intense FBI investigation because of his alliances with notable CPUSA members, fellow travelers, and a guy by the name of Bayard Rustin among others.
That could have been the reason "May Issue" was denied. I don't know, but it is conceivable.
Jim Crow laws were passed by many states to essentially legally sanction discrimination and segregation. Besides segregating water fountains, buses, and restaurants, it is also widely accepted that "may issue" concealed carry laws were created (previously, you generally did not need a permit to carry a firearm) to keep the blacks disarmed.
Here is an entry on the subject from Wiki: The Pistol Purchase permit law was passed in 1919. This law is considered, by most, a classic piece of the Jim Crow laws. Due to the recognition of civil rights for blacks and other minorities, they could exercise their natural right to self-defense with full support of the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution and Article I, Section 30, of the North Carolina Constitution. North Carolina passed the Pistol Purchase Permit law which allowed local sheriffs and government officials to discriminate with impunity at the local level.
Another from lawyer Dave Kopel: Because the new 14th Amendment forbade any state to deny “the equal protection of the laws,” gun control statutes aimed at blacks could no longer be written in overtly racial terms. Instead, the South created racially neutral laws designed to disarm freedmen. Some laws prohibited inexpensive firearms while protecting more expensive military guns owned by former Confederate soldiers. Meanwhile, other laws imposed licensing systems or carry restrictions. As a Florida Supreme Court justice later acknowledged, these laws were “never intended to be applied to the white population” (Watson v. Stone, 1941).
Southern courts generally upheld these laws. In the 19th and 20th centuries, these court precedents played a substantial role in maintaining white supremacy by facilitating unofficial—but government-tolerated—violence against blacks and civil rights advocates.
So yes, it's possible that some sensible and thoughtful (almost certainly white) Sheriff said "hey, this King guy is associated with questionable groups (CPUSA) and individuals (Bayard Rustin) and therefore I don't think he should carry a gun in public. But the more probable scenario is that a racist Sheriff, probably involved with the KKK, sought only to keep MLK disarmed and therefore further his racist agenda.
A couple of things: HRA knows about the "Assault Weapon ban and has already begun preparing to counter it via the legislative process. An announcement to HRA members has already been sent out.
An "assault weapon" is a made up term by gun grabbers. It was originally coined by Josh Sugarman at Handgun Control Inc. (Now the Brady Center). It is not a "machine gun."
An "Assault rifle" is a military rifle with select fire capability.
HRA was able to get a "Castle Doctrine" law passed. It provided civil immunity to those that use force if they believe the perpetrator was, or was about to, commit a violent felony. HRA also got a law passed that prohibited legal firearm confiscation during a disaster.
In terms of moving forward, HRA is working with others in the firearm community to form a coalition of all interested parties to coordinate efforts to fight these proposed bills. We can always use an additional hand…..
Civil Immunity to a rightful shooting is one thing, being arrested for that shooting without an presumption of innocence is another. Are you saying that HRA was able to provide sensibility to our laws so that if you shoot someone in your home that the police do an investigation first to determine if it was justified or not before arresting the homeowner?
It would be difficult to construct specific legislation that would prevent you from getting arrested in every instance when involved in the use of deadly force. It might be nice if there were a way to have some level of presumption of innocence when making the claim of self-defense, but in all cases the police, and ultimately the Prosecuting Attorney, would have to decide on a case by case basis based on the totality of the circumstances. Even Mas Ayoub preaches that if you are involved in a self-defense shooting you should expect to be arrested and held until the evidence is either clear enough to substantiate your case, or arrested.
As to providing sensibility to our laws, I am afraid that is a little beyond our ability…especially when we get little support from members or other gun owners during the legislative process. We constantly ask for testimony, both written and in person during the legislative hearings and usually get few responses. HRA cannot accomplish all its goals without the active participation of all Hawaii's gun owners. Are you a member? How do you think it looks when the same 5-6 people testify in the various hearings, especially when we try to say things like "Hawaii's gun owners, all 100,000 of them agree this is a good (or bad) bill?" When is the last time you provided testimony or called your legislators?
If you're referring to me personally, constantly. The reason we are in communication with HRA right now is to coordinate effort between clubs, individuals and other sportsmen, like the fishing community. It high time that we all started sticking together to support the rights and privileges that each group enjoys and are having eroded daily… by our elected.. and it is amazing to me, that people of this state elect people they have no idea of whom they are electing till it's too late.
Aloha…
Hi Tom,
My mistake, I thought there was an entry chastising HRA and other gun organizations for not acting on the local "Assault Weapons" ban….for some reason it doesn't appear to be here now….and thought I was responding to that individual.
As for working together, I am one of the individuals in HRA that initiated the "coalition" of Hawaii gun owners so I suspect we'll be talking more frequently in the near future.
Aloha,
Yeah… that was me going off half cocked in my article. The trouble with being in "isolation" sometimes is that you miss what is really going on and that was my unmitigated misplaced ire. Apologies!
Much Aloha,
Tom Lodge
As to working with others, we are currently in discussion with HRA as to how to coordinate our efforts both on Oahu and the outer islands.
Much Aloha…
My favorite part of the 2nd amendment which everyone forgets to quote, "A well regulated militia." Why doesn't that part ever enter into the debate?
"Well regulated" means "properly functioning" or more broadly the ability to properly function.
It does not mean regulated like a pharmaceutical drug.
So it's a "Properly functioning" militia. In a militia there is usually some kind of hierarchy to prevent mass chaos. Last time I looked one person does not make a militia.
There are two parts to the 2nd amendment, one is a well regulated militia, separate and distinct from the right to keep and bear arms, which as the federalist papers acknowledge, meant to insure that the public had the right to defend themselves with the same equipment as was provided our military.
A militia is there to defend our homeland (Hawaii)… not me or my family or yours against the evil that prowls our streets on occasion and that most certainly would multiply the second we restrict a homeowner from being able to purchase and use something like an AR-15 in the event of a home invasion… a most appropriate firearm in the hands of woman, or small male…
Aloha…
“The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American … the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” Tenche Cox
Thus begins the revolution. Two hours after Barak got re-elected, he started the ball rolling on this matter. That was the first thing he did. Had he done this before the re-election, I can bet that the votes would've went more the other way.
This man is just a man who wants to lead the people, by leading them astray. The media is pumping out lots of shooting stories thus also leading so called concerned citizens astray. America needs to wake up, or they will find themselves one day staring down the barrel of a very corrupt government that is listed as one of the reasons why we have the right to keep and bear arms.
Let's all forward the proposed bill to educate gun owners and non owners alike.
The government alone is not American's, we are the American's that the 2nd amendment has been written for.
And to you Barak, thanks for being the best gun salesman that America has ever seen! Thank you, thank you, thank you!
Good write up Mr, Ranger!
HiCarry, thanks for making the distinctions between assault rifles and assault weapons. A golf club, hammer, even a pillow, or even Nazi Pelosi's fingernails could be assault weapons. The AR-15 looks like the military's AR-4 but is not fully automatic.
Those details seem to escape our intellectual luminaries such as Dianne Feinstein etc.
Thanks. I saw some videos that were 5-7 years old trying to explain some of the basic differences between true assault rifles and semi-automatic rifles the resemble them….so the info is, and has been available to anyone that chooses to actually take a few minutes to educate themselves. Unfortunately those pushing these types of bans and restrictions don't care to as they are simply following their own agenda, and it isn't my, yours, or our kid's safety. If it were, they'd be less inclined to push the same old bans and restrictions that have to date proven to be ineffective.
Oh, and the military assault rifle is the M4 🙂
Aloha
M4, your right, thank you for the correction.
We're trying to put something together for publication that in fact reinforces those distinctions and where exactly semi-automatic firearms are used.
Vigilance requires action on some occasions, and now is a time of action!
Aloha…
Tom and Hicarry, I'm interested in your take on the Militia act of 1903 also known as the Dick act of 1902 which from what I gather, invalidates all gun control laws and is unrepealable.
I've not heard of the Dick Act . However I'm happy to look into it and post my impressions. I'm surprised something like this hasn't been touted by all if it had teeth.
Glad to see all is not lost in Hawaii!
Aloha my fellow gun owners and shooters!
~Arietta (Prior service US Navy now in the States).
Why are they making it a lot tougher on legit gun owners? It's almost like they're stacking the home defense odds in the crooks' favor.
If they're going to make it that tough to legally own a gun, then the state justice system – from the highest judge and lawyer to the rookie cops – better be prepared to shoulder a more intense workload. A more complicated gun law could very easily mean that many households lose one of the more effective crime deterrents available.
When we lose access to firearms, break out the bows and arrows! They will either 1) draft legislation restricting those, or 2) broaden the definition of "firearms" to include them.
[…] Some reading from this year's headlines: Hawaii legislature proposes gun confiscation It New York Assemblyman asks colleague not to mention that original proposed SAFE Act included […]
Comments are closed.