Got your attention?
I was looking through a list of 135 Senate bills awaiting third reading in the House before this Thursday’s second crossover deadline, and there are several worth worrying about.
SB 358 is a doozy. It’s a crazy gun rights bill introduced by Sen. Sam Slom that prohibits any restrictions on legally-owned guns during any form of emergency, natural disaster, or civil crisis.
Reading the testimony is a bit frightening. The guy who argues that he has a constitutional right to have his .50 caliber guns and ammunition, handy for taking out “a hostile element at a long range of one thousand yards” apparently swayed more votes than the State Adjutant General who tried to explain that this bill could make maintaining order in the event of a real crisis much more difficult and dangerous.
After all, he argued, birds are much more dangerous than a .50 caliber weapon because we all know a flock of birds caused the crash of a passenger jet but no-one has shot down a jet recently.
Just why legislators are giving in to this vocal gun-toting minority on a GOP bill is difficult to fathom.
I should stop looking at these things, at least on a gray Sunday morning like this one.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
A monumentally stupid and irresponsible proposal! Exactly what we expect from Sam Slom.
Cant agree with Mr. Loomis more.
And Slom wants to buy the local newspaper with views like that???? YIKES.
Another cereal spray moment. You can’t make this stuff up, can ya Ian?
Based on the experience of my friends in New Orleans after Katrina hit, I got trained and licensed to own a handgun.
When the hurricane hits Honolulu, it’ll be a lot like New Orleans in 2005, except help will be weeks slower in arriving.
Two things will happen more or less simultaneously:
1. The lsland’s ice and crack heads will run out of dope and begin, um, foraging.
2. Most of the police force will call in sick, with cops choosing to protect their own families first. Not pointing fingers here; if I was a cop, that’s what I would do too. Wouldn’t you?
I’m not a Republican. I’m a lefty.
I heard that a certain local newspaper bigwig who’s widely regarded as a gun nut applied for a concealed weapon carry permit but was rejected, despite sending a fruit basket to the former police chief. Someone should check it out.
I looked up the bill as a result of this post. There was no testimony in opposition in all the committee hearings except for one hearing where the adjutant general opposed it.
It’s odd that this bill didn’t generate more opposition.
On the other hand, there is already a federal law passed in 2006 that accomplishes the same objective so this bill isn’t really necessary.
The fact of an applicable federal law finally brought a measure of sanity to the flagpole debate; maybe it will do the same for this.
What’s it called?
It’s in 42 U.S.C. Section 5207 and contains at least one notable exception (temporary surrender may be required for entry into a mode of transportation used for rescue or evacuation).
However, it applies only federal officials so, I suppose the argument goes, a similar law is needed to constrain state/local officials.
I’m as left as they come but I am from a hunting/firearm owning family (although I neither hunt nor own a firearm) and I am not completely unsympathetic to those who fear the Orwellian notion that the government would come to their doorstep in times of civil unrest and take their firerarms, leaving them at the mercy of foraging mobs.
That being said, there are no exceptions like that provided in the federal law. Other than the (literally) handful of people who possess permits to carry firearms, existing state law generally permits a person to possess a firearm only in the person’s place of business, residence, or “sojourn” (undefined). Should that be interpreted to mean that the operator of an emergency shelter is required to admit persons in the possession of firearms because it is their place of “sojourn”? That seems fraught with all kinds of risks and I’m certain others can think of more.
At the very least, this needs some fine tuning.
So, Ohia, is the bill before the legislature a good one or a bad one?
Frankly, I think it’s somewhat paranoid. I mean, the bill doesn’t go out of its way to protect the right to own other weapons or even such things as autos, etc.
That being said, I think there’s a kernel of an idea here that could be polished up with some work. At least the House narrowed the scope of the bill so that it wouldn’t strip civil defense auhtorities of the power to take action regarding the stores of firearms held by gun dealers. Can you imagine not being able to secure a Wal-Mart or Sports Authority against hoards of gun-seeking looters? I think it might help if it were further narrowed to limit gun possession to one’s own residence or business. I think it’s reasonable to say that, during times of emergency, we don’t want people bringing their weapons into shelters, rescue transports, etc. If, in those times, a gun owner wants to venture out or into some other facility/vehicle, leave it to those folks to secure it. Otherwise, stay at home or in your business, as the case may be.
Just thinkin’ out loud here.
It’s an unnecessary bill, in my opinion. The federal law that passed in 2006 applies to all law enforcement, including state and local. (Formally, it applies to federal law enforcement, plus anyone receiving federal funds or assisting federal law enforcement. In a disaster, this means almost everyone.)
The bill passed the house today and Reps. Lee, Morita, Rhodes, Takai and Takumi voted no. Rep. Takumi mentioned that the bill is unnecessary due to the federal law.