Tuesday, July 29, 2014         

 Print   Email   Comment | View 89 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

Hawaii gun lobby shoots down gun bills

By Anita Hofschneider

Associated Press

LAST UPDATED: 03:52 p.m. HST, Jan 30, 2013

Hawaii gun enthusiasts are organizing to stop gun control bills from gaining any traction at the state Legislature. 

Hawaii Rifle Association President Harvey Gerwig said today that more than 400 people successfully opposed a bill that would have made firearm instructors liable for accidents that occur during training.

Rep. Karl Rhoads, a Democrat who chairs the Judiciary committee and supported the bill, says he wasn’t swayed by the crowd of opposition.

“In the aftermath of Newtown, I don’t think it’s responsible not to do something,” Rhoads said, referring to the Connecticut town where 20 first-graders and six adults were killed in a Dec. 20 shooting rampage.

Rhoads recommended that the committee pass the bill but the committee voted not to approve it.  

Rhoads said he doubts the chances of similar measures this session after seeing the gun lobby’s effective opposition to what he calls a “a really minor bill.” 

Gerwig said the organization is continuing to mobilize community members through media, word-of-mouth and online efforts to ensure pro-gun voices are heard.

He called several of the proposed gun control measures “crazy” and says that they would have no effect on curbing gun violence.

“Gun bans don’t work,” Gerwig said.

He said the Legislature should instead focus on improving mental health.

House Majority Leader Rep. Scott Saiki, who introduced the bill relating to firearm instructors’ liability, said mental health problems can contribute to violence but that access to weapons is serious public safety issue.

Saiki says he is supporting other measures to ban assault weapons and to require people who are buying ammunition to show proof of gun registration.

Gerwig called the assault weapons proposal “an absolute travesty.”

He says that and other similar proposals impede on Hawaii residents’ constitutional rights.

 Print   Email   Comment | View 89 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

You must be subscribed to participate in discussions
By participating in online discussions you acknowledge that you have agreed to the TERMS OF SERVICE. An insightful discussion of ideas and viewpoints is encouraged, but comments must be civil and in good taste, with no personal attacks. Because only subscribers are allowed to comment, we have your personal information and are able to contact you. If your comments are inappropriate, you may receive a warning, and if you persist with such comments you may be banned from posting. To report comments that you believe do not follow our guidelines, email commentfeedback@staradvertiser.com.
Leave a comment

Please login to leave a comment.
LizKauai wrote:
I prefer the right to bare arms as opposed to bear arms. But guns for hunting are still good in our rural areas. love out smoke meat! :-)
on January 30,2013 | 12:36PM
Mana07 wrote:
Hunting has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the second amendment.
on January 30,2013 | 12:41PM
kainalu wrote:
And the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with the New Millinuem United States. The law was formulated during the infancy of our country so that hillside farmers could quickly form and protect our new country from any perceived threat, and to be able to show up to the fight armed with something more than a pitchfork. Most commonly referred to as the "minute man". I fully support the 2nd Amendment btw, but I also advocate for common-sense gun-controls. Ordinary citizens don't need to have a 50-caliber machine-gun mounted in the back of their pick-up trucks.
on January 30,2013 | 02:01PM
hawaiikone wrote:
I've taken the time in previous debates to calmly decimate your position, and other "it doesn't take 50 bullets to kill a deer" type comments from those eager to ban semi automatic rifles. Beside ludicrous comments about machine guns and trucks do you have anything new to offer?
on January 30,2013 | 02:15PM
veelc wrote:
"Nalu", your reasoning cancels itself out in one breath. "Fully support the 2nd amendment"? No one has anything to fear from a law abiding "Ordinary Citizen" with a .50 either. Except as you state, that "perceived threat" is a person(s) that thinks they know better than the ordinary citizen and will stop at nothing to ensure compliance. Do not even think for a moment that the American government is immune to total corruption. The Constitution was written precisely because its authors understood our nature to veer over time.
on January 30,2013 | 03:52PM
lee1957 wrote:
The Supreme Court would disagree with you, nice try.
on January 30,2013 | 04:42PM
sjean wrote:
Ordinary citizens don't want 50 caliber weapons. It is the crazies who want the 50 caliber weapons. Their paranoia and their delusions are just one hallucination shy of Paranoid Schizophrenia. Pick and chooses which portions of the Constitution you like?
on January 30,2013 | 05:08PM
ResponsibleCitizen wrote:
This is just an insulting comment. Why are you crazy to want a .50? It is like saying someone is crazy to want a corvette instead of a corolla. A .50 is just one of the many many calibers available.
on January 31,2013 | 03:00AM
sjean wrote:
You display the paranoia I am talking about. Sorry if I hurt your feelings. YOur analogy is perfect. A corvette might get you somewhere faster, but a Corolla will still get you there. A .22 will kill just like any other gun, including a .50.
on January 31,2013 | 07:08AM
Ptr92 wrote:
I agree with kainalu. Common sense gun control.
on January 30,2013 | 05:39PM
ResponsibleCitizen wrote:
I do agree. commonsense. However, NONE of the bills that have been submitted have any common sense in them. This bill that was defeated seeked to remove protections on FIREARMS SAFETY INSTRUCTORS. Now HOW IS THIS COMMON SENSE???? Firearms safety instructors need to be able to teach FIREARMS SAFETY. There are milloins of guns in Hawaii and with out these instructors doing what they do, how is it commonsense to take them away?? We have had the bans on these guns in effect before. It has been proven that it had ZERO effect on preventing crime or violence. How is this common sense. The only things these bans accomplish is infringement on your rights as a citizen.
on January 31,2013 | 03:07AM
bender wrote:
What does making instructors repsonsible for what happens at gun training have to do with taking guns away. And there was no mention of gun bans in the instructor bill. But all the gun zealots view any measure as an attempt to take their guns.
on January 31,2013 | 05:03AM
ResponsibleCitizen wrote:
Hello, it is about safety. Use your brain. The less safety instructors there are the less safety there will be. SMH The state run program has ZERO hands on training. Any one with half some sense should be thanking the 'gun zealots' for making the stand to keep this Right a safe one!
on January 31,2013 | 12:59PM
entrkn wrote:
I have been a gun owner and hunter for most of my life and I am a Veteran and I believe that military style assault weapons and ammunition clips with capacities of more than ten rounds have no place in civil society. I also believe that any lawmaker who is intimidated into making or not making laws that are in the best interest of the state by 400 demonstrators have no rightful place in government...
on January 30,2013 | 12:44PM
egghead wrote:
on January 30,2013 | 12:49PM
Sunny wrote:
Well said!
on January 30,2013 | 12:54PM
Waterman2 wrote:
You sir have obviously never been under fire, in any case, show me a civil society that from time to time doesn't need to defend itself and I might agree.
on January 30,2013 | 01:43PM
GooglyMoogly wrote:
plus one
on January 30,2013 | 01:49PM
control wrote:
Agreed - 400 don't a majority make, especially when there is close to a million people living here. Good article on CNN.com - targets the gun manufacturers and makes them responsible for keeping guns out of the hands of criminals in the same manner as other industries who make hazardous or dangerous materials. It also recommends a manufacturer rating system.
on January 30,2013 | 02:05PM
Dolphin743 wrote:
400 demonstrators in Hawaii on short notice is a lot more of a presence than you might think. Let's see you get that many people out in the middle of a workday. Also, keep in mind that the legislation was terrible to begin with, so the demonstrators just helped them to make an easy decision. The proposal basically said that people who are required by law to provide loaded weapons to students who are taking a safety course should then be responsible if that student commits a felony with the gun. A terrible way to set a person up. I just scanned the list of prospective bills related to firearms -- Holy Cow! There are some astoundingly ridiculous proposals in there to confiscate thousands of currently legal guns without compensation, make a homeowner who shoots an intruder committing a felony in their home liable to be sued by the felon, require unachieveable firearm training and recertification requirements as well as mental health checks for family members. We have some really over-the-edge people in the legislature this year. I can only hope that the rational ones will be persuaded not to enact stupid laws.
on January 30,2013 | 03:11PM
Pacej001 wrote:
I strongly disagree with your statement, "this year".
on January 30,2013 | 04:54PM
sjean wrote:
I agree it is a terribly flawed law.The 400 on short notice sound an awful lot like minutemen. Most likely, Revolutionary War re-enacters who think role playing is equal to actually being there.
on January 30,2013 | 05:00PM
SteveToo wrote:
balonny! Just ask an Afghan rebel about what kind of gun is needed by civilians.
on January 30,2013 | 02:43PM
aomohoa wrote:
We don't live in the Middle East, dummy!
on January 30,2013 | 03:35PM
Waterman2 wrote:
Coming your way, you sure it isn't ? Bet your life on it ?
on January 30,2013 | 03:40PM
bender wrote:
But if the gun advocates had it their way we could look like we're there. If they had their way everyone would be walking around with a 47 strapped to the back, ready to go to a shoot out in a heart beat.
on January 31,2013 | 05:07AM
hawaiikone wrote:
Apparently the gun control advocates are realizing their weak position, as evidenced by your comment. Improving our ability to keep guns in the hands of legal owners and out of the hands of others is a common goal most on both sides support. When reasonable legislation is proposed that focuses on that effort it will receive "bi-partisan" support.
on January 31,2013 | 07:20AM
lee1957 wrote:
Then you would know the difference between a clip and a magazine. Standard NATO 5.56mm ball ammunition comes in a 10 round clip. It takes three clips to fill a 30 round magazine. A distinction with a difference.
on January 30,2013 | 04:45PM
Maneki_Neko wrote:
When I hear someone talking about how they are experienced gun owners, vets, trained users, etc. referring to a need to ban "assault style weapons" my Mark One BS Detector fires off. I want to ask if they feel the same about a .223 semi-automatic rifle. How about a semi-auto shotgun. How about Uncle's semi-automatic 30-06. It always seems to be the "assault-style" that bothers these people and that makes no sense.
on January 30,2013 | 05:51PM
kamaka17 wrote:
obviously you make it clear that you own guns and know a great deal about them but in the end guns kill!! Doesn't matter what type of gun it is!
on January 31,2013 | 05:51AM
Mana07 wrote:
Just by using the term "clip" proves that you are a firearm layperson.
on January 30,2013 | 06:40PM
ResponsibleCitizen wrote:
Thank you for your service. However, you are not familiar with firearms. And why is this intimidation. That is just insulting that you would bar the citizen the right to free speech and voicing opposition to removing of a guaranteed RIGHT??
on January 31,2013 | 03:11AM
Mediocrates wrote:
What a shame! The legislators have the people support for tighter regulation but frankly I'm terrified to show up and testify against these gun nuts. Who is dumb enough to show up and speak against a typically irrational unruly group that is heavily armed??!! Not me, but I am deeply opposed to the status quo situation of unrestricted access and overly easy access to weapons. We should keep close records of all gun purchases and sales as well as ammunition. If I show up and say that - I'm likely to be targeted along with my family for harassment, ridicule and possibly worse. Rep. Rhoads you have our support! Do something please before anyone else needless dies!
on January 30,2013 | 01:41PM
control wrote:
that's precisely what they are counting on - intimidation and scare tactics. Much like southern states did to keep their slave populations under control with armed militias on patrol.
on January 30,2013 | 02:08PM
Waterman2 wrote:
So you would rather be enslaved than a free man with the tools to protect that freedom ?
on January 30,2013 | 02:24PM
NITRO08 wrote:
You want to protect freedom join the army!
on January 30,2013 | 03:53PM
Waterman2 wrote:
See Comment below your other mindless comment.
on January 30,2013 | 04:16PM
kamaka17 wrote:
Waterman2, you are way off with your thinking! Your probably just another nut case with a gun that is ready to shoot anything that come your way!
on January 31,2013 | 05:54AM
hawaiikone wrote:
So why not show up with 500 and do some "intimidating" yourself? Especially seeing how effective you say it is.
on January 30,2013 | 02:26PM
Pacej001 wrote:
Whut?! Gun owners want to bring back slavery. I seriously think you people have lost it. I doubt there's a statistically significant problem arising from legal gun owners.
on January 30,2013 | 04:59PM
sjean wrote:
Except that some murderers are legal gun owners. At what point do they crack? No background check can stop a legal gun owner from killing. But please stop pretending no legal gun owners kill. That is a lie.
on January 30,2013 | 06:26PM
hawaiikone wrote:
"Who is dumb enough to show up and speak against a typically irrational unruly group that is heavily armed??!! Not me, but I am deeply opposed to the status quo situation of unrestricted access and overly easy access to weapons." Kinda speaks volumes about your credibility.
on January 30,2013 | 02:28PM
Waterman2 wrote:
yeah, I was trying to figure out how to answer that one too, but the willful ignorance was too much for me. Mediocre is just that, too foolish to even try to reason with.
on January 30,2013 | 02:32PM
Dolphin743 wrote:
I'm sorry, where did you see the info about any protesters being irrational and unruly? And with the way you are ridiculing gun owners with your comments here, why would you expect not to get ridiculed in return? I'm much more afraid of people who think their utopian ideologies of the day should be inflicted on others, but then see themselves as being "above" the requirements they want other to live by.
on January 30,2013 | 03:14PM
sjean wrote:
Kind of like picking and choosing which parts of the Constitution are correct, and which ones need to be changed.
on January 30,2013 | 06:29PM
tiki886 wrote:
This comment has been deleted.
on January 31,2013 | 06:59AM
sjean wrote:
I ardently support the 2nd Amendment, exactly as it is written. I support idiot control.
on January 31,2013 | 07:10AM
lee1957 wrote:
I think your fears are overblown.
on January 30,2013 | 04:47PM
Waterman2 wrote:
Again, I hope so, but you gonna bet your life and freedom on it ?
on January 30,2013 | 04:52PM
Pacej001 wrote:
Your comment is so full of prejudicial stereotypes of gun owners and non sequetors that it has to be a parody. It is parody, right?
on January 30,2013 | 04:57PM
ResponsibleCitizen wrote:
I'd be in more fear of testifying in front of you left swinging loons. Your rallies are the ones filled with rioting and destruction. Your scare tactics to make people fearful of gun owners WILL NOT WORK. There are millions of guns legally owned in Hawaii RIGHT NOW. Your friends, neighbors, family, are all responsible GUN OWNERS. They more than likely own an AR-15 or an AK.
on January 31,2013 | 03:19AM
kamaka17 wrote:
And what is the point of owning these types of guns?
on January 31,2013 | 05:58AM
tiki886 wrote:
This comment has been deleted.
on January 31,2013 | 06:19AM
kamaka17 wrote:
Good one! LOL! Whoa watch out, tili886 got some funnies! HAHAHA!
on January 31,2013 | 08:46AM
SteveToo wrote:
anyone who went to Iraq or Afghanistan know well that a well armed bunch of civilians can play havoc w/an invading army. That's what we have in the good old USA. And they/we are just as important today as we were 200 years ago. so don't tell me what kind of guns I DON'T NEED.
on January 30,2013 | 02:41PM
Waterman2 wrote:
In fact, we need it now that for most of our nation's history. IMHO
on January 30,2013 | 03:38PM
NITRO08 wrote:
They need to take away your guns cause you are a head case.
on January 30,2013 | 03:55PM
hawaiikone wrote:
The potential of a "they" is exactly why the 2nd amendment was written.
on January 30,2013 | 04:05PM
Waterman2 wrote:
Now my little fool, I am Big Island Local boy just retired from USMC.......got anything else to say ? The real threat to the US isn't from outside the US, but from within.
on January 30,2013 | 04:15PM
ghstar wrote:
And so, don't you think you'll need some Stryker fighting vehicles, attack helicopters, a couple A-10 ground support aircraft, F-16s for air cover, and maybe a few M-1 Abrams tanks? You'll also need a lot of training, logistics, command and control and so on.. The idea of a bunch of over the hill coots playing war and taking on the US military is simply preposterous. It won't matter that you have assault weapons. Do you realy think small arms are good enough, or does the 2nd amendment give you the right to own major weapons?
on January 30,2013 | 08:27PM
hawaiikone wrote:
Wonder how you'd have phrased your argument in 1775. Those British had a pretty good army, as I'm sure you'd be pointing out in "ye olde forum".
on January 30,2013 | 08:57PM
kamaka17 wrote:
What now we got to bow down to you and your thinking?
on January 31,2013 | 06:00AM
sjean wrote:
Especially from highly trained ex-military. Who better to know how the machine operates?
on January 31,2013 | 07:12AM
SteveToo wrote:
If you look at the armed civilian population the United States has the largest standing army in the world, over 5 million w/just a 30-06.
on January 30,2013 | 02:52PM
sjean wrote:
And not a single one of them are crazy.
on January 30,2013 | 05:03PM
Anonymous wrote:
So, "...a bill that would have made firearm instructors liable for accidents that occur during training" is really the overriding issue of the day regarding guns? What am I missing here, people? Is anyone reading the article, or just knee-jerk reacting to the headline?
on January 30,2013 | 02:54PM
Maneki_Neko wrote:
This guy Rhoads is a loose cannon, pun intended. He wants to suppress free speech - 1st Amendment - and now he wants to suppress 2nd Amendment rights.
on January 30,2013 | 02:59PM
bodysurf_ah wrote:
This comment has been deleted.
on January 30,2013 | 03:07PM
Waterman2 wrote:
That is what I would like to see......in fact I believe that the police chief is out of line in not ever issue ing any as there is provision for it in Hawaiian law. I promise those troublemakers who rob steal stab on the street would be a whole lot more resrained if they knew any of those young ladies, etc. might, just might have a small .38 handy. But no, idealist think making something illegal will somehow magically turn a crook straight. Talk about stupidly blind !
on January 30,2013 | 03:35PM
kamaka17 wrote:
Yeah, why don't we just have martial law implemented then huh? Have everyone carrying guns with itchy trigger fingers waiting to shoot at anything with a hint of danger!
on January 31,2013 | 06:04AM
stingray65 wrote:
Bodysurf: I strongly support your idea.
on January 30,2013 | 08:29PM
kailua1980 wrote:
This will NEVER make it to mainstream media, because it is a news story about a licensed, trained, law abiding citizen with a firearm STOPPING a crime that is being committed from becoming more tragic than it already is: http://www.kgw.com/home/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shooter-183593571.html Imagine for a moment that the shooter did not run across the path of the man in the article, had gotten his firearm to work, and and continued on through the mall...many more might have died. It is most certain that this firearms owner saved lives. Fact...there are hundreds, if not thousands of situations where the presence of legally owned firearms (whether used or not) have prevented or stopped a serious crime in its tracks. While legitimate firearms owners pray/hope to never have to deploy their weapons, the cold hard truth is that we can and have prevented many a tragedy from happening in the first place or have minimized the damage and injury.
on January 30,2013 | 03:32PM
CloudForest wrote:
Slaves do not own guns.
on January 30,2013 | 05:40PM
Maneki_Neko wrote:
Does Django know that?
on January 30,2013 | 05:52PM
pridon wrote:
Hawaii has one of the most restrictive gun laws. As for .50 cal. Not sure why anyone would want one. Bold action. About $20 per round, Weighs over 20 pounds. Not good for your run of the mill school or theater shooter. Only a trained sniper could make effective use of one. Cost @2500 to $10,000.
on January 30,2013 | 05:54PM
environmental_lady wrote:
Shame on the committee for cowering out! They have no spine. I wonder how many children they have and will they have wished they had acted sooner if one of their own children gets injured in a shooting incident. Those fanatical gun lovers don't speak for all of us. Hunting has nothing to do with the discussion here.
on January 30,2013 | 06:18PM
hawaiikone wrote:
Fortunately you don't speak for anyone other than yourself either.
on January 31,2013 | 06:09AM
Blueskies wrote:
The enthusiastic supporters of the murderers of little children had a busy day today rounding up those rabid 400 supporters.
on January 30,2013 | 07:13PM
Kalaheo1 wrote:
It was a bill "that would have made firearm instructors liable for accidents that occur during training." For you to characterize opponents of such a silly and needless bill as "enthusiastic supporters of the murderers of little children " is offensive and adds nothing to the conversation except your own inappropriate and inflammatory rhetoric.
on January 30,2013 | 08:52PM
hawaiikone wrote:
An equally irresponsible assumption is your willingness to sacrifice more children by resisting efforts to protect them with armed guards.
on January 31,2013 | 06:12AM
wobegone wrote:
Guns, the problem or can it be the e-games kids play--my kid played dungens and dragons for hours after school--Doctors thought he was paranoid and was given three different meds--his mother sent him to me and the home was deleted of all tvs, e-games and computers was used for written school assignments--result--kid came normal in 9 months and went to grad HS and college, no meds and went on to be a certified accountant, and raises his children void of computer e-games and tv. Maybe we should ban guns and ban all violent e-games. Drop the first two amendments!
on January 30,2013 | 08:45PM
koolau wrote:
Did anyone see the film "War of 1946"? Maybe those arguing pro or con on the 2nd Ammendment should see that film first to better understand why the 2nd Ammendment exists. While you're at it, read the 3rd Ammendment also.
on January 31,2013 | 03:50AM
Tanuki wrote:
Do you advocate a violent overthrow of the government when you feel that things aren't going in the direction that you approve of? How do you define a "terrorist" other than "that's the other guy?" Do you think that you have a reasonable chance to overthrow a corrupt government with an AR15 when they can simply eliminate you and your house with an Apache helicopter or a tank? Get real!!! The Second Amendment was written almost 250 years ago.
on January 31,2013 | 08:06AM
ceria wrote:
Originally, the 2nd amendment was referring to muskets.......one shot at a time. People aren't affected until one of their family members or a loved one is gunned down senselessly with an assault weapon. I believe in people protecting themselves, but common sense has to prevail as to what we should tolerate, and it's not one that shoots 20 rounds in 10 seconds!
on January 31,2013 | 05:34AM
kamaka17 wrote:
well said!!
on January 31,2013 | 06:05AM
hawaiikone wrote:
Your position has been thoroughly rebutted already, and doesn't warrant repeat efforts.
on January 31,2013 | 07:32AM
kamaka17 wrote:
whooooooo!! LOL!
on January 31,2013 | 08:48AM
hawaiikone wrote:
Yeah, you're right. My response was for "ceria", not you. But since you agree. you're included.
on January 31,2013 | 02:52PM
Anonymous wrote:
Rep. Rhoads and Saiki are Johnny-Come-Lately copycats jumping on the political bandwagon to wring every ounce of publicity they can from the Sandy Hook trajegy. Two idiots who have probably never held a gun in their lives, clearly do not understand what the second amendment is about, and don't care that these types of laws do nothing to stop criminals and only hurt law-abiding citizens. By the way, Hawaii has probably the least amount of gun violence in the nation! So why are you making new laws when we don't have a problem here? We already have some of the strictest laws in the nation. We don't need more. Why don't you concentrate on doing something useful, like improving the economy and educational system? Probably because it's beyond your comprehension.
on January 31,2013 | 05:41AM
kamaka17 wrote:
Waterman2 is trying to be a smart guy!
on January 31,2013 | 05:57AM
Slow wrote:
I want a bazooka, The constitution says I can. I WANT MY BAZOOKA NOW!
on January 31,2013 | 06:56AM
Tanuki wrote:
Every single person who owns a gun will naturally say that they are responsible law abiding citizens. They give reasons for owning all types of firearms ranging from hunting to self-protection to the right to overthrow the government. So what is the difference between a responsible citizen and a terrorist other than what those individuals brand themselves? Is it up to each individual to make that call? Timothy McVeigh certainly did not picture himself to be a bad person or a terrorist. He believed that it was his responsibility to do what he did. At a recent interview Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia defined legal firearms as those that can be carried by and individual. The reporter asked about shoulder-fired Stinger missiles. Justice Scalia said that it is probable that Stingers should be legal. And this is from a Supreme Court justice. When the Constitution was written the state-of-the-art firearm was a muzzle loaded musket. The authors did not and could not have envisioned firearms that can fire over 150 rounds per minute on semi-automatic in the hands of anyone who can buy or steal them. Finally, we get all bent out of shape when we find out that that toys made in China have trace amounts of lead but we are expected to accept these devices among us that are specifically designed to kill people! We are expected to accept that the ongoing killings are part of the "side-effects" of the Second Amendment? What's wrong with this picture? Hey, the Constitution is written on paper. There is precident in amending the Constitution when parts of it is not working.
on January 31,2013 | 07:54AM
Breaking News
Political Radar
`My side’

Political Radar
‘He reminds me of me’

Bionic Reporter
Needing a new knee

Warrior Beat
Monday musings

Small Talk
Burning money

Political Radar
On policy

Warrior Beat
Apple fallout