House Standing Committee on Judiciary & Hawaiian Affairs

Welcome everyone to the House Committee on Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs. It is Thursday, February 6th at 2:00pm here in Conference Room 325. Welcome, everyone. Thanks to Committee Members for being here and thanks to all the testifiers for being here.

For today's hearing, I'd like you to limit your testimony to two minutes Max if you can, because we've got plenty of testifiers I want to get through. Everybody, if you're testifying via Zoom, please keep yourself muted and the video off while you're waiting to testify. And then after your testimony, turn your video off and mute your audio.

Thank you. The Zoom chat function will allow you to chat with technical staff only. Just use that chat function only for technical issues. Don't try to send send me a message because I won't get it if you're disconnected on Zoom, don't panic.

Try to rejoin my IT staff will tell me that you're back and I'll try to fit you in to finish your testimony. In the event of a network failure, if the power goes off here and if we have to reschedule, we will post proper notice so everyone knows what we're going to be doing.

When and if you're testifying via Zoom, please don't use trademarked or copyrighted images because that kicks us off of YouTube and that's a problem. We want the public to be able to watch the livestream and please conduct yourself with aloha and refrain from any profanity or uncivil behavior.

As I like to say, it's okay to disagree, but let's not be disagreeable. We'll all work together here today. We're dealing with issues related to firearms and fireworks and other very important issues that people have strong feelings about. Just listen to each other with respect, and we'll make it through today's hearing.

After the testimony, Members will be able to ask questions, and then we'll go into decision making on these measures. Great. So first up, we have House Bill 279 relating to firearms. This measure allows the carrying or possessing of firearm parts only at or between certain locations and in an enclosed container.

It defines firearm parts and prohibited persons and establishes and increases penalties for the carrying or possessing of certain firearms or firearm parts other than at or between specific locations and an enclosed container. First up, we have testimony from the Department of Law Enforcement. If you'd use the podium, that'd be great. Welcome.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, I am Mike Lambert, the Director nominee for the Department of Law Enforcement. We stand in strong support of. I actually participated in crafting this bill.

It is very necessary for it to move forward because with the increase of ghost guns, having parts is the only thing that is left to be regulated. It mirrors every other place to keep laws.

In other words, if you're following the law as it is now in regards to complete weapons, there would be no adjustment to your current practice. One of the biggest things that this law seeks to do is there is a gap in the law right now where criminals are not carrying complete weapons.

They know that if they deconstruct the weapon and carry it in public, we can't charge them because it requires a law to. The law currently requires the gun to be operational for charging. So it's a loophole right now.

So, for example, if me and someone else would like to walk around town, he could hold the top of the gun, I could hold the bottom. And if we're caught by law enforcement, there would be no charges that could be brought. With this firearm parts law, we could charge both of those individuals.

If they're a felon, it would be a felony. And if they do not have felony convictions, it would likely fall into the class of a misdemeanor. Some people feel that it may be too harsh of a penalty. But there are also laws that prohibit replica weapons. Right?

So in other words, you can't carry a replica weapon around town, which is a misdemeanor. So carrying around parts would fall in that similar category. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Lambert, and welcome. Thanks for taking the job.

Thank you, sir.

Look forward to working with you. Next person who said that they would wish to testify is Jerry Yuen with Puuloa Rifle and Pistol club on Zoom. Please proceed. If you'd unmute yourself and turn your video on and testify, Mr. Yuen, that'd be great.

Okay, I'm trying to. Can you hear me? We can hear you.

We can hear you. So please proceed.

Okay. Park. Dear, I'm Jerry. I'm President of the Puuloa Rifle and Pistol Club. I really don't think this law is a good one. Besides just being hard to enforce. I would say people. A lot of times I carry around parts for guns because I have friends that needed things fixed all the time.

Something like this, I think would be rather like an illegal search and seizure unless there's a. Like a probable cause for searching. Open carry. I don't know criminals that would actually open carry gun parts. So I probably put this in the same category as our fireworks laws. Just very hard to enforce and just rather frivolous legislation.

Just say we did something.

Thank you. Anything, anything further, Mr. Yuen?

Nope, but I'll be online if there are questions.

Thank you very much, appreciate that. Just so everyone knows, we've received 270 testimonies on this, 39 in support, 234 in opposition, and one with comments. And I'm just going to be calling the people who have said that they're going to testify so we can get through everybody. Next, we have testimony from Michael Rice on Zoom. Please proceed.

Aloha, Michael Rice. Again, this bill is unnecessary as well as unconstitutional. The police do not need the firearm to be operational or to make an arrest. Nothing is clear. This is legally the firearm. If I walked around with this in one pocket, this the other pocket, I'd still be charged.

This isn't a loophole where I could conceal carry my gun just because it's in two pieces. That logic, I could walk around waikiki with my AR15 like this because it's not operational, even though it can be quickly made. So in a few seconds. This bill is unneeded and would, would only burden law abiding citizens.

They can go if they find a suspect with, I mean if they're chase, if the police are chasing a suspect and one guy has a, has the actual gun, one guy has a slide on him, that's conspiracy. You can charge both of them. They were working together. Thank you.

The rest of my time, I'm available for any questions.

Thank you, Mr. Rice. Next person said they want to testify is Mr. Andrew Roberts.

Hi, good afternoon. Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members, thank you for having this hearing. I oppose this bill. Some of the stuff that I was going to touch on has already been touched on. I think that the Department of Law Enforcement is misconstruing. The current law is as it was stated, the receiver is the firearm.

That's the registered part. If somebody is carrying that, then that in itself is carrying the firearm. If it's not, then what we're saying is that I don't need to register lower receivers.

If I purchase that only because it's not a firearm, I can walk down through any street with my AR15 in two separate parts and that's perfectly legal. I don't think that that's the current law and I don't think that that's the truth.

I think that it's being, we're being lied to by the Department of Law Enforcement when it comes to this. It may be an unwillingness to arrest or an unwillingness to prosecute, but that's not what the law is.

I have no problem with you prohibiting felons with owning these parts, but with regards to just law abiding citizens going about their day trying to transport firearms parts, we're just trying to make it more difficult.

In extension to this law, there's no exemption for the mailman who may be delivering these parts that are purchased online or purchased from a local supplier and they're delivering them to my house. Are we going to start setting up stings where we're going to arrest mail men because they're delivering these parts?

There's no part of the law that allows them to do it. There's no law allows shipping them. The law is very poorly written and it doesn't cover enough of the stuff. And it does only look at law abiding citizens. It doesn't look at those criminals under attack.

Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Roberts. Next we have testimony from David Alvarado. Not present. Next we have testimony from Anthony Dean. Not present. Next we have testimony from Gavin Hedemann. Please proceed on Zoom. Gavin Hedemann, please unmute yourself and proceed.

I apologize for that. Can everyone hear me now?

Yes, Please proceed.

All right, thank you. I appreciate the time to voice my opinion. I'm in opposition of this bill for numerous reasons. A lot was covered by the other individuals who gave their testimony already.

I personally am involved in the firearm industry as a retailer and apprenticing gunsmith bill such as this, which other people very rightly pointed out, is left opaque and open to interpretation. A lot of this written in here is unnecessary because the law specifically states in here three or more parts capable or.

I'm sorry, one moment, pulling out my notes here, one second, sorry. Here it is, page 5, line 14. Any person violating this section by carrying or possessing three or more firearm parts shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. It does specify in there that the parts have to be necessary for the firearm to operate, which is very broad.

Almost every component can be noted as necessary for operation. Every screw, every washer, every nut, every bolt, such as these, a spring follower and a magazine body, little tiny piece of plastic like this is necessary for the firearm to operate.

One distinguishing whether these parts are actually components to a functional firearm is also counteracted in the clause at stake. You do not have to be in possession of all parts necessary to create a functional firearm. Essentially, that would make you could just pick up an officer, could be like, zero, here's a piece of plastic.

This looks like it's supposed to go in a gun you don't have all the components to prove or disprove such claim, so it would have to be dragged out through court. Lots of time and money spent to prove whether or not a piece of plastic was or was not. Thanks.

Mr. Hedemann, could you summarize, please?

For that and many other reasons, I'm opposed to this. It doesn't target criminals because no criminal is going to care about a new law. Hence, they're criminals. But appreciate this. Thank you so much for letting me speak.

Sure, sure. Thank you for your testimony. Next, Glennon Gingo. Good to see you, sir.

Good to see you folks. Thank you. Thanks for having me. Glennon Gingo, both from the Hawaii Rifle Association and also personal testimony based on experience. Although I have a lot of relatives and folks involved in law enforcement, I think that there's a lot of arbitrary nature to this bill.

Most law enforcement officers know that if you disassemble the Glock firearm, which most carry in this state, you could get down to three parts that are hardly seen in your pocket that would qualify to make it illegal to have in your pocket, whether it's a hammer spring, whether it's a slide spring or a trigger spring.

And if you had those parts with you, that'd be a problem. I know what the intent here is, and there's not a lot of things that I disagree with, but I do disagree with this and the approach to it.

I would think that law enforcement needs to focus on the guns that are illegally being carried or those that are unserialized. But to go so far as to arbitrarily assign to small parts and, you know, it's insignificant parts that can qualify to criminalize you.

My wife, who's a former prosecutor, sometimes finds the little o ring or if I've been working on guns, after I wash my clothes, they end up in the dryer. So these are how small and minuscule some of these parts are. The other thing is we have a lot of gunsmiths, people that for a living work on guns.

They transport some of these parts back and forth to persons homes where they work on guns and so on and gunsmithing and also our FFLs, our federally firearms licensed dealers, would also in carrying parts be criminalized if they were carrying parts as well. So I think it's arbitrary, it needs to be well thought out.

And I don't think it has been well thought out yet. But I give a lot of kudos to our incoming and hopefully incoming Department of Law Enforcement Director. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Gingo. Next we have testimony from Tamara McKay on Zoom. Please proceed.

Thank you. I'm just going to go ahead and read my testimony. I am in strong opposition of 279 which seeks to limit where firearm parts can be carried or possessed and increased penalties for possession outside of narrowing narrowly defined location.

This bill is yet another unconstitutional infringement on the second amendment rights and it imposes unreasonable restrictions on law abiding gun owners while doing nothing to reduce crime. This bill does not target criminals, but instead places unnecessary burdens on unlawful. On, excuse me, unlawful gun owners who possess or transport firearms.

Restricting the movement of firearm components serves no legitimate public safety purpose and only makes compliance within the law more difficult. Gun owners frequently transport firearms for maintenance repair, as the previous speaker had just said, and there's no justifiable reason to criminalize the possession of firearm components.

This bill increases penalties on responsible citizens while doing nothing to deter criminals. Under the Second Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms includes the right to possess, maintain and transport firearms and their components without unnecessary government interference. This bill places excessive restriction on restrictions on lawful gun owners.

There is no historical constitutional precedence for limiting where firearm parts can be possessed. The Supreme Court's ruling in the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association versus Bruin makes it clear that such broad restrictions are unconstitutional. If the goal of this legislation is to reduce violent crimes, it is misguided and ineffective.

Criminals do not follow gun laws and restricting possessions of firearms will not prevent crime. Instead of targeting law abiding citizens, legislators should focus on enforcing existing laws against illegal gun possessions and crime. Again, there's no evidence that restricting the transportation of firearm components will have any effect on crimes. This bill is unconstitutional.

It's an unconstitutional overreach, a burden on law abiding citizens and an ineffective solution to gun violence. It punishes responsible gun owners instead of criminals. I yield.

Thank you very much. Next we have Ryan Tinajero. Not present. Next we have Jason Wolford. Not present.

Good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

Okay, go ahead, please. Hello, Mr. Wolford. Please proceed.

Yes, thank you again for allowing me the opportunity to speak. I wanted to speak in strong opposition to this as many of the people have already stated the flaws in this law.

We understand the intent, but as stated, if the police wanted to arrest people for carrying parts, multiple people carrying parts, whoever has the receiver would be the criminal because that is the serialized part of the firearm. Also, again, the parts issue, how am I getting parts?

There's many times I need to repair firearms here and I have them delivered. Is that ups guy, fedex or the mail person? There's nothing in the law to allow for any of that.

So essentially you're banning parts being shipped here because those carriers are not going to carry known parts because they could be arrested for simply doing their job. So I think this bill is just creating more problems and headaches for law abiding citizens to continue doing what they do.

Criminals won't do anything with this law other than ignore it as they are criminals. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Mr. Wolford. Next we have Todd Yukutake. Welcome back, sir.

Aloha Committee Chair Todd Yukutake. I oppose this bill. I'm a firearms instructor. I do a lot of recreational shooting. I'm also instructor for work. And you know, guns routinely require repair parts. You know, anything, springs, firing pins, screws, you know, all kinds of stuff. And you know, this bill would make it very inconvenient for me.

Let's say I finish work, I go to a gun store, buy some, you know, bag of screws to repair my gun. Right. And I have, you know, I want to go to dinner, see a movie that night.

I'd have to drive all the way home through traffic just to drop off my bag of screws at home and then drive back to town to do whatever I need to do just over a bag of screws that doesn't present a public health threat.

I mean, I assume that if I present a bag of screws to all of you, you wouldn't be afraid of it or anything. So I think this is kind of a worthless law and very inconvenient for me. I find it also hard to believe that, you know, law enforcement needs a law like this.

I imagine there's a lot of, you know, we have some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation here. You know, he passed a 50 page gun law a couple years ago. You know, he passed a law against ghost guns, all kinds of stuff every year.

I find it really hard to believe that, that law enforcement is having a hard time charging criminals with, you know, gun possession because of this. Yeah, I just don't know. Yeah. But I oppose this law. Mahalo.

Thank you, sir. Next we have testimony from Jennifer Kapwan on Zoom. Please proceed. Jennifer.

Hi, my name is Jennifer Kapwan, testifying for myself. I'm currently a gun owner and I strongly oppose this bill. These regulations on transporting firearm parts shouldn't be considered a criminal offense.

Please proceed. Please proceed.

Go against the right to bear arms. So ambiguous terms like firearm parts and enclosed containers are too vague and should not be used for criminal offenses. I feel like this bill is trying to turn me into a criminal. I'm a female firearm advocate and I currently have different parts that I need to change.

Like, if I want to make my gun look nice, I have to get different parts that are like, cerakoted. So I'll take it to the. Take it to the guy that does the painting for it. And he might not necessarily be at FFL. You know, I'm carrying this around.

As Todd mentioned earlier, I do frequently go to buy parts and travel. I go shopping. It's part of my shopping day. So this would totally be unnecessary to make me a criminal just for carrying my parts around.

Thank you very much. Next, we have testimony from Dennis Dunn. Not present.

I'm right here.

Oh, there you are, sir. Welcome.

Good afternoon.

Please proceed.

I'm Dennis Dunn. I'm the retired Director for the Victim Witness Cocoa Services in the Honolulu prosecutor's office. I'm strongly in support of this measure.

Over the years of my service with victims, worked with many victims of gun violence, I think that any additional safety and security that we can provide for firearms will benefit significantly in terms of people who will be saved from injury or death. I think this is a simple and fairly straightforward measure.

I know that sometimes we tend to think about it more in terms of people intentionally going out shooting someone. But the more secure firearms, the fewer incidents we have of theft, which contributes significantly Hawaii into the amount of firearms we have, since it's not easy to ship them in like other states.

And secondly, I think we always need to think about the fact that it's a lot of suicides that occur with guns. If there's an additional step a person has to go through, it will give another moment for them to think about what they're doing. Doing. Anyway, I support this measure and thank you very much.

Thank you very much. There's no one else who has signed up to testify, so we can go to questions. Members, any questions?

Okay.

Yep. Nobody else wants to testify, so if there's no questions. Members, thank you very much to the testifiers. We're going to go on to the next measure, House Bill 392 relating to firearms. This measure prohibits the possession, transfer, and sale of ghost guns.

It establishes mandatory minimum sentencing for use of a ghost gun in the Commission of a felony. First up, we have the Office of the Public Defender not present. Next, we have Department of Law Enforcement. Mr. Lamber, welcome back.

Good afternoon. Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, we stand in strong support of this measure, and I will be available for questions.

Do you want to highlight your testimony at all?

Okay. So for this. For this Bill in particular, what it seeks to do is to limit the ability to transfer weapons that aren't easily traceable. So that's why we don't want them to be.

Basically, whoever has them has to keep them if they've already been previously registered, because it's too easy to have it fall out of the system if we allow the ghost guns to be transferred.

Thank you very much. Next we have Daniel Hugo, permanent prosecuting attorney.

Good afternoon. Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poi Poi, and Members of the Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs Committee. I'm Daniel Hugo representing the Department of the Prosecuting Attorney for the city and County of Honolulu. This bill is part of our legislative packet. We're addressing here ghost guns, which are essentially unserialized firearms.

After President Kennedy was publicly murdered, Congress looked at ways to trace firearms, and they instituted a serialization requirement for federal firearms manufacturer or federally licensed firearms manufacturers. Today, it is much easier to produce, mass produce these parts with the advent of 3D printing.

And so we've seen more and more of these ghost guns, which are essentially unless untraceable. You know, our Department is very well aware that criminals are going to break laws, but prosecutors can only prosecute with a law. So we need laws in order to be able to prosecute these offenses.

The rest of the bill basically conforms the treatment of unserialized firearms with the treatment that firearms receive elsewhere. So the same sentencing enhancements for ghost guns as with firearms. I'm available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, we have testimony from Michael Rice.

One moment. Okay. All right. Again, this, like the previous bill, this bill is unnecessary. Ghost guns, by and large, are already illegal. This needs to be serialized in order for it to be legally possessed. Just if I scratch the serial number off this, I'm a felon. There's also these talks about, zero, we need these laws.

We need these laws. Half these laws get. Half the charges get thrown out most of the time. I spoke with an HPD officer a few years ago talking about a convicted felon. He caught in possession of five illegal firearms, which should have been a minimum of five year sentences for each gun.

He got probation for two years on what should have been 25 years in prison. So they're saying they don't have the tools. They more than have the tools. Felon in possession on redshift firearms. As I said, transferring this without this privately would break a bunch of Hawaii laws, let alone some federal laws.

So I really don't see why this Bill is necessary. They have the laws already. Use them. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Rice. Next, Glennon Jingo, please.

Thank you, Chair.

That was a big sigh. We're all in this together. Glennon, please proceed.

Thank you. Glad you noticed that. It's been a long day. Thanks very much. Opposition to 392 Hawaii Rifle Association. Just a quick statement. Unfortunately, like many firearm related bills, using terminology that strikes fear in folks that are not accustomed or educated on firearm types, equipment and so on does a disservice to our community.

It also casts a negative light on our recreation and quiet enjoyment of firearms for use. Unserialized guns may be the more appropriate term to be used. We currently have a federal and state law that says you cannot transfer, you cannot take or import an unserialized firearm.

So we already have a law on the books, like the previous gentleman said, in order to prosecute. It's up to the courts from that point forward. The problem with this approach includes this particular Bill is that it does not recognize these state and federal laws and starts to apply additional laws that in many cases are unenforceable.

The folks that build guns from kits use of machining have every right to do so. Just as folks have the right to build models, explore creative ideas, invent new material and processes. The American spirit of tinkering, discovery, invention should not be impeded.

We have a long history of that in our country and we encourage that kind of creativity. Many industries that we have, including firearms, have started out in garages, basements and backyards of America. Also, many firearms collectors have rare antiques that when made were not serialized because there was not a law in place at the time.

These antiques are still used in law abiding citizens today. I'll give you a personal experience. I imported an antique firearm for purposes, collection and investment. That firearm did not have a serial number. I'm referring to HPD on the Big island because I spend most of my time on the Big Island.

And I don't want to say that there's inconsistencies between the different departments, but in this case, I brought that to the attention of HPD when I went to register it, that it was unserialized. They were able to provide me with a serial number and ask that that serial number be transferred to the firearm by them doing it.

And I said, well, if I send it back to point of origin and have it professionally done, then it will retain the value of that gun. I can then import it, have a serial number, register, and be a legal owner of the gun. So that gives you an example of that.

There are guns out there that shouldn't be called ghost guns, that are collectible guns, antique guns, but we still have to abide by the law and professionally have it serialized.

So if I was carrying that gun when I was sent that gun as an investment and someone saw me with that gun, or an officer saw me with a gun and didn't have a serial number as I was bringing it to the Police Department to get serialized, I would have been arrested and criminally charged by doing the right thing.

So that's a problem with it. I'd like to say that, you know, there's some things that have to be worked through on this Bill to make sense, and we shouldn't be vilifying all of this stuff because we don't have the knowledge base yet to do so. Thank you so much.

Thank you, Mr. Jingo. Next, Andrew Namiki Roberts on Zoom.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members. There's a huge problem with this law, outside of the fact that it prohibits the manufacturing or possession of self made firearms, because it doesn't allow you to add a serial number to a firearm after.

And that's the wording that means that every single firearm in Hawaii automatically becomes a ghost gun under this law. Current law does not register firearms with a federally licensed dealer. They're not allowed to register firearms. It's actually illegal. There's a actual federal law that says that the Federal Government cannot register firearms.

Now, they can record sale and they can record serial numbers, but they do not register them. If you pass this law as written, every single firearm in Hawaii overnight will become a ghost gun. And every Single firearms possessor, 150,000 registered owners across 1.5 to 2 million guns, will become a felon overnight.

Not only that, but you wouldn't be able to buy parts or manufacturer parts yourself to build firearms and add a serial number like you currently can. Last year the state passed a law prohibiting the possession of an unserial. Why all firearms have to be registered in the state.

This law does nothing that isn't already on the books other than enhance our punishments. I've got no problem with punishing criminals. The problem is with this law. You've now got two separate laws, two different sets of wording that creates conflict. How is that going to be sorted out? There's no repeal of the old law in this Bill.

I don't think that we're aware of it. You know, we've got confusion again from the Department of Law Enforcement where we're saying that we don't have something for this, but yet we clearly do. It was passed last year and the previous year before that. Two different parts of the law.

I don't know what the confusion is with these people and our current laws. They need to do their research before trying to pass new laws. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, Anthony Dean. Not present. Next, Tamara Mckay.

Thank you again. I will read my testimony. I am against HB 392 in strong support of the Second Amendment. First, I just wanted to state a statistic that there's 4.9 suicides per per 100,000 people who use gun for suicides. We are the fifth lowest gun suicide rate in the nation to date.

I am again, as I said, I'm in strong opposition to 392 which prohibits the position transfer and sale of the so called quote unquote ghost guns while also establishing mandatory minimum sentence for their use in felonies.

This Bill is again an overreaching infringement on the Second Amendment right that unfairly targets law abiding gun owners and does nothing to deter actual crime. That's what we need to be focusing on is actual crime. The term ghost gun is misleading and politically charged.

The reality is that many firearms have been legally built by private citizens for generations. As the previous speakers have stated stated, homemade firearms are legal under federal law and responsible gun owners should not be turned into criminals for practicing a long standing American tradition.

Private firearm manufacturing has been legal since the founding of this country and restricting this right is an attack on both the Second Amendment right and the private property rights. HB 392 does not target criminals, as I said before. Instead it punishes hobbyists, gunsmiths and collectors who legally build firearms for personal use. This Bill makes it.

The Bill makes legally owned and legally built firearms retroactively illegal. This is an unconstitutional violation of private ownership rights. Felonies involving firearms are already highly illegal under Both Hawaii state law and federal law, adding mandatory minimums specifically for you could please summarize.

Ms. Mckay.

I'm reading my statement.

I need you to summarize. I've asked everyone to keep their testimony to two minutes. I'm being courteous. If you could please summarize.

Now, I'm. I'm reading my testimony, and I have. I have that right under freedom of speech to say what I want to. And you are tax. You are tax paying. We pay you your salaries. I'm a. Ms. Mckay.

Please, please summarize your testimony.

I am going to continue to read my testimony as submitted. I have a right as a taxpayer. Please continue. The State of Hawaii.

Please continue.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled the District of Columbia versus Heller and New York State Rifle Pistol Association versus Bruin, that broad gun restrictions like this violates the Second Amendment. Banning legally built firearms is unconstitutional. This law does nothing, again, to address violent crimes.

This Bill is another attempt to erode Second Amendment rights under the guise of public safety while doing nothing to stop actual criminals. I urge you to oppose HB 392. I yield.

Thank you. And just to all testifiers, I do have the authority to limit you to two minutes. It's not a freedom of speech issue. I ask you just to be courteous and keep to two minutes. I'm being very reasonable. Next, we have Mr. James Wallace not present. zero, and one more thing.

If you're testifying by Zoom, please do not have any trademarked or copyrighted images behind you, because it does kick us off of YouTube, and you would be. No other Member of the public would be able to watch us, and I know you don't want that to happen, so. So. Okay. Next. Ryan Tanajero.

Aloha, representatives. Aloha. I just wanted to stand on my written testimony already submitted pertaining to my opposition to HB392. One of the problems I want to highlight in person is the problem with serialization in General.

I know it's probably been brought up earlier, but just again, wanted to repeat that concern that there's no real definitive way of validating the serialization once it's done. Like, is it going to be done through just the FFLs, or is it going to be done through HPD? It looks like it's going to be duplicated when it's performed.

In addition, the re injection of the term mandatory minimum synthesis, it reminds me of the time when it was brought up historically, when it was very unpopular and was considered both racist and just problematic for society at large, which Resulted in a lot of mass incarcerations for people who weren't doing a lot of violent crime.

Here there's an express focus on crime.

But if crime is a concern, then I urge you to again work with your counterparts in the city County of Honolulu and with the other state counterparts to increase law enforcement presence and allow them to serve as a determinant to crime, not just to so called ghost guns, but to other forms of crime as well.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much for your testimony. Next we have Jason Wolford.

Yes, thank you again for the time to speak. I wanted to speak in opposition of this bill as many people have already stated the unconstitutionality of this because we're allowed to build firearms ourselves.

And the vagueness of the way this is written, written as Andrew has spoken about, can put people in a lot of peril with this law. There are ghost gun laws on effect in that you guys passed. Two year and two past two years you've passed ghost gun laws.

I would urge PD if they have a problem, they need to work stronger on their end along with the prosecuting attorneys. As stated before from an individual that they should not be just summarily dismissing these charges because it's already illegal to have a ghost gun.

This is just a duplicate bill and I feel it's just to raise rhetoric and fear in the General public.

Thank you for your time. Thank you for your testimony. Next we have Jennifer Kapwan on Zoom. Please proceed.

Hi, this is Jennifer. And I strongly oppose this bill. I just want to point out that, you know, this bill because it's a duplicate of previous bills that have already been passed and I haven't seen on the news where anybody has been prosecuted for having a bunch of ghost guns.

There's a lot of crime out there that I don't see anyone getting prosecuted for. As far as firecrackers, illegal aerials and these kind of small things. It doesn't make me feel safer to feel that this bill will be passed. As a mother, as a citizen of Oahu, I don't feel safer.

So I don't understand what benefit this bill. It doesn't give a benefit to pass this bill just seems to create more unnecessary details and confuse the people.

Thank you very much for your testimony. Next we have Todd Yukatake.

Aloha, Todd Yukutake. I oppose this bill, HB 392. Well, first of all, I oppose the possession of ghost gun part, but I support the trying to punish criminals more part. As far as the ghost gun part, we Fought really hard against the ghost gun Bill several years ago. We think it's unconstitutional.

But now bringing it back again, this issue back again, saying you can't arrest these criminals with, you know, the ghost guns you've been pushing really hard against. It's like, why didn't people figure this out before? To me, it's kind of like incompetence with whoever proposed this law in the past.

And it doesn't give me too much faith in the justice system as far as the supporting the harsher punishments. I'm all for that, punishing criminals, more especially violent criminals. But I wonder why this enhanced sentencing is required. I mean, the prosecutors can ask for.

Well, I don't know how the criminal justice system works exactly, but assume the prosecutor can push for harsher sentences, judges can pass down harsher sentences, and parole boards don't have to parole people.

So to me, it also speaks of incompetence in the justice system, that these people aren't doing their jobs to protect us from criminals, and that maybe we have to focus on better judges, better prosecutors, better parole system instead of pushing laws like this. Mahalo.

Thanks very much. That's all the testimony that we received today. zero, you're here. I called you earlier. Welcome back. The public defender.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Sonny Gannon, deputy public defender. My colleague Seth Patek filed our testimony.

I called you earlier. We do have your testimony.

Thank you, Chair. We are in opposition as written. Of course, ghost guns are federally illegal and they have been for the last several years. The way to save this Bill, we believe, is to just add ghost guns to Section 1348 rifle for shotguns and add the definition.

The addition of the charging document is going to mean that there's going to be possibly two forms of charging. And then when it goes before a jury, that could likely be appealed by a fairly crafty defense attorney. So in order to make.

In order to make this successful, just add ghost guns to the statute and add the definition and then take out the extra charging document.

Thank you. Thank you. Good to see you again, sir. So that's all the testimony that we've been signed. That's all the testifiers that have signed up. So questions Members on HB392. If not, we'll move on to the next measure, thanks to all the testifiers. Next is House Bill 125 relating to firearms. This one.

This measure requires retail sellers of firearms to provide purchasers with notice regarding the law on firearm storage, expands the requirements for the secure storage of firearms, and clarifies the offense of criminally negligent storage of firearms. On this we have first up, Mr. Glennon Gingo.

Thank you again, Chair. I hope I didn't sigh again on that.

You did, but I didn't say anything.

It's a good thing. I'm sighing in a good way. On the Hawaii Rifle Association, we stand opposed as written. The bill needs some definite work here. There's some talking points. You know, your firearm storage is a matter of personal responsibility and no two situations are the same. Firearm owners should and do store their firearms in a manner that prevents unauthorized access, but there isn't a one size fits all approach.

You know, single woman living alone, high crime area is going to have different storage needs than a family with a house full of children. You know, you know, our homes are our cherished space. Our homes are our private space. Someone to come in and tell us that we're not doing or storing something properly is really an overreach.

So HB 125 will likely result in firearm owners keeping their firearms locked up at all times out of fear of prosecution, which really renders them inaccessible for self defense purposes or any other purpose for that matter. In addition to being subjected to criminal charges, HB 125 also wrongly holds the firearm owner solely liable for negligent or criminal misuse of a third party, should they obtain their firearm and it wasn't stored in compliance with this legislation.

You know, I think of this as someone steals my car in front of my house, goes out for a joy ride, runs over three people. I'm going to be criminally liable for the fact that I owned an automobile that someone stole? I mean, that just doesn't make sense to me.

Rather than punish individuals after the fact, why not focus on prevention, such as education and safety campaigns, which there are right now. There's a national safety campaign. Every new firearm that is sold by federal mandate has to have in that case information about firearm safety and prevention, and it comes with a gun lock as well.

That's every new firearm right now, and has been for several years, contains those safety protocols and inclusions in that case when the new firearm is sold, such as. And in doing that, that's an incentive and incentives to put much more of the money into additional campaigns.

I saw one that was a Brady Campaign posted on on TV last night. It was great. It showed someone putting their gun in a locked case because they had kids in the house. So I think there is an education component we need to focus on that than to have overreach and criminalizing people that want to do the right thing anyway. So thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Next, we have testimony from Susan Trombley online. Please proceed. If you could unmute yourself, please.

Susan Trombley, I live in Kapolei. I am a gun owner from a family of hunters. I am a retired teacher that had an eighth grade student in my classroom with a gun. I am a mother of a school shooting survivor. I'm a grandmother. I am here because I support HB 125, which would require all gun owners to lock their guns stored or to keep their guns stored locked when they are not in use.

Keeping guns securely stored at home is one of the most effective steps that we can take to prevent unintentional shootings, youth gun violence, school shootings, and gun thefts. I worry a lot about kids and teens getting access to guns. They're at a life stage where decisions can be impulsive. Making it harder for kids and teens to get easy access to guns could be the difference between life and death. Thank you so much.

Thank you very much. Next, we have testimony from Rachel Logan. Welcome. Please proceed.

Thank you. Thank you for hearing my testimony today in support of HB 125. Access to a gun triples the risk of suicide, and with our high rate of deaths by suicide in Hawaii, we need to be proactive on secure firearm storage. Guns stolen from cars and homes are the single largest source of guns used in crimes nationally.

And in more than 75% of active shooter incidents in K12 schools, the shooter obtained their guns from their home or the home of relatives. Gun owners have responsibility to not leave these weapons vulnerable to misuse, and secure firearm storage will save lives. Gun violence is the leading cause of death for children in the US, and this is a step we can try to take to prevent senseless loss of life. Please support this common sense gun legislation. Thank you.

Thanks for your testimony. Next, Kelly Sampson.

Hello. My name is Kelly Sampson and I'm Senior Policy Counsel at Brady, which is the nation's oldest gun violence prevention organization. With an amendment, which I've detailed my written testimony but won't get into for sake of time here, we strongly encourage a favorable report for this bill.

Given the short time, I want to focus my testimony on constitutionality and say definitively that safe storage is constitutional. The Supreme Court noted that its opinion in District of Columbia vs. Heller would not, quote, suggest the invalidity of laws regulating the storage storage of firearms to prevent accidents.

And then in Bruen, the Court held that firearms laws should accord with the Second Amendment's text in historical understanding. And there's ample evidence that safe storage laws do both. The Supreme Court itself noted a 1783 Massachusetts law that forbade citizens from taking or receiving loaded firearms in dwelling houses and other buildings.

And that's just an example of one of many early American laws regulating firearm and gunpowder storage. And since the Bruen test is that a gun law has to accord with historical understanding, there's strong basis for these laws. Secondly, modern storage devices are compatible with the self defense interests that the Supreme Court has deemed the heart of the Second Amendment in two key ways.

First, today's gun safes and trigger locks allow firearm owners to retrieve and operate their weapons within seconds. And second, safe storage devices keep people who should not have access to firearms, like children, from intentionally or unintentionally harming themselves or others. In this way, safe storage devices also defend firearm owners and their families from being harmed by their own weapons.

We know that this is really important because more than 4.6 million children in the US live in homes with unsecured guns. A study published by the American Academy of Pediatrics in 2018 found that, within a sample of parents who own guns, only one third stored them safely. A lot of children actually know where their firearms are hidden, even though their parents think they don't. So I see that my time is coming to a close. And once again, we strongly encourage a favorable report for this bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, Terriann Mohideen.

Good afternoon. My name is Terriann Mohideen. I am a mother and a member of this community. I urge you to support HB 125 having to do with secure storage of firearms. When we hear in the news about a horrific school shooting or a child who unintentionally shot and killed one of their friends when playing with a gun in the home or when a teen dies by suicide with a gun, we feel a great, great sadness. Many of these happen when that young person gains access to a gun in their own home or the home of a relative or friend who was not properly securing their firearms. Please help keep our keiki safe here in Hawaii by passing this law. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, we have testimony from Deborah Nehmad.

Good afternoon, and thank you for this opportunity to testify. I will stand by my submitted testimony, and I would just like to add that I've sat through a lot of these hearings and I understand the sensitivity of individuals who want their Second Amendment rights respected.

But I would ask each and every one of them to take a minute and think about how your rights have impacted the children and the students of our community. I have addressed classes of children who are petrified when they go to school, and now the millions of dollars that are spent on securing a classroom.

And your child now has to have active shooter drills and the number of children who have nightmares because they come home because they've active shooter drills. So, please, when you consider your opinion, consider the rights of these children and their parents and their teachers. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

One last thing. On my testimony, I submitted for my testimony about this bill, I actually initially put it under the earlier bill about safe storage. So I assume you caught that, but just in case. Thank you.

Thank you for that clarification. Next, Olivia Lee.

Good afternoon, Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe, and members of the committee. I am Olivia Li. I'm Policy Counsel at Everytown for Gun Safety, which is the nation's largest gun safety organization with over 11 million supporters nationwide, and on behalf of Everytown, I urge you to advance HB 125. This bill strengthens Hawaii's storage laws in important ways.

Currently, Hawaii law says firearms must be securely stored only if the person knows--reasonably should know that a minor is likely to gain access to the firearm without a parent or guardian's permission. And the misdemeanor penalty for criminally negligent storage only applies if a minor actually accesses the firearm.

But this bill requires that everyone keep their firearm securely stored using a trigger lock, a lockbox, or a gun safe when the firearm is not in use. Secure storage is one of the most effective steps we can take to prevent unintentional shootings among children, youth gun violence, and school shootings.

Secure storage practices are also absolutely critical in preventing gun crime. Many firearms recovered at crime scenes were stolen from lawful owners who may have failed to take the proper steps to prevent theft. So to this end, Everytown encourages this committee to include storage solutions that address access by unauthorized users in addition to minors.

Specifically, we recommend that a gun owner be held accountable when either a minor or a person who is legally prohibited from possessing firearms obtains their guns. So while millions of responsible gun owners follow recommended storage practices, and we so appreciate that, research shows that more than half of gun owners do not store all of their guns securely, and so for that reason, I urge you to advance this bill, and I thank you for your time.

Thank you very much. Next, Christopher Thomas. Not present. Next, Erica Yamauchi.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, and committee members. I'm Erica Yamauchi, volunteer state co-lead for Moms Demand Action, Hawaii Chapter, representing our three groups on three different islands and more than 2,000 supporters statewide in strong support of this bill, and I stand on my written testimony but I did just want to share my personal story about gun violence.

As a gun violence survivor, I lost my best friend in tenth grade when I was in high school to gun violence when he was staying over at a mutual friend's house. They had unsecured hunting guns in their home and we lived in a small town, a rural town, and everybody had--most people had guns in their home, including my own family.

However, even though we are around guns all the time, we still need to make sure that people are securing those weapons safely and securely, and I really believe that his tragic death could have been prevented by secure storage that this bill provides.

So historically, we have had low incidences of gun violence in Hawaii, but as we know, unfortunately that is rising. I moved back to Hawaii in 2010 to raise my children here because of in part of our low violence rates, and it really pains me to see the headlines and that changing, it seems, in Hawaii every day.

So I just wanted to, again, thank you for the common sense gun policies that the Legislature has provided for in the past and just say that our historic gun rate--gun violence rates being so low are due to that sound public policy, and just urge you to pass this bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, Michael Rice on Zoom.

Michael Rice, again, testifying in opposition. They're actually somewhat mistaken about the gunpowder storage laws. Those were actually Building Code and Fire Code laws meant to ensure fire safety because black powder is highly flammable and cause explosions and they mandated how powder magazines are built so that if there was an accident it would just blow.

It would blow up with a false roof instead of blowing out. Anyway, that's a side tangent. It is, as I said earlier, it's a matter of personal responsibility how the firearm is stored, and no matter what, there's somebody who's going to be able to get access.

My own safe I have, somebody with a crowbar could get into it in five minutes and it's a, you know, you would not think that. It can be accessed in seconds if they know how to lock pick or if they just find out where I hid my key. Again, this is my primary gun.

It is in use by me all day, every day, as it's my primary means of self-defense in my home. Where I keep it, it is concealed and hidden, not locked away because if I had to do that, that's extra time I have to spend from when the threat presents itself to when I get my gun.

There's--my apologies. There's also, that a lot of the, a lot of the requirements for this are quite expensive, like a proper gun safe can run into thousands of dollars. Never mind if you have to get shipping and handling. A lot of the more affordable options on Amazon are not as secure as you think.

I've seen blue--I've seen biometric scanners fooled with a piece of paper and a little bit of grease on the, on the fingerprint scanner. I've seen Bluetooth apps hacked and safes open with like that.

I've seen safes designed so poorly that behind the brand label they have a little panel that peels off and you can just stick your hand in to grab the gun. So this--while this is well-intentioned, it's, you know, it's a matter of personal responsibility and against the Constitution when you get down to it. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Next, Mr. Andrew Roberts. Mr. Roberts, please proceed.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, committee members. Thank you for the hearing on this. This bill is an extension of what Hawaii current law is. We've heard a lot of testimony talking about protecting children. Hawaii's law already requires firearms owners to secure their manner in a way that's not accessible by a child.

A person's home is their caution. That is their security. Under this law, as it's written, if somebody breaks into my house and breaks into my lockbox and takes the firearm and uses it to shoot somebody, I wouldn't be prosecuted from that. It only covers non-criminal access to it.

If I choose to secure my firearm within my home, which I do, I keep my firearms either in a safe or in a locked office where it's inaccessible to my child. It's inaccessible to other people unless they cause criminal damage to get into it.

I think our current laws are adequate. When we're putting in all these other steps, you know, Hawaii's current gun laws are over 20,000 words. You're just creating a more complicated situation when what we have already stands muster and does exactly the same thing that we do. We're just adding extra words and extra complications that are confusing.

As it was already stated, FFLs already provide gun locks with every gun. They already come with the documentation talking about safe storage. Now we're mandating something that's already mandated by the federal government. You're creating additional confusion because Hawaii's laws might not be exactly the same, but the wording may be covered under the same law.

You know, if I choose to store my firearm in my house unsecured and it's used in a crime, I could be charged with other crimes. There's reckless endangerment, there's child endangerment. There are additional charges that can be put on to me already. There're already felony charges that can be put in place. So this law isn't really needed. We already have the laws in place. Adding more words and more sort of explanation to our current laws just creates more and more confusion. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, Anthony Dean. Not present. Next, James Wallace. Not present. I thought he was testifying. Next, Jay Franzone.

Aloha, Chair, members of the committee. My name is Jay Franzone. I live in town just down the road on South King Street. I'm also a Bloomberg American Health Fellow focusing on violence at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health. I've been fortunate to call Hawaii home for the last three years.

My fiancé is applying to JABSOM this year and hopes to go back to Kauai and serve his community. I'm here today because I care deeply about our community and the well-being and safety of others. In my work, I focus every day on preventing firearm violence, injuries, and death.

And research shows that access to the firearm, as mentioned, triples risk of suicide, which is especially concerning here where we have so many comorbidities--high cost of living, housing instability, geographic isolation--and when we look at this, additionally, the guns that are stolen from cars and homes are the single largest source of guns used in crimes.

So locking them up seems like common sense. As mentioned already, 75% of active shooter incidents in K-12 schools, the gun comes from a parent's home or a friend or family's home, right? That may not have happened here yet, but it could, and I see it every day happen on the mainland. We don't want it to happen here.

By passing HB 125, we can ensure responsible gun owners store their firearms securely and becomes part of the practice, keeping our community safe. Thank you.

Thank you very much for your testimony. Next, Allegra Giacchino, Everyone on TV wants to see you. Just briefly summarize your testimony.

So I'm standing in support of my written testimony and a number of the points have already been made by our group, but this seems like a common sense gun law and it's easy to enact and we need to keep our kids safe. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, Chris Marvin.

Aloha, Chair and members. Bring this up here. I'm strongly in favor of HB 125. Anything we can do to increase secure storage is going to save lives. It's really important that we remember that about two years ago in the United States, the leading cause of death became--for children and teens--became guns for the first time. Okay?

So across the United States, children and teens are dying. As Andrew mentioned, we already have a law like this in place for homes with children, but we value all lives equally, no matter their age, so this law needs to expand to include all people, all gun owners, and particularly for me as a veteran, I care a lot about veteran suicide. Veterans are three times more likely to die by gun suicide and 75% of veteran suicides are by gun.

It is the weapon of choice. We have a lot of veterans on this island, and sometimes that secure storage can add that time and space that a veteran needs to rethink their plans. Lost and stolen guns have been addressed, right, the idea that safe storage prevents lost and stolen guns, but mostly for me, this comes down to something I learned in the military, which is that there's three pillars of gun culture in the military.

They are training, safety, and accountability, and every single one of these gun owners over here and gun rights advocates tells us that they are responsible gun owners. I learned accountability in the military--that's the same thing as being a responsible gun owner--that means you store your weapon securely.

For all of them that say they can't get to their gun in time when someone's, you know, coming in to steal their TV, they need to check out one of those biometric safes that opens with your fingerprint faster than you can open a drawer. So they are, they're hedging on that. We can have safe storage and respect the Second Amendment. This law is a great law. I urge you to pass it. Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much for your testimony. Todd Yukutake?

Aloha. I'm opposed to this bill, HB, the--sorry, whatever it is--125. You know, I believe that firearm owners should responsibly store their firearms, you know, so other people can't access them. However, what I'm opposed to is that gun owners are being singled out for this.

You know, again, focus on the criminals, not the legal gun owners. The other thing is, why isn't this applied to everything? Knives. Knives are used in a large percentage of murders and suicides. Same with prescription drugs, car keys, cars, right? Machetes. How many of you lock up your knives at home? How many knives are stolen every year?

Right? Why doesn't this apply to everything? And that's everyone being responsible, everyone being safe for each other. And, you know, it just seems like common sense to me that this should apply to everything because you want everyone to be safe, you know, regardless of what tool is used in crimes or suicides, right? Should apply to everyone.

If your knife gets stolen from your home or someone, you know, child takes it out of the home unauthorized, you know, injures someone else, homeowner should be responsible and get that misdemeanor, too, just as any gun owner would, right? So that's why I'm opposed to this bill. I respect, you know, safe, responsible gun ownership, but again, we're being singled out. Mahalo.

Thank you very much. Next, Elna Nagasako.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, and committee members. So my name is Elna Nagasako, and I live in Makiki, and I'm here in support of HB 125. And so I was born and raised in Hilo and I've lived in a variety of locations both with a whole different set of gun laws, a full range of gun laws.

I've had friends, relatives, and co-workers who owned guns for hunting, for self-defense, for recreational shooting, and all the people that I knew were responsible, level-headed, they really cared about health. A lot of them were physicians or public health professionals and they all received their gun locks, as was mentioned, a cable gun lock when they purchased it.

They received, you know, this education. And because of that, I really wanted to believe that all these guns are being stored securely. I'm sure a lot of people in the room who are gun owners are doing that.

However, as a physician and having a public health background, I also know that as much as we might want to believe that, that's actually not the case. The statistics have been mentioned. Fifty-four percent of gun owners in one study, you know, they didn't store the gun securely.

And you know, people talk about different kinds of needs and that is 100% correct. I just want to highlight that in that study they incorporated asking about not just gun safes but all different kinds of gun-secure methods, and still 54% did not store the gun securely.

And that has impacts not just on people's homes, not just on people's own families, but also on the entire community. People have discussed the effect on, you know, illegal--on criminality, right, in terms of this being a source of illegal guns as well as the impacts on child suicide and especially, you know, the lethality of that suicide.

When someone tries to commit suicide with a firearm, it is highly, highly lethal in contrast to other methods of suicide. So for these reasons, as a parent, as a physician, I urge you to support this measure. Thank you.

Thank you very much for your testimony. Next, Jennifer Caban on Zoom. Please proceed.

Hi, my name is Jennifer Caban. I oppose this bill because I feel like it's an overreaching and there's some search and seizure concerns. How will this lobby enforce? Will I be subject to random inspections looking for a crime?

A misdemeanor offense for this law could mean a felony as I believe the law was passed last session for a misdemeanor with somebody with a concealed carry--it will be bumped up to a felony. So I'll be a felon for whatever they find wrong with my case that I'm carrying my firearm. There's already laws on this.

I don't feel like there's more that needs to be done, and this bill also includes for me to be responsible if there's a third party that is not storing my firearm properly. So that's where my concern comes for that misdemeanor to a felony charged.

So please stop creating laws that try to punish law-abiding citizens and focus on the criminals with illegal guns that they don't store their firearms properly. I believe if a criminal or anyone wants to get a firearm, they will be able to do it.

We recently had somebody break into our car and they took the time to saw through that cord that attaches the safe to the chair. So thankfully, my firearm was not in that safe, but they took the whole safe. So even if you lock it up or whatever, that's not going to prevent any criminals from obtaining your firearm.

Thank you very much. Next, Ryan Tinajero.

Representatives, I stand on my written testimony as written concerning my opposition to HB 125. Don't want to belabor too many of the points highlighted, but there is one I still wanted to bring up again. It's concerning the rationality of the prosecution of the firearm owner.

When an other actor, particularly a criminal actor, already commits one crime by, one, stealing their firearm, and then two, using that firearm for a criminal act. All prosecution or any legal action should be focused on just the crime actor. The firearm owner shouldn't be collateral in these instances. In addition, I just want to emphasize again, as other participants already pointed out, to focus again on criminal activity reduction.

Obviously, when it comes to theft, you can't really have someone steal anything if they're not around to actually steal. You can see in the most recent example from previous testifier, if someone is really determined to get into a safe, break a lock or otherwise, someone's going to do that. But if they're not, and without the capability to even do that in the first place, they don't have to worry about it.

And final point, I see there's a lot of concerns about suicides and access to firearms. Taking away one mechanism is one is only one way of dealing with the problem of suicide overall. Suicide's a concern, then separate legislation could be enacted to focus on treatment and prevention since turns out there's other ways to commit suicide and don't want to go too much into that because it's a touchy subject. And that's all I wanted to address with respect to this bill. Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much for your testimony. Next, Dennis Dunn.

Good afternoon again, Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe. I'm strongly supporting this measure. As I cited on the other bill regarding safe storage and transport, I believe that having safe and secure firearms can contribute significantly both to the safety of individuals living in the home where the firearm is stored, as well as the general public due to an additional obstacle to burglary and theft.

I would like to direct your attention again also to my arguments and concerns about the implications of this in preventing suicides. Earlier, I cited my professional experience with working with victims of gun violence, and I stay with that. But this goes back for me many years to my childhood growing up in Michigan.

There were two boys living within a short distance of my house within a year's time period that both were killed because firearms were not safely stored and secured. And that stuck with me all these years. I'm getting old. That was over 65 years ago. This is a long standing problem. It's time for us to help solve it. Thank you.

Thank you very much. That's all the testifiers that have signed up to testify on this measure. We're going to go to any questions, Members. If not, we're going to move on to the next measure. Thank you all to the testifiers. Okay, we're moving on to House Bill 893, relating to firearms.

This measure establishes prohibitions on assault rifles, assault shotguns and 50 caliber rifles, expands the ban on high capacity detachable magazines and establishes exceptions on this measure. First up, Glennon Jingo.

Thank you, Chair Tarnas. I didn't preface a lot of my presentation by saying that I am an unpaid volunteer. So traveling from the Big island and doing this is based on volunteering for many of the recreational things that I enjoy and the education that I do in firearms. You know, the bottom line is about safety.

I think you received February 5th testimony from the National Office of the NRA from Keely Hopkins and the Hawaii Rifle Association supports that same position.

I'll just go ahead and read that as it's coming from the Hawaii Rifle Association and I'll go So on behalf of the Members of the National Rifle Association of Hawaii, I'd like to communicate our strong opposition to House Bill 893 would drastically expand upon Hawaii existing assault pistol ban to now include many commonly owned rifles and shotguns by instituting restrictions based on a single feature test.

Those in HPD that know these tests know that there are several features that have to be there to qualify. These firearms are widely used for self defense, recreation, shooting and hunting. I myself participate in many of these events. One of them is three gun competition where this is one of the most common parts of the firearm.

The magazine which is whether it's 510 or 20 or 30 rounds, is inconsequential. It's what is used and has been used for many, many years rec rail shooting and has been vilified due to this cosmetic feature.

The legislation is poorly drafted and expansive in such a way that some of the features could be left open to interpretation that puts again law abiding citizens at risk. And that's, you know, it's a concern for U.S. second Amendment and our personal rights.

Additionally, HB893 would impose a ban on standard capacity magazines capable of accepting more than 10 rounds. The so called high capacity magazines are in fact standard equipment for almost all commonly owned firearms that many Americans legally and effectively use for entire ranges of legitimate purposes such as self defense or competition.

This legislation will have no impact on public safety. There has been no proven correlation with magazine capacity in any gun shootings and it's evidenced by congressionally mandated study on the federal assault weapons ban that stood in place for a decade.

Instead, this legislation will negatively impact law abiding citizens who own more than 25 million AR and AK platforms. Could you summarize Glenn? Yes. Throughout the United States for lawful purposes. And thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Thanks for traveling all the way over here. Next, Ellen Carson on Zoom.

Ellen Carson, thank you so much testifying on behalf of the Church at the Crossroads. And thank you Committee for your efforts to create a safer community for all of us. The Church of the Crossroads is fully in support of this bill.

Hawaii is the only state in the nation that has an assault weapons ban that fails to ban assault rifles, assault shotguns and and large capacity magazines for those weapons.

We have instead a very unfortunate compromise reached decades ago that banned assault pistols and the large capacity magazines for them, but not the assault rifles, shotguns and large capacity magazines. So we ask you to close that gaping loophole in our current assault weapons ban.

The problem with assault rifles is that they're designed with military type features that are very efficient for military needs but very dangerous in civilian hands.

It's simply unreasonable, especially in light of the new Supreme Court decision that allows carry permits in public to have people walking around with semi automatic rifles that have the features that these guns have that can wreak so much havoc so quickly.

So we do ask you to approve and pass this Bill along so that we can all feel that we have a safer community. The sooner that we can pass a Bill like this, we can finally stop the continuing growth of assault rifles and large capacity magazines.

As you've just heard, the proliferation of these things even in our community has grown and grown over the years but can be stopped once we finally enact a full assault weapons ban as other states have. Thank you so much.

Thank you very much for your testimony. Next, Susan Trombley on Zoom.

Aloha. Again, my name is Susan Trombley and I just want to remind you that I am a gun owner from a family of hunters. I am a retired teacher that had an eighth grade student in my classroom with a gun.

I am a mother of a school shooting survivor and I'm a grandmother with grandchildren in schools here in Hawaii. I'm here because I support HB893 which would prohibit dangerous assault rifles like the AR15. Our state does have strong gun laws, but we have A major loophole. We still allow civilians to purchase semiautomatic assault rifles like the AR15.

These weapons have been used in almost all of the deadliest mass shootings in America, which is why nine states currently ban them. We cannot wait for a mass shooting to happen here in Hawaii before we act. I am supporting this Bill. Thank you so much.

Thank you very much. Next. Kelly Sampson.

Thank you for the opportunity to voice strong support for this bill. Among other things, HB893 bans the importation, sale and transfer of assault rifles, assault shotguns and 50 caliber rifles. No one needs something like A.50 caliber rifle for self defense. Assault weapons are weapons of war.

The only functional difference between an AR15 and a military issued M4 rifle is that the latter can shoot more than one bullet with a pull of the trigger. With an assault style weapon, even a novice can perpetuate a mass casualty incident. That's why many of the deadliest mass shooters were not particularly experienced with guns.

But they chose these weapons. And mass shootings involving assault weapons can be extremely lethal in injury. The death and injury counts of these have risen in recent years. An analysis of mass shootings between 2009 and 2018 shows that in shootings where assault weapons were used, six times as many people were shot compared to those without them.

Research shows that banning assault weapons leads to a drop in gun massacres. In the 10 years that the federal assault weapons ban was in place, gun massacres dropped by 37%. And after the ban expired in 2004 they skyrocketed by 183%.

With this Bill, the Hawaii Statehouse has the power to stop and prevent any of these uniquely American tragedies from happening in the State of Hawaii. These weapons of war have no place in the hands of civilians. They are not necessary for the type of self defense envisioned by the Supreme Court in Bruin.

As research shows that in a typical self defense incident, an individual only has to fire only about two shots. Brady is proud to support HB 893 and we thank you for the time to talk about this Bill.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Next, testimony from Rachel Logan.

Thank you. Appreciate you hearing my testimony today in support of HB893. Hawaii has long prohibited assault pistols and I think it should set the same standard for assault rifles and high capacity maps magazines. My main issue with these weapons is that their gunfire is not survivable. I might stand a chance against another weapon, but not these.

They can devastate a body in a second and have been used in almost all of our country's deadliest mass shootings. This Bill would allow people to keep the weapons they already own and they would still be able to legally purchase a large variety of weapons suitable for hunting and feral wildlife control, including some semiautomatic rifles.

The bottom line is military grade weapons do not have a place in civilian life for the average citizen. There's a vast amount of other guns available that meet the need for sport hunting or protection. We do not need to own rapid fire military grade weapons. Please pass this Bill to set the safety standard across the state.

Thank you very much. Next. Harrison Tarter on Zoom.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chairman and Members of the Committee. My name is Harrison Tartin. I'm testifying on behalf of the Vet Voice Foundation. I've submitted detailed written testimony. I just wanted to share a little bit about my perspective. I know these weapons well. I served as a recon scout platoon leader in the Army's 10th Mountain Division.

I've carried an assault rifle countless days in training and I carried it overseas in Helmand Province, Afghanistan. These weapons were never meant for our streets, schools or communities. Their firepower is excessive for self defense, unnecessary for hunting, and devastating in the wrong hands. We all should know the difference between responsible gun ownership and battlefield weaponry.

This state has a long, has long prioritized public safety and responsible firearm laws. This Bill continues that legacy. I urge you to ban assault rifles and keep these weapons of war off our streets and out of our communities. Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much for your testimony. Next. Deborah Nimad.

Good afternoon again and I stand by my submitted testimony. I would just like to use one visual aid here because a previous testifier mentioned That102030 caliber capacity, there's no difference. This is about 35 bullet holes that were shot within a 10 second time period. So I'll just leave you with that.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Next. Olivia Lee.

Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe. Sorry, let me turn my video on. Thank you for having me today. I'm Olivia Li, Policy Counsel at Everytown for Gun Safety. We strongly support HB 893. This bill will bring uniformity to Hawaii's current laws on assault weapons by giving all kinds of assault weapons the same treatment under the law.

Hawaii has long prohibited the possession, transfer, and manufacture of assault pistols bills. But unlike the other nine states with assault weapons laws, Hawaii does not prohibit assault weapons that are rifles or shotguns, including the AR-15 and other semi autos rifles that are used in the deadliest mass shootings.

This bill works just as all the other current state assault weapons laws work. It prohibits semi automatic rifles and other semi automatic firearms that have the ability to accept a detachable magazine including a high capacity magazine and have one or more militarized features. These features, I think, were first officially identified by the ATF in the early 90s for the purpose of import regulations to prevent certain imports of military style weapons or military weapons.

And they include things like pistol grips, which enable one handed firing, threaded barrels to allow for the attachment of silencers or flash suppressors, and folding and telescoping stocks, which make weapons more maneuverable or concealable. This bill is a targeted proposal that focuses on specific and highly dangerous weapons that are left out of Hawaii's current laws.

It permits more firearms than it prohibits and it does not affect commonly used hunting weapons or handguns. And residents of Hawaii who currently own guns like the AR-15 could keep those guns. And residents who wish to acquire similar weapons for purposes like wildlife control could still get featureless semiautomatic rifles. So I will end my testimony there. Thank you for having me, and we urge you to advance this bill.

Thank you very much. Next, Terriann Mohideen.

Hello again. I urge you to support HB 893, prohibiting certain types of assault weapons. When doctors describe the children killed at the elementary school in Uvalde, Texas, 21 killed. Or Sandy Hook, Connecticut, 26 killed. Or the high school shooting in Parkland, Florida, 17 killed.

Or the people massacred at the concert in Las Vegas, 60 killed and more than 500 injured. And you know, I could keep listing these mass killings by assault type weapons in the US. Those doctors described pulverized almost unrecognizable bodies. Bodies that could only be identified in some cases by the children's cartoons on their clothing or the tiny sneakers on their feet.

And this is what happens when an assault weapon, a military style weapon meant for war, for use against our enemies abroad is allowed into our communities. You could say, well, this has never happened in our beautiful state. And they also said that in Uvalde and Sandy Hook and Parkland and Las Vegas, until it did happen. Please protect us by passing this bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, Erica Yamauchi.

Good afternoon again. I'm Erica Yamauchi, volunteer state co-lead for Moms Demand Action Hawaii, representing local groups on three islands and more than 2,000 supporters statewide in strong support of this bill. And I stand on my written testimony. And Olivia made quite a few good points already, but I just wanted to again kind of bring my own, you know, personal background into it as a mom of two children in our public schools. I also teach part time at UH.

Unfortunately, thinking about mass shootings and violence is kind of an everyday thing for me and my family. And again, in Hawaii we have long prohibited these assault pistols. And it's time to update the law to include long guns with military features.

I also wanted to mention that in Hawaii, I think a lot of people, because of this assault weapons ban on pistols, assume that we already have a ban on assault rifles as well. According to our own polling last year, upwards of 70% of people in Hawaii don't agree with having assault weapons in the state. And I think a lot of people think that we already have a full ban when we don't. So I just wanted to make that point. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you very much. Next, Michael Rice.

Okay, first and foremost, testifying in opposition. This is a violation of at least four Supreme Court decisions I can think of. Caetano, Heller, Bruen, and Rahimi. These, these weapons are commonly owned by many individuals throughout the country, cannot be banned.

And the wording of this ban is so broad that this little hunting rifle right here would be bad just because it has one feature. Also, I can hold this with one hand too, so I don't know what they're talking about, not being able to use a pistol grip. That's not a pistol grip.

So this would be a de facto ban on every semi automatic rifle out there. And I'd also ask why are the police exempt from these, from being banned from carrying these weapons of war if they're so destructive and only useful for killing so many people at once? Especially when we hear all about how trigger happy the cops are lately.

The recent shooting on Maui, a couple different ones I can't think of. Sorry, I'm getting worked up. But you know, you're... And no, I would not be able to keep my rifle if I took my rifle, if I took my AR-15 to the mainland for a hog hunt. And yes, we do use these for hunting. I could not bring it back home. I would have to go sell it to somebody. I'd probably sell it to somebody who doesn't have an ID for very cheap. So this would only make things less safe overall.

And I'm not sure if I mentioned this already, but the current assault weapons ban as well as the magazine ban in Hawaii is being legally challenged. And there's also a couple, a couple different court cases sitting before the Supreme Court ramp right now challenging assault weapons in general as well as bans on high capacity magazines. I do not foresee this bill surviving legal challenge if it is passed. Thank you very much. I yield the rest of my time.

Thank you. Next, David Alvarado. Not present. Next, Andrew Roberts. Mr. Roberts, are you there? No, not present. Next, Anthony Dean. Not present. Next, Gavin Heideman. Mr. Heideman, please proceed.

Can you all hear me?

Yes, please proceed.

I'd like to submit my testimony in opposition HB 893 for many reasons, including ones that were already before mentioned by other individuals who made all good points. I'd like to specifically point out that for those of you who say that military style firearms do not belong in the possession of civilians, you should look to the original intention of the Second Amendment, which is to protect individual citizens and groups against a tyrannical government or foreign invasion or domestic and such.

Also the hypocrisy and calling towards tear jerking methods for large volumes of fatalities, which of course is always bad. But when here in Hawaii we have over 1400 fast food restaurants and over 3700 deaths per year associated with heart disease, stroke, and other health conditions directly derived from those establishments which fully and legally sell products that can and will kill you. And they're sold to children, they're sold to adults.

So on vehicular accidents in which speed is always a factor, a vehicle is moving, the speed is considered a factor. When a production vehicle can go 200 miles an hour from the factory, our highest speed limit in the State of Hawaii is 60 to 65 miles per hour. So to point out the dangers in one aspect of life for hunters and Second Amendment practitioners but to ignore it in other fields just points out a little bit of bias in what they're trying to...

They're trying to prevent fatalities in one section while ignoring it in the other. Can also go into how alcohol, prescription drugs are used in suicides and for overdose deaths which are not intended suicides. Also I could go on in that aspect. The fact that I could go out in the parking lot right now, get into a car, drive headfirst into a crowd of people, and there's, you know, obviously no control there. Of course you could...

Could you summarize, please, sir?

This unconstitutional bill would ban and eliminate a lot of commonly used firearms by people who intend to never commit a crime. I go hunting with my AR regularly, and those who say you don't need a semi automatic to hunt, they have never seen a group of boars. They get over 300 lbs. They can run 30 miles an hour. All right, thank you so much for your time.

Thank you very much for your testimony. Next, Chris Marvin.

I swear they cut me off sooner than everyone else.

Aloha, Chair Tarnas, Members of the Committee. My name is Chris Marvin, and I'm an army combat veteran who lives in Nuuanu. I'm strongly in favor of House Bill 893, and I'm grateful for the opportunity to highlight portions of my written testimony. I carried an M4 rifle in Afghanistan. The military taught me that this weapon's purpose was to take human life. Military style semiautomatic rifles send 5.56 millimeter projectiles at three times the speed of sound into a human body with startling accuracy at a rate of six rounds per second.

Upon impacting the human body, this projectile tumbles, ricocheting off bones, eviscerating organs, and exiting through a gaping wound. Most often, these weapons kill. They do not leave many injured survivors. 75% of Hawaii residents support a prohibition on military style semiautomatic rifles, including nearly two thirds of gun owners.

So when the gun extremists testify, know that they only speak for themselves and the small group of hobbyist friends. They don't represent your constituents' opinions. I do. They'll tell you it's unconstitutional. It's not. Nine states have similar laws and none have been overturned. The big gun lobby will lie to you and tell you that hunters and ranchers need these guns. They do not. They do not require the high cyclic rate and muzzle velocity that comes with a weapon designed solely to kill humans.

If you feel you haven't heard enough on this bill in support of it, that's because voters think we already have this on the books. They confuse our assault pistol ban with an assault weapons ban that is more comprehensive. That's because every other state that bans these weapons includes assault pistols and assault rifles in the law.

Every other state in the top 10 for gun strength laws bans assault weapons except for Hawaii. We rank seventh in that ranking. We've slipped from third because of this loophole. Today this Committee is going to hear three bills about fireworks in the wake of a tragedy that took six lives as of yesterday.

Please don't make us return in a future session to try to prohibit these weapons in the wake of a mass shooting tragedy when lives have been lost at a beach park, a shopping mall, a church, a sporting event, or God forbid, a school. Pass this law now.

Thank you. Next, James Wallace. Not present. Next, Klayton Kubo on Zoom. Please proceed, Klayton.

Klayton Kubo, lifelong resident of Waimea, Kauai. I am in strong opposition to this bill because I have multiple, multiple semiautomatic firearms. In the end, it's like, like, like the previous speaker testifier said, against the tyrannical government. It's in this... Come on now. What is going on?

Us legal, registered gun owners, we're not into doing that kind of crazy stuff. Please reconsider and think about what about if the. I know I cannot use this word, but I will spell them out. S H I T hits the fan. In a way, we gotta protect ourselves because who knows what might happen. So please, Rep. Tarnas, really think about this one. Mahalo. Aloha.

Thanks, Mr. Kubo. Next, Brandon Young. Thank you. Brandon, do you want to say anything to highlight your testimony? Thank you very much for being here, sir, and thank you for your testimony. Next, we have Malia Shimokawa on Zoom. Please proceed.

Hi. Thank you for having me. My name is Dr. Malia Shimokawa. I'm a physician, a former army officer, and a mother of three. I grew up in Hawaii. I spent the majority of my life here, and I'm raising my family here. I served nearly a decade in the military, including deployment to Iraq, and I now care for thousands of keiki across Hawaii as a pediatrician in Aiea. I have been in a combat zone. Assault weapons are designed for war because they are designed to cause maximum devastation.

And as a pediatrician, I am constantly reminded that gun violence is now the leading cause of death for children and teens in America. Hawaii has always been a leader in public safety. By banning assault rifles, we can prevent the kinds of tragedies we see too often on the mainland. As a veteran, a doctor, and a mom, I urge you to pass House Bill 893 and protect our children. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, Ryan Tinajero.

Aloha again, Representatives. I stand on my written testimony in opposition to HB 893. I just want to highlight some points and not be too repetitive. I find the issues, again, with the high capacity detachable magazine misnomer that's presented yet again. I haven't, when going to any stores or reviewing any catalogs that sell detachable magazines, haven't seen one that advertises itself as high capacity. If you find one, please let me know because I haven't seen that just yet.

Also, when it comes to the proposals to reduce magazine capacities from a standard 30 round capacity to a 10 round magazine or less, it could result in cycling problems in the firearm because that could create injury for the end user and constitutes a negligent suggestion. So I advise that you remove that part because that's just improper.

In addition, there's another concern that I'm still trying to figure out the logic behind this part. This is found in section four. It's about what makes a so called semiautomatic firearm or any other firearm variation, whether it's automatic or semiautomatic, suddenly not dangerous when the use of service members or law enforcement officials.

In those cases, the same so called assault rifle that is fully automatic in its capability suddenly turns into a service rifle, patrol rifle. And the reason being is because turns out firearms can protect. If that were not the case, then our law enforcement officers wouldn't be armed, they wouldn't be allowed to our communities, they wouldn't be allowed in schools or anywhere on the streets in order to protect citizens of Hawaii as they are authorized to do so.

Also, I just want to remind you, in closing, that multiple variations of this bill, either segmented into different independent bills or merged together like in HB 893, have failed in 2019 to present. They haven't gotten a lot of support since then, and I don't anticipate they'll get much support in this year, next year in 2026, 2030, or anytime in the future. So I just wanted to remind you about that part. Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much for your testimony. Jay Franzone.

Aloha. Again, my name is Jay Franzone. I study violence at the Bloomberg School of Public Health. And again, you know, this bill closes the gaps, right, that have been spoken about already by prohibiting assault rifles and shotguns with military features while again maintaining these commonly used shotguns and rifles used in hunting.

My uncle uses these on Kauai. If you read the bill and you actually read the text, you would see that you get to keep your gun if you already have one like this. Right. You can still use it for agricultural uses. And again, the original law has holes. It's time to close them. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, Jason Wolford on Zoom.

Yes, hello. Thank you. Appreciate the opportunity to speak. My name is Jason Wolford. I'm speaking in opposition to this bill. I am not a radical or fringe gun nut. In fact, my wife and I are firearms instructors here on Maui County. The problem I have with this bill, besides many things that have been said before, my wife has, we have a shotgun for home defense. It has an adjustable stock because I am 6'2, my wife is five foot one. This allows her or I to utilize this firearm for self defense.

God forbid that situation arise and present itself. So you are limiting people and their ability to effectively and safely defend themselves and their family. Also with this bill, as stated before, if I were to go to the mainland to go on a mule deer hunt, I would not be able to bring my rifle back.

I would be a criminal for doing that, for importing it. The one feature is just basically eliminating a whole host of firearms, that just is not right. As stated before in the Heller and Bruen, these are commonly owned used firearms throughout the country by millions and thousands of lawful gun owners and they cannot be banned.

This is currently sitting in front of the Supreme Court from multiple jurisdictions and be challenged. Does the State of Hawaii really want to duplicate that and have the incur the cost again of trying to defend this bill on those grounds that are currently being challenged and will most likely be won? Thank you for your time.

I appreciate your consideration. And it is our constitutional rights to own this, even though people don't like it. I don't like people that drive Toyota Tacomas, but there are more deaths on our highways from those than there are AR-15s in the state. I yield my time. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Next, Melissa Pavlicek.

Aloha. My name is Melissa Pavlicek. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. You have my written testimony, and I know it's been a long afternoon. I just wanted to add my personal connection to my advocacy on this bill. In addition to being an attorney and a small business owner, my daughter and I met a man here at our State Capitol who had been shot five times and survived. I feel quite certain that had he been shot by an assault weapon, he would not have been alive to tell his story and to befriend us.

And he made a profound difference in our lives. We recently traveled to Washington, DC. My daughter represented a gun violence prevention organization at a national conference. And there we attended the museum memorializing the victims of gun violence, and I hope to never see any more horrible Hawaii victims memorialized there. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Next, Pierce Young.

Aloha Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe and the Members of the Committee. I just want to say I don't. Have a lot of fancy rhetoric here, but I'm just not particularly interested in getting harmed by one of these weapons. And so I stand in support of these bills.

Thank you. Next, Allegra Giacchino. Thanks for coming up to the podium.

You know, I really care about this because I'm deathly afraid of public speaking, but I'm still doing it. So my name is Allegra Giacchino. I live in the Kahala area, and I'm here today in strong support of this bill and asking for your support in making the safety of our communities the top priority.

Military style assault weapons and high capacity Amish magazines are designed to kill large numbers of people in seconds. And we've seen it over and over again. And these weapons have no place, no legitimate use in civilian hands.

I was really alarmed to discover that Hawaii is the only state with an assault weapons ban that does not actually ban assault rifles and assault shotguns such as the AR15. This really just doesn't make sense. We all know that those are the exact weapons that are used in mass shootings over and over again.

I urge you to close this dangerous loophole today. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Jennifer Kapwan.

Hi, my name is Jennifer Kapwan. Stand in opposition to this bill. And I stand by my written testimony. And I would like to also add to that testimony that I don't know where everybody has been if they pay attention to what's going on on the island.

But we did have a mass shooting in Hawaii and it was in Waianae. And the one person that defended their entire family had a legal firearm. The person that attacked the family with a front loader and also shot three people dead, he had illegal firearms.

If I was that one person that was defending my family at a family party, I would want the ability to have as many ammunition as I could because he saved his family's life. And that was a real life situation. It's not something that happened in the mainland. It happened here.

So I strongly oppose this bill that limits the firearms that we're able to use. According to the Constitution, it's our right, it's given to us by God, and it's not a privilege. And I encourage you to stop using verbiage such as assault rifles and its comparison to how illegal aliens. You guys hate those terms, illegal aliens.

You rather have undocumented foreigners. But same terminology. We need to just stop the rhetoric and stop putting on just emotions and stick to the facts. Also, because censorship is not a thing anymore under this new Trump Administration, the public is much more aware of how these bills are going through and who is pushing them through.

So I'd like to remind the Committee that your constituents are very much informed and they're keeping an eye on you. I yield.

Thank you very much. I'm glad my constituents are keeping an eye on me. That helps me do a good job. Next, Christopher Thomas on Zoom, not present. Next, Dennis Dunn.

Thank you again, Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe and Members of the Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs Committee. I'm in strong support of this measure. As highlighted by everyone else, there's really only one purpose for these guns that is to quickly kill a lot of people. We don't need that in Hawaii. We've banned assault pistols.

It doesn't make any sense not to also ban assault rifles. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Dunn. Next, Elna Nagasako.

Aloha to the Committee. I'm testifying in support of HB 893 and I've actually long been hesitant to testify on assault rifle legislation because I know that the AR15 and similar semi automatic rifles are actually very popular, versatile, they're accessible for those interested in recreational shooting.

I've known people that own all different kinds of firearms for hunting for self defense and it kind of pains me to talk about these kinds of regulations because when I picture gun users, you know, that's who I picture.

But then as a physician, as a parent, I just can't ignore the fact that firearms are the leading cause of death in children and adolescents. School shootings, which unfortunately the same features that make this popular for recreational shooters have also made them popular in these school shootings or mass shootings.

The number of school shootings has increased substantially in the last five years and school mass shootings have increased in lethality. And so from a medical perspective. So an AR15 or similar firearm, because it has a muzzle like energy that is much greater than that of a handgun that actually creates this wave of tissue destruction.

It goes much beyond the bullet hole itself and as others have alluded to, is extremely damaging from a medical perspective. So the case fatality rate of this type of weapon was 100% at Sandy Hook, meaning that no one, none of these children survived and it was 50% at the Parkland shooting.

So I do support this legislation, it that it continues to allow the purchase of semi automatic weapons while it restricts the combination of certain features such as related to magazine size that unfortunately play a role in mass shootings. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you, Doctor. Next, Todd Yukutake.

Aloha, Todd Yukutake. Just wanted to clarify something that Kapwan said about the self defense shooting and Waianae. She said something about illegal guns. She meant the three criminals that attacked the homeowner. I saw some kind of confused thoughts there. So basically, three gang members, armed gang members, went to this guy's house and shot him, shot the homeowner.

I talked to him about the story. He got a graze right here from all the bullets, almost died from it. He returned fire with his AR15 and he was able to stop the attack right then and there. If he was armed with a handgun, it would have been a very difficult fight for him to win.

So these firearms, you know, a lot of people talk about the bad side to them. There's a lot of good things about it too. Like that saving a life, right? Happens all the time in Texas. One of the church shootings, there's a active shooter in the church.

One of the neighbors grabbed his rifle and returned fire to that guy, which stopped the attack. And Williford is the last name for that one. It also protects the freedoms of U.S. Americans and people in Hawaii. I was born on July 4, 1976. Bicentennial baby. So I have an interest in America's founding and the Constitution.

The second amendment was created, you know, soon after the American Revolution where, you know, militiamen, you know, just regular people in the community, use their own firearms to stop the British. And so when people say these are military type rifles, there is a purpose for them, for militia.

You know, maybe it's not as relevant now, but still part of our history and rights. I know a lot, you know, I can understand why a lot of people don't like them, but they're all right. And, you know, you don't always agree with rights. I don't agree with what everyone says, but I respect their First Amendment right.

Same with Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, you know, search and seizure and due process. So, yeah, this is unconstitutional and that's why I oppose it. And there is a Supreme Court case coming up, Snopes vs. Brown, that is pending cert at U.S. Supreme Court right now. Mahalo.

Thank you. Thanks very much for your testimony. That's all the testifiers that have signed up on this measure. Any questions, Members? No questions. Thanks very much to the test fires. That's all the firearms measures that we're considering today. Thank you. All the testifiers who came here for the firearms measures.

We're going to move on to the fireworks measures now. And so if you care to head out, you're most welcome to. We're going to move on to House Bill 1005 relating to fireworks. The Administration Bill regarding fireworks amends multiple definitions of firework offenses, heightened penalties. If you want to talk, could you talk out in the hallway?

That'd be great. Everybody who wants to talk, just talk out in the hallway. Establishes criminal offenses of General fireworks, articles of pyrotechnic prohibitions and many other things. Let's move on to the testimony. First up, we have. Oh, we have Tricia Nakamatsu, Attorney General. Welcome back.

Good to see you and good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Deputy Attorney General, Tricia Nakamatsu appearing on behalf of the Department of the Attorney General. We are in strong support of this bill and thank you so much, Chair, for hearing it.

We do suggest one amendment which is at the very end of our testimony in detail. As you know, the bill covers quite a lot of ground in the sense that it would amend definitions, increase some certain penalties, clarify a certain, a fair amount of offenses, create a few new offenses and establish non criminal fireworks infractions.

We can, we're available for any questions. We would like to note that although some of the smaller details were open to discussion, any new ideas, good ideas that the Committee would like to add to the bill to supplement or revise.

The overarching goal really is to give our law enforcement and prosecutors better tools to more effectively enforce our Hawaii fireworks control laws, to ensure that offenders are held accountable and to hopefully deter people from doing this type of activity in the first place. Available for questions, if any. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Nagamatsu. Next, a testimony from the Office of Public Defender. Mr. Gannon.

Good afternoon again, Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair of Poepoe. As an exempt employee of the State of Hawaii, I was about to say I yield, but we can't do that.

You don't have to say that. You know that.

All right. The Officer of the Public Defender would like to Note that between 2018 and 2022, 94% of the citations for fireworks related violations on Oahu ended in dismissal or drop prosecutions. So despite this bill's intent, we need better enforcement, not new bills.

In our lengthy testimony, we do discuss how there are problematic issues legally with the bill. They have to do with concurrent trial provisions. The bill creates both a civil and a criminal trial happening at the same time. In the criminal one.

You're going to get a public defender in the civil one, you're not, because they come out of the same facts and circumstances. This is going to lead to appeals, probably by our office, and probably lead to illegality.

So although the intent is here, we think that if the issue is, you know, curbing fireworks usage, it can be done with other builds that are currently before the Legislature. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next. Mr. Mike Lambert, Department of Law Enforcement.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. The DLE stands in strong support of this bill. The issue that we are having at the ground level is having a law that is easily explainable to a beat officer as well as an advanced investigator.

We do believe by working with the AGS on this language, and we have been given. They have basically said that with this law we would be able to move forward on prosecution. So some of the things that frustrates the community is that they don't see the citations right for the amount of, I guess, illegal fireworks.

And it creates frustration. The reason why officers don't want to cite is because the language is so cumbersome that they don't want to have to write a ticket only to have it thrown out. So, for example, if the law is easier to use, a layman can explain it. It goes boom, bam, pow.

I can give you a ticket and move on. Great. For the more egregious distribution violations now, they are much more serious, especially when they deal with harming others. So. And I'll be available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next. Jerome Piccaro, Honolulu Police Department.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair and Committee Members. I'm here on behalf of Captain Jerome Porcaro of the Narcotics Vice Division. My name is Ernest Robello. I'm a lieutenant with the Narcotics Vice Division. I'm here just to say that the Honolulu Police Department supports this bill.

Thank you very much. You're welcome, sir. Next. Stephanie Kendrick, Hawaiian Humane Society. Not present. That's all the testifiers we've said. That's all the testifiers that said they want to testify today on this measure. Any questions, Members? Nope.

I want to thank the Administration for introducing this measure, and we're going to move on to the next one, which is House Bill 1483 relating to fireworks. It does almost the same thing because I understand this is basis of the 1005, but it was introduced by one of our colleagues here. So. First up, Mr.

Lambert, Department of Law Enforcement.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chairman of the Committee. For the same reasons previously discussed, we support 1483.

Thank you, sir. Next. Trica Nakamatsu.

And good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Deputy Attorney General Trisha Nakamatsu. On behalf of the Department, we are in strong support of this bill as well. It does essentially the same things as the bill that was previously heard.

It would strengthen laws, change definitions to be more manageable, more common sense, and more usable, frankly, for law enforcement and prosecutors to. To properly enforce the fireworks control laws available for questions, if any.

Thank you. And I note that you recommend the same amendment.

I apologize. Yes. Thank you.

1483.

Yes, we do have the same amendment that we recommended in the prior bill. We also have several other amendments that we're recommending.

Just to clarify things, make it very clear that certain definitions are alternative definitions and not additional requirements that would also also need to be proven in order to prove aerial devices, consumer fireworks, or fireworks, for example.

Also, with regards to removing the maximum weight for those portions of the penalties that rely on weight to determine the severity of the offense, we feel that that could avoid some unnecessary issues in the future.

Thank you. Thank you very much for your testimony.

Thank you.

Next. Honolulu Police Department.

Good afternoon again. This is Lieutenant Ernesto, Narcotics Vice Division of the Honolulu Police Department. We are here in support of this bill.

The Honolulu Police Department supports all legislation which helps to reduce the use of illegal fireworks and helps us strengthen the current fireworks law so we can maybe prevent in the future the incident that occurred this recent New Year's Day. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next. Stephanie Kendrick. Not present. Next. Joshua Duy Lansad.

Good afternoon. Aloha Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe. My name is Joshua Duy Lansad and I am here representing HE Power, which is Hawaii Explosives and Pyrotechnics LLC. We are a local small business here in Hawaii. We are the only legal fireworks company in Hawaii. We've been doing this for over 30 years.

You might have seen our work on Fridays out In Waikiki, maybe 4th of July or possibly even New Year's. We do about 95% of all the big fireworks in Hawaii. And we applaud our policemen, our fire. They're doing a good job and we really want to back them on that.

But the way that this bill is written, there's a few things that would put us out of business. And so I'm here in testimony to be in opposition, as it's currently written. There are a few things that I would like to highlight.

First, the actual current statute, HRS132D-5, has a line that's written that allows us to do everything legally and that's in section A, it shall be unlawful for any person without a permit issued. And this is what's been taken out.

So we want this to be put back in where it says without a permit issued under section 132D-10 by county fire department. So what it'll allow us to do is we get our permits and we can continue to do what we're doing. It's been taken out.

And then the second thing is, I just want to bring light to 132D-6, where we define entities that continue flying pyrotechnics with planes. So it's illegal to fly pyrotechnics. You know, it's just a legal thing. You cannot do that.

But for us, when we do these events, let's just say Bruno Mars or Carrie Underwood or whoever it may be, a lot of those pyrotechnics have to be flown in because it's their specific thing for their show. So it's the only way we can do it.

We do this legally, and we do this with strict federal and state permits. And so we're just asking for that also to be looked at. Thank you so much.

Thank you very much. That's all the testifiers that said they would testify today. Any questions, Members? If not, I'm going to move on. Thank you very much to the testifiers. We're going to move on to the next measure, House Bill 550, relating to fireworks. This measure has a couple of parts.

Allows video recordings made by law enforcement agencies using unmanned aerial vehicles to establish probable cause for an arrest under the fireworks control law. And it goes on. And it also appropriates funds, Department of Law Enforcement, for purchase of unmanned aerial vehicles for this purpose. 550. First up, we have Office of Public Vendor.

Again, Chair, Vice Chair. The Office of the Public Offender believes that this bill is unconstitutional. The Fourth Amendment, which protects individuals from unlawful search and seizure, you know, an officer from approaching you without probable cause to find that you may have been committing a crime and then addressing you taking your property. We believe that extends to drones.

And a De facto finding a probable cause is just, frankly, unconstitutional. We cite much law, including a 2017 Supreme Court case and several cases by the federal courts, which state just the same. The other part of the Bill having to do with the pay for drones, we have no issue with. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next. Honolulu Police Department.

Good afternoon again. Lieutenant Ernest Robello, Narcotics Vice Division, Honda Police Department. I'm here just to testify today that we support this bill.

Thank you. I appreciate Your testimony. Next. Hawaiian Humane Society. Stephanie Kendrick not present. Those are all the testifiers that said they wanted to testify today. Any questions? Members seeing none, will move on. Thank you. To the testifiers on the these fireworks measures. We're going to move on to another topic now. Okay. This is not quite so controversial.

House Bill 307 relating to special number plates. This authorizes the issuance of special number plates to recognize the island of Kaho. Michael Naopi in support. And I think not here. Next Joshua Kaakua.

Aloha Chair, Tarnes Vice Chair. Poepoe, Members of the Committee, my name is Joshua Kaakua. I'm providing testimony and support on behalf of the Protect Kohlawe Ohana. We think this bill is well designed and has the potential to inspire and educate and perpetuate Aloha Aina across our communities. We stand on our written testimony and support.

I just want to make a couple of highlights in that. We did a little petition, we just started it last week to see who would be interested in purchasing a specialty license plate. And in my testimony, I said we had over 250 folks sign up.

And then in the past couple days since I submitted my testimony, we got another hundred. So over. Over 350. So I think there's a lot of support for this out there. The Protect Kohlawi Ohana, we're 100% volunteer, Grassroots nonprofit organization. So thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony and support.

Thank you very much for your volunteer efforts. Appreciate it. Next. Daviana McGregor on Zoom. Welcome. Good to see you. Please proceed.

Hi, Aloha. My name is Daviana Pomekai McGregor. I'm a longtime Member of the Ohana and I want to say that I stand on my testimony and I support the testimony of the Protect Claviohana.

And I just want to note that when I see the Hokulea license plate, it triggers memories of how the Polynesian Voyaging Society revived traditional wayfinding in Hawaii and the Pacific. And when I see the Volcano national park played, it reminds me of the magnificence of Pele.

So I think this Koholawi license plate is very fitting reminder of the significance of the island of Kohlawi and the accomplishments of the Aloha Ina movement. And I thank the Members of your Committee who have supported this and signed and introduced and supported the bill. And I hope that you will all support moving it forward.

Thank you very much. Aloha.

Thank you very much. It's an honor to see you Again, Aloha.

Aloha.

Next, testimony from Kuule Salazar. Not present. Next, testimony from Kim Kuule Bernie. Not present. Next, testimony from Lorraine Wayanuhea. Not present. Those are all the testifiers that said they wish to testify today. Any questions Members? Seeing none. Thank you very much to the testifiers. Let's move on. House Bill 501 relating to the Department of Law Enforcement.

This measure establishes the agricultural enforcement program within the Department of Law Enforcement. Establishes the Agricultural Enforcement Special Fund, establishes positions and appropriates funds. First up, we have testimony with comments from the Department of Budget and Finance. And we have testimony from the Department of Law Enforcement. You want to testify on it? Okay. Thank you. Testify.

So the Department of Law Enforcement has submitted testimony and support. Next, we have testimony and support from the Hawaii Cattlemen's Council. Nicole Galasse on zoom. Nope, not present. And the next person who wanted to testify is Brian Miyamoto, Hawaii Farm Bureau in support. And I saw him earlier, but he's not here now.

That's all the testifiers that said they wanted to testify. Anybody have any questions on the Committee? Seeing none. We'll move on. Thank you so much. To the test. zero, we do have a question, Mr. Shimizu. Please proceed.

I guess I could ask Law Enforcement Director Lambert. Yes, please. Sorry, Director. Thank you. Chair. Yes, Sir. We're discussing 501 establishing an ag enforcement program. And my question would be, are there alternate options for enforcement and what. What is being done now?

So I think that the concern from some other legislators is that there's not the same amount of coverage in the ag and rural areas. This is a new issue to me when I came on on Monday. So when I was able to meet, I wasn't quite sure the necessity for it.

And I met with a very impassioned Legislator who explained to me the need for enforcement in the rural areas. And I think after I thought about it after his meeting, the reason why we're kind of in this situation is that the cities and counties, they allocate resources based on population density. So.

So when you're in your rural areas, you're not going to get the type of coverage you need, which essentially ends in a lack of reasonable enforcement on ag lands.

So if we were to create this agency or this addition, we would have to take a look at it as personnel per land mass or per area versus population density. So alternate ways would be for the counties to extend their resources and to reallocate to more rural areas.

Of course, if it's state land, and that should fall on the responsibility of the DLE and dlnr.

However, currently there's not enough uniformed or armed personnel in these regions, thus leading to trespassing, thefts and other very concerning actually, where there's a belief that perhaps they have to police their own, which can become very dangerous if people feel the need to take action against trespassers without the use of law enforcement.

Can I follow up a question? Thank you, Chair.

Director, I guess, you know, not being familiar with the operations, but just thinking logically, instead of trying to set up a whole new additional division with staffing and all of that, couldn't you just increase funding and staffing under your current operations and dedicate those people specializing in that area of AG enforcement?

I would be able to with additional bodies, but I think the purpose was for this legislation was to ensure that it would be a focus group of individuals that were specifically trained for AG crimes and those investigators would essentially be specialty investigators that would support the AG community.

But to answer your question, yes, if I did have enough General personnel and based on the allocation of resources, it is possible for it not to be an additional unit. Yes.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Director.

Okay.

Thank you very much. Representative. Any other questions? If not, thanks very much to the testifiers. Let's move on to the last measure, House Bill 740 relating to housing.

This measure establishes the Accessory Dwelling Unit Financing and Deed Restriction program to allocate funds to the counties to provide grants to eligible homeowners or home buyers to finance construction costs, development costs and non reoccurring closing costs associated with the construction of an accessory dwelling unit and purchase deed restrictions on such property.

First up, we have testimony from the Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation not present. Next we have testimony from the Attorney General's Office.

Good morning, Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe and Members of the Committee. I'm Deputy Attorney General Chase Suzumoto and we provided written comments on House Bill 740. In our testimony, we suggest amending this bill by inserting appropriate standards for the award of grants by the counties. And I'm available if you have any questions. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Next we have testimony from the Department of Taxation.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Clinton Piper, Department of Taxation, Rules Division, will stand on a written testimony available for questions.

Could you highlight, just for your TV audience, Everyone wants to know, just could you give us some highlights for the testimony?

Certainly. The main, the main thrust of the highlight that or so the main. Excuse me. The main thing I would like to highlight is we did make a Request for an amendment specifically to page 28, lines 13 through 15. The purpose of this amendment would be to clarify what I believe was the.

Or what we believe was the intent of the original Bill, which would make clear that the transfer of the deed restriction itself would not be considered a conveyance and would be exempted from conveyance attacks. I think that's the most important part of his testimony.

Indeed it is. And that's important that you mentioned that. Thank you very much for doing that. Next we have testimony from Lindsey Garcia, Hawaii Realtors.

Welcome Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, My name is Lindsey Garcia from the Hawaii Realtors.

Just wanted to highlight our comments here that the only concern that we have with this bill is that the deed restrictions in the measure are in perpetuity and that having deed restrictions on a property in perpetuity could be problematic for future land use planning as communities can change over time, over decades, hundreds of years.

So we respectfully suggest that the deed restriction be amortized over 10 years, but are also open to any other proposals or alternative time frames. And we look forward to continuing the discussion on this matter. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next we have testimony from Aruna Heim Arjuna for Hawaii Apple Seed, Hawaii Appleseed. Could you come up to. Everyone wants to see you on TV Land. So if you could just summarize your testimony, that'd be great.

Hi, Susan Leo with Hawaii Appleseed in strong support of this Bill. This is a unique innovation to help our affordable housing crisis in the fact that it essentially creates its own locals only market that is legal within our system and is also income blind.

So it allows for a large population of our residents to be able to remain housed or receive housing. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next we have Tax foundation of Hawaii not present. Next we have Josh Wish. Thanks for your patience. Please. Floor is yours.

Thank you, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, and thanks for sticking around. I know it's been a long afternoon. Josh Wish with Hollomua Collaborative. Thank you very much for hearing the bill.

Just a couple quick things, as the chair has said for anybody watching in TV Land, we put some context in our testimony that our related organization, Hollomua Collective, had recently done a survey of 1500 residents who were locally employed.

And one thing just to highlight for the Committee Members was one of the things we asked was do you think you're going to need to move to a less expensive state? And almost 70% of people said either yes or I'm unsure. And almost 2/3 of those said it was because of the cost of housing.

And so as Appleseed had noted, we do see this as a innovative way to deal with that approach and to try to provide housing that local residents can actually get into.

One of the things that's nice about it is it is based, especially the deed restriction portion of it is based on a solution that's been successful in other jurisdictions like Vail, Aspen, other places that have a similar challenge that we do with really expensive, essentially resort communities where the people who live there who work there can actually afford to live there anymore.

And we think this is a good approach that has been proven in other places. Just two last quick comments. One, we are aware of the AG's comments about just putting some of those requirements for grant requirements for the counties. We think that's fine.

And we have also been Lindsey and I have been talking about some of the comments from the Realtors and I'll be happy to continue talking with them about that. One thing I'd like to note why we don't think that the perpetuity language is really going to be a problem.

Is is just to underscore for the Committee Members that the way this works is the county is actually buying the deed restrictions from people who are in this program. So the counties actually own those deed restrictions.

So if there are problems down the line in terms of whether there are environmental concerns and housing would need to be moved if there would be other adjustments, the counties, as the owner of those deed restrictions actually do have the ability to act on those. So that kind of a nimble ability does still remain with that.

I'm here for any questions you've got. Thanks a lot.

Thank you, Mr. Wish. Next and final testifier is Perry Aerosmith.

Aloha. Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, I'm here on behalf of Housing Hawaii's future. We stand in strong support of this bill and we'd further echo Mr. Wish's comments. We remain very adaptive and amenable to this bill and we urge you to further this bill.

Mahalo. Thank you very much. All the testifiers we have on this measure. Questions, Members represent Shimizu.

I'm not sure who, who can answer this question, but I guess my concern with this Bill is I know that it's income blind and I, I would prefer that it would give preference to lower income people that possibly or probably would need more financial assistance. So that's my main concern with this Bill.

Okay. Thanks very much for that statement. Thank you. Chair, Any other questions? Members seeing none. Thank you to all the testifiers who testified on this agenda, all the items on this agenda. And thank you to the Members for being here. We're going to go to decision making. Now back to the top of the agenda. House Bill 279.

I've been in consultation with our attorneys And I think 279 has too many issues that are problematic when it comes to constitutional law. So I recommend we defer on HB 279. And next, any questions or concerns. Okay, next, let's move on to House Bill 392.

I'd like to work on this one because I think it is something that we could move forward. So I would like to make some amendments. I'd like to delete section one in its entirety. I would also like to make technical amendments.

And then on page 6, line 6, page 6, line 6 and line 20, I want to add the words or subsequent. So basically it would say a person convicted of a second or subsequent ghost gun felony offense.

And then it continues in the same thing on line 20, the sentence of imprisonment for a second or subsequent felony offense. That would clear up any potential confusion. And then finally, I want to respond to testimony we received from Mr.

Roberts is that I want to make sure it's clear in here that we create a path for serialization of currently possessed non serialized firearms. And I know Mr.

Jingo had described how he did it, but I think we want to make it very clear in the statute that that would be the case, that there would be a clear path to serialized put serial numbers on currently possessed non serialized firearms. So those are my recommended amendments to House Bill 392. Questions or concerns, Members?

Mr.

Shmizu?

Thank you, Chair. I am definitely against gun violence, but I'm concerned about the constitutionality of protecting second amendment rights and also law abiding citizens. The overall, excuse me, the testimony that I heard, we may disagree and have different viewpoints and understanding.

And I think we need more comprehensive effort to address the criminal activity that is the main driver of gun violence. So I. I will be voting no on this.

Understood. Thank you. Other questions. Members, if not Vice Chair for the.

[Roll call]

Thank you. Next. House Bill 125. I'd like to move this forward as well. And on this measure I. I just want to make A let's see.

In regards to the requirement of providing a written copy of Section 13410.5 hrs for all firearms sales in Section 2, page 2, line 4 to 10, we will add the words or transfer on page 2 so that it's not just sale but it's also transfer and line five on page two, line five and page two, line six.

That way we're covering the situations of online firearm purchases. It's our understanding that when a firearm is purchased online, the firearm is shipped to a licensed dealer who in turn holds the firearm for the purchaser until proper registration is completed.

With law enforcement in these types of situations, the addition of this language would close a potential loophole and cover those situations in which a licensed dealer is merely the holder of the firearm and not the actual seller. So I would like to make that change.