Senate Standing Committee on Public Safety and Military Affairs

Good afternoon. We will commence this afternoon's PSM Committee meeting. We do have a number of testimonies that have been submitted, so we would like to get started as timely as possible.

This meeting is being streamed live on YouTube and in the unlikely event that we are to end this hearing due to technical difficulties, the Committee will reconvene to discuss any outstanding business at 3pm on February 3, 26 in room 201, sorry. 016. And a public notice will be posted on the legislature's website.

Each testifier will be provided two minutes to testify. If you have already submitted written testimony, please limit your time to highlighting important facts or standing on your testimony. Good afternoon. On this first measure, Senate Bill 433, we do have a substantial number of testimonies that have been submitted.

We're going to get started with Office of the Public Defender, who I believe is here in person. Haley Cheng, Welcome.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Haley Chang. I'm the first Deputy Public Defender for the State of Hawaii, Office of the Public Defender. Our office has submitted opposition to this measure in written form and I do, as the chair requested. Just want to highlight a couple of things.

First, as we articulated, the bill as written is incredibly overbroad and is going to open itself up to constitutional challenges and we do not believe it will withstand constitutional muster if passed.

Significantly, as we highlighted, the notation of a bladed weapon to be included in the bill I think would disproportionately, which I don't believe would be the intent or the spirit of the bill, impact people such as fishermen, divers, farmers and those using what is called a bladed weapon without further definition for recreational use such as camping, cooking, things like that.

And those are things that we, in a defense oriented fashion, are always looking at. Secondly, and significantly, the bill suggests or is articulating a shift for the burden of proof and creating what's called an affirmative defense as a defense to this measure.

That is significant because self defense is one of our most constitutionally and legally protected rights that we have as citizens. And what this measure is proposing is to shift the burden onto the person who is arguing self defense to prove it first before it can be considered by a jury or by a fact finder.

So that is some of the highlights from our testimony and I will remain available for questions. Thank you so very much.

Excuse me, Chair, do you. Can we ask questions now or later? Because there's so many. Can we ask questions?

Sure, why don't we entertain questions now? I will note that we have received 289 testimonies in opposition or in support. So it is a fairly lengthy agenda. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you for, for being here in person. And I noticed, I believe this measure is one of last year or the year before. I am not. I don't recall. The reason I'm asking is if it was.

If this bill surfaced or did it, you know, it wasn't heard at all or what was your comments at that time.

I don't recall this specific bill with the inclusion of bladed weapon being on the agenda last session. I do recall there was a bill related to dangerous weapons generally measure.

This bill seems like an a last year's measure that. Yeah, but. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. All right. Thank you so much. Oh, no problem. Thank you.

Okay. Next we had supportive written testimony submitted by City Council Member Dos Santos Tam. Next we have Honolulu Police Department Manuel Hernandez testifying on Zoom. Welcome.

Good afternoon. Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members Manuel Hernandez with the Honolulu Police Department's District 3 Patrol Division. While we appreciate the intent of the bill, HPD has concerns regarding the wording of the bill. Specifically that we feel a definition for the term bladed weapon should be included as the bill is written.

This may already the term bladed weapon as written may include such things as multi tools or other implements utilized in a non weapon way, such as as previously mentioned, camping, fishing and such. We've also submitted written testimony and we stand by our written testimony.

I will be available for any questions and thank you very much for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you very much. Next we have Kainoa Kaku for the Hawaii Rifle Association. Written testimony and opposition has been provided. Mid Pacific Pistol League, Wayne Assam see written testimony and opposition has been provided. Andrew Roberts, Hawaii Firearms Coalition, in person.

Hi, good afternoon, Chair. Vice Chair. My name is Andrew Nimiki Roberts. I'm a Director for Hawaii Firearms Coalition and we're in opposition to this bill. So this bill is in response to a change in Hawaii law that occurred in 2024.

That change was in response to two lawsuits that were going through the 9th Circuit looking at weapons, batons and knives. The AG proposed that change that was put through the legislator that year to basically moot those lawsuits to settle them. Now here we are two years later opposing, sorry, proposing to put these laws back in place.

As we know the courts don't like it when you do that. It's been made clear over and over again you cannot mood a lawsuit by changing the law and then as soon as you get your way way the law back in place. This law is Very, very broad in how it can be applied.

I'm sure you guys have had plenty of phone calls today talking about how it would affect hunters and people that live in rural communities who use these weapons for non weapon use, but it would have an overall effect on them. Right now we currently have a lawsuit going through the Supreme Court.

It was just heard two weeks ago. And that law is looking at the sensitive places law and where we can ban weapons. This law, this law that's proposed today then puts these bans on other weapons, but it's a lot more broad than that.

If you have a member of your staff that wants to carry pepper spray, they want to carry a kubaton or something on their keys for defense as they're walking to and from the building to and from the bus, that would now be illegal. They cannot bring it into this building to defend themselves.

We're not talking about weapons of mass destruction. We're not talking about guns. We're not talking about the normal fears that we hear when we're talking about weapons. We're talking about people being able to have a knife or a tool to defend themselves one on one. That's something that's always been in play.

So I would recommend to the Committee to say no on this bill, but at the very least defer it. Let's take another look at this next year after the Supreme Court's made its decision.

Okay, thank you very much. Members, any questions? Okay, if not, thank you. Next, we have Jerry Yuen testifying for Pu'uloa Rifle and Pistol club in person. Mr. Yuen.

Hello, I'm Jerry Yuen from Pu'uloa Rifle and Pistol Club. I'm also a Member of High Fico and I'm also an avid hunter, fisherman, martial arts practitioner. So in addition to my, my written testimony, yes, this is a badly worded bill, overreaching, very vague. And it'll affect all the martial arts practitioners.

Japanese martial arts, kendo naginata, Filipino martial arts, all the escrima kali. Oh, it's just bad. So please at least defer this bill until we get get ruling from Wolford vs State of Hawaii or Lopez.

Okay, thank you. I would note that this, this measure was introduced last year by the state Senator who represents downtown Chinatown. And I understand that there is considerable concern about some of the attacks on citizens in the neighborhood. So perhaps he can take a closer look at some of these concerns that are being raised. Thank you.

Next we have Todd Rathner to find for knife rights on Zoom.

Mr. Rathner, my name is Todd Rathner and I represent an organization called Knife Rights. Our members are knife owners, knife makers and manufacturers. Thank you for allowing me to testify on SB433. If I could have been there in person today, I would have. I had a conflict. I couldn't shift.

The reason I would have been there is because in 16 years of lobbying for knife rights, I've simply never seen a worse knife bill. SB433 will place tens of thousands of Hawaii citizens in grave jeopardy for possessing and carrying a tool they use every single day.

Whether they're a union worker who carries a knife to do their job, a coffee producer who cuts open jute sacks, or an Executive who has a filet knife when they're out fishing, they will all face possible arrest and prosecution for possessing a simple tool.

I also want to associate myself with what the public defender's office said about affirmative defenses. Affirmative defenses are dangerous. Essentially, what it means is you get arrested, you get to go to court, and you get to raise your own defense, which also comes with great expense.

You're going to have to hire an attorney and you're going to have to pay for your defense. And a lot of people, especially folks that carry a knife every day for blue collar jobs and workers, are not going to be able to defend themselves in court.

This bill will also place tourists who come to Hawaii to hike, scuba dive, or hunt in a very real position of facing arrest for simply possessing a tool every other state recognizes as just that, a tool. Please take a moment to think about all the ways you yourself use a knife every single day.

When you make dinner for your family or cut a cake on someone's birthday. Should you or your constituents really have to question whether the knife used for those tasks could get you arrested. SB433 is. Is a bad bill. It's bad policy. It will hurt a lot of people and it will save no one.

It's for these reasons that I urge you to vote no and reject SB433. Thank you for allowing me to testify today.

Thank you. Next, we have Libertarian Party of Hawaii, Opera Green. Written testimony and opposition has been submitted. Young Guns, Martha Chiapu. Written testimony has been submitted. Next, we have individuals who are testifying. Michael Rice on Zoom. Mr. Rice, please proceed.

Aloha. I apologize ahead of time because I'm currently sick right now, so my mind's a bit flighty. But something that a lot of people are missing from this bill is that it doesn't just affect knives or blades. It affects pretty much anything that can be considered a weapon.

Such as a baseball bat or a set of golf clubs, which I know a lot of uncles use this when they rock around at night to defend themselves against, you know, two legged predators as well as stray dogs. Even, even something like my set of keys. You know, this could be used as a weapon poorly.

Pair of brass knuckles, even something like a wallet can be used as a blackjack with a bunch of coins on one side. Ow. Again, not thinking too clearly. Or even a shovel like this can be used as a weapon. And something that the prosecutor office, I believe touched on is the affirmative defense thing.

The Supreme Court has already ruled that if you were to have a law like this and you would need to be justifying it, the affirmative defense would. The burden of proof would be on the state to prove that something is like in this example, that something is not used for self defense purposes.

Even though what they said in Heller was that the defense is anything you. That any arm that's used for lawful purposes, not simply self defense, which again bringing back to the baseball bat, this is used for sporting purposes purposes. This is used for digging, this is used for gardening.

You know, just because it can be used as a weapon, this would be make it illegal. All right. And I believe I yield the rest of my time and defer to my written statements. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Next, we have a variety of individual testimonies. We have Alice Abelanita in person.

Welcome. My name is Alice Abelanita and I stand on my written testimony. But I'd also like to add that how have we survived as a country for over 200 years? And this is the first time I've ever seen anything so ridiculous. I mean, it's just it, it won't stand on its head like, like everybody.

I agree with everything that's been said so far and I just, I hope that you guys will use common sense and kill this bill. Don't even defer it. Just, just stop it dead. Yeah. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Next we have John Abbott who is testifying in person.

Chair Members of the Committee. My name is John Abbott. That's better. I'm actually one of the directors for Hawaii Farms Coalition. I'm also a resident of Manoa. Good to see you, Senator. I want to read this. So in addition to my written testimony, I want to add the following. I had time to think about i4 little kids.

I have no time to think at all when I'm home. So I oppose SB433. This bill would have real consequences to local families and the INA itself. By passing this bill, you'll be removing the ability of local families to put food on the table. This bill effectively will kill hunting on the land and fishing in the sea.

Most of the hunting areas here do not allow firearms. Bows, spears and knives are all commonly used to hunt for food. Given the extraordinary cost of living here in Hawaii, hunting game comprises a significant portion of the food consumed by local families. Many of the species hunted are also invasive and destroy fragile native ecosystems.

Hunters form an important part of the management of these species and the protection of Hawaii ecosystems. By banning the very tools they use to hunt these animals and you'll be hurting the very native plants and animals you are sworn to protect. This will have a similar effect on fishing and marine ecosystems.

Spear guns, fishing gear and knives for cleaning fish will all be become be criminal acts to carry. This is not just a violation of the second amendment in the United States, but a violation of Article 12, Section 7 of the Hawaii State constitution which protects Native Hawaiian gathering rights.

There is a reason why the Supreme Court heard the Wolford case two weeks ago and I was there to listen to it in person. There is no tradition of laws banning the carry of arms in the United States at the time of the founding.

That is why the right to bear arms, meaning to carry, sorry, carry arms, were specifically protected. The laws of the United States used. The laws of the United States used to justify. Sorry. The laws the state of Hawaii used to justify the previous sensitive places ban on the Wolford during the Wolford hearing were literally Jim Crow laws.

If you guys hear about they use Jim Crow laws to defend that law.

Okay, thank you so much Mr. Abbott.

We I ask you to defer the bill. Thank you.

Thank you. We appreciate your presence. Next we have Kevin Cole who is testifying in person.

Good afternoon everyone. Kevin Cole from Milani, Hawaii. I did not know I was going to get today, this afternoon off. I've been at work since 4 in the morning to get this afternoon off. I'm also the lead volunteer for the National Rifle association for the state of Hawaii.

As us as often is the case, people want to help. Well, this doesn't help. The bad guys are not going to follow the rules. We know that. We've seen that time and time again that we've had a guy on a moped and a machete terrorizing parts of Hawaii for the last several weeks. Did he follow any rules?

No. The citizens, the taxpayers are not the ones that should bear any burden on this. And one other thing. We've talked about hunting knives. We've Talked about fishing knives, etc. What's one of the most common things that almost every guy likes to carry nowadays? And that's a leatherman that has a blade on it.

Would that be considered a dangerous weapon? It's a tool. It is a tool. Allow people, allow citizens the right to be use their good judgment in the on their own behalf. The citizens, the taxpayers are not the problems.

And as one of my favorite authors used to say, the bad guys are not going to follow the rule that's in their job description. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Next we have let's see John Terry in person. If not, we have Jason Wolford also on Zoom.

Not present on Zoom Chair.

Okay. Tayson Wong Chong on Zoom.

Also not present on Zoom Chair.

Tara Rojas on Zoom.

Aloha Tara Rojas. Can you hear me okay?

Yes, we can hear you.

Okay. I am scrolling through the 342 pages of testimony and are you reading? Everybody is in opposition. So one is overreaching as I heard previous testifier said. Two, you heard that there's a court case. You know right now you need to wait for that to finish.

Three, it's you know attack on citizens as you heard for martial arts for everyday purposes, hunter, fisher gatherers.

So you need to protect the the subsistence hunting gathering, you know people as well as I just read one right now about ranchers, you know that they carry the tools on them and the fact that it's overburdensome to have that hard box and also think about their citizens are being denied the ability to carry, you know to defend or to work or to use it.

Whatever they need to use this tool for. And I just saw the police also even mention about the clarification about what is a double edged. Yeah double bladed sword. So here's the thing as well. You said there was this was created because of the attackers, you know, on citizens. Guess what?

The attackers are not reading or paying attention to the dislar dispel. And if you are on this Committee and you do not subsistence hunt, fish, gather, Practice Martial arts or do not use a tool in your everyday life then you need to listen to the people who do use them.

And I just need to say the previous testifier as well taste he would like to join but he's trying to look for.

So let me just take this moment now to let you all know you have to go to capital.hawaii.gov page click on search SB433 click on submit testimony and it'll bring the page to where you if you submitted written testimony, requested a Zoom link, that's where you can find the Zoom link again.

You go to the main page, submit testimony and then you click on there and in that green box it'll say join Zoom now. So there may be people, just give them a moment to see if they are going to be connecting now so that they can testify. Mahalo.

Thank you so very much. Next we have Jennifer Kapuan on Zoom.

Not present on Zoom Chair.

Clayton Kubo on Zoom.

Also not present on Zoom Chair.

Ryan Hopf in person. Moving on. Jason Brooke in person. Wallen Christian in on Zoom rather.

Not present on Zoom Chair.

Todd Yukutake on Zoom.

Aloha Committee. My name is Todd Yukutake. I am opposed to SB433 for three reasons. It burdens people that want weapons for self defense. It's unconstitutional and it won't affect crime. A lot of people carry knives and other instruments to protect themselves.

You know, they may not want a gun and you know, pepper spray is pretty good, but it doesn't affect, it's not always effective. So sometimes you want a backup option, a knife or something else or some people just carry knives just for utility and for self defense.

So I know a lot of women will actually carry knives in their purses for self defense. Right. I believe this law is also, this bill is unconstitutional because the second amendment says you have the right to keep and bear arms and this would, you know, knives and these weapons are arms.

Doesn't necessarily have to be for self defense in public, just arms in general. So that's why I believe it's unconstitutional. Third reason, I don't think it's going to affect crime because criminals aren't going to care about a misdemeanor. Really. You know, you got the revolving door.

Unfortunately you got criminals breaking laws, being released, not even being charged for crimes. This will however affect the law abiding who are very worried about getting a misdemeanor or gain something on their record. So this unfairly burdens the law abiding while doing nothing for criminals. That's why I'm against SB433. Mahalo.

Thank you. Next we have Gary Cordrey testifying for Aloha Freedom Coalition. Also on Zoom.

Not present on Zoom Chair.

Okay, we have an individual named James who is registered on Zoom. Oh, please come forward.

Chair, Committee Members. My name is James H. Smith. I'm a career and technical education teacher here on Oahu and owner of a business of landscaping and property services.

I respectfully submit this testimony in strong opposition for SB433 as for SB433 unintentionally criminalizes ordinary and law abiding working citizens for carrying common tools and necessary for our trade, daily responsibilities and personal safety.

This bill prohibits both open carry and conceal of carry any quote unquote bladed weapon and no one's persons further makes it unlawful to carry such tools in a bag or container unless it's locked in a hard sided case strictly by for transport.

The term quote unquote bladed weapon is overly broad and undefined and under this language folding pocket knife, utility blade or fixed blade commonly used as contractors, landscapers, electricians, mechanics, farmers, fishermen, educators could be subject to personal arrests for simply moving simple objects to job sites and visiting hardware stores or stopping for fuel for for those of us in the trades and in education, knives are not weapons.

These are essential tools used dozens of times a day. SB 40433 does not distinguish between criminal misuse and lawful occupational carry. This bill also creates a practical enforcement problems.

Also 433 states it does not apply to firearms lawful concealed carry permit holders also carry common pocket knife or utility knife for work or personal safety and could not be stopped, detained or questioned for over a tool while otherwise fully compliant with the Hawaii firearm laws. This law also law abiding citizens and unnecessary law in legal jeopardy.

Beyond the legal concerns, SB433 conflicts directly with the binding US Supreme Court precedent interpreting the Second Amendment and in District vs Columbia vs Heller in 2008, the court defines arms as weapons interpreting the Second Amendment Cayetana vs Massachusetts in 2016, but most importantly the New York State Rifle association and Pistol association vs. Bruin in 2022.

And the court establishes the Court may not prohibit the carry firearms and knives and such and also Fourth Amendment and concerns. Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much for your testimony. Next we have Nicholas on Zoom. Is he present?

Not present on Zoom Chair.

Okay, Next, is Kristen in person? Okay. If not, is there anyone else here who would like to testify on Senate Bill 433? All other written welcome, please proceed.

What's his name?

I believe his. Are you Kristen? Austin Martin. Oh, Austin Martin.

Okay, I'll go. Thank you. Thank you for hearing me today. Chair wow, we are in an interesting situation, aren't we? I personally think this bill could be greatly improved by adding a provision.

Since the intent of this bill is about undermining the Constitution without a constitutional amendment, perhaps we could, you know, offer a friendly amendment to remove immunity from lawmakers who suggest overthrowing the rule of law without seeking a constitutional amendment, I think that would improve this bill quite dramatically. Otherwise, it should not be considered.

The fact that we're even having this conversation, that you're dragging people out of their homes and out of their lives during the middle of a wind advisory to come out here and tell you guys to please not ban anything heavier than a pineapple or sharper than a butter knife is absurd.

And you guys would really do us a huge favor if you kill this bill today. If you don't, I mean, I guess it's your career. Have a great day. I'm not happy about today's agenda, by the way. Guys like this is atrocious. And frankly, the rule of law matters.

We can't just overthrow due process in the second Amendment. I'm here with Young Americans for Liberty Today. We're on the campuses. We are not going to allow laws like this to stand. And I'll tell you, it's just going to get you sued. It's just going to get you sued.

It's not going to result in anything but cost for the state, cost for innocent people. It will stop no criminals. It will not even target criminal activity. It targets objects. Quick civic lesson. The government can only take money from one group of people and give it to another group of people. It can't stop crime.

It can't protect you. It can only catch the bad guy by paying people to do so. Right. So we need to really rethink, you know, this idea that you can like stop people from having harm or from being stabbed. I mean, for God's sake, like that's delusional. And I yield.

Thank you very much for your testimony. Is there anyone else who would like to testify? Please identify yourself.

Jason Wohlford.

Okay. Please proceed.

Hi. Thank you. I apologize for my difficulties earlier when you called upon me. I'm calling or coming in today to voice my opposition to this.

This seems to be a bill that would just try and circumvent the lawsuit that I'm involved in and that the Supreme Court has heard that would actually create more sensitive places and things such as ordinary bearing arms, things like bladed weapons, knives, those kind of things.

This would just cost the state more money and taxpayers money being wasted in a time when you all should be focusing on affordability for your constituents. Past three years, I know the state must have spent quite a few million dollars on the lawsuit fighting me.

And this would just be another lawsuit that would be coming against the state and wind up losing again. So I would ask that you kill this bill. Maybe Try and reintroduce it next year after the ruling. But yeah, thank you very much.

Okay, thank you for your testimony. Is there anyone else who would like to comment on Senate Bill 433? If not, then Members, we will turn to Senate Bill 25.

There's. There's somebody online. There's Tayson online. Thank you. You called him earlier.

Okay, please proceed. Can you identify yourself?

Yeah, my name is Tayson Wong Chong. I am the Hawaiian County Game Management and Advisory Commissioner Chair. I am coming here as myself today though I like to oppose bill SB433 first of all, because yes, it is protected. Some of those tools is protected under the HRS. Right?

As for Article 12, Section 7 is a gathering right tool that we use. One of the main reasons why I say we should kill this bill is because let's just bring it to self sustainability. Example Covid and Lahaina fires when it hit tools like this is what helps bring the people their food. Yeah, straight from the aina.

I myself, I can personally say that I have donated over a thousand pounds of meat during the Lahaina fire using these tools as well as many other of my constituents and people that I know. I highly feel that this is affecting more of the law abiding citizens more than a so called law breaking citizen.

So again I just wanted to share my not on zoom. Sorry I got came in later, but late again. But Again I oppose SB433 and I asked that you please kill this bill today. Thank you so much.

Thank you very much for your testimony. Members, any questions? Just one for HPD real quick. Okay, send Senator Lee.

Is HPD still here online?

Yes sir, still here.

Hi, thanks. Without getting too much into the weeds here, your testimony had basically said there was a definition for what would be bladed weapon or some something like that.

As I recall that you had referenced obviously with the machete attacks and whatnot the last few days and a bunch of other incidents over the last few years.

There seems to be a lot of concern out in the public, especially if you're just minding your own business, doing your thing, going shopping or whatever and someone walks up to you with a machete. Quite concerning.

Is there a definition for what would constitute the distinction between your normal leatherman or you know, anything of the sort versus something which would be much more aggressively used and wielded in that kind of situation, that kind of attack that should be defined in some way. And where do you draw that line?

Excuse me. Thank you, Senator. I. I feel personally after review in the beginning portions of HRS. Section 134, which this bill would fall under, it defines the term dangerous weapon, you know, Dirk, Dagger, etc.

For me, as I'm a, you know, 22 years experience in the Department, when I look at something where, what would be a better definition, it's the usage of the item in a machete, if I am threatening someone or attempting to harm them, it is a dangerous instrument or dangerous weapon.

If we wanted to say something like a bladed weapon with the intent of the bill, say for a pocket knife, for example, that's where I feel that the definition would have to be a little bit more narrow in scope as, you know, size of the blade, the usage of it, et cetera.

But in this example, with a machete, if someone is threatening, if an individual is threatening a member of the public with a machete, it becomes a dangerous instrument.

If they, heaven forbid, harm somebody with it, it becomes a dangerous instrument and you know, will fall under robberies depending on their actions or an assault, you know, a felony assault, depending on their actions.

Again, but that's when we would consider it a dangerous instrument and it would fall under that definitions of the dangerous weapon in section HRS 134.

So for your part, in terms of defining, I guess the distinction between defining length of blade or some other, you know, characteristic feature that would create a separate definition here versus the broad definition as it applies to any number of potentially dangerously used weapons, is there a preference which direction?

Looking at it, I unfortunately bring the, I guess the clouded lens of career in law enforcement where ideally, if, I mean, you know, I wish I could have no weapons out there to harm the public or, or our officers, but unfortunately, it's the real world and I understand that.

I think when it comes to blade length, the use of the, of the bladed weapon, etc, I think that would be best defined on what the Senate or the introducers of the bill feel would be ideal.

For example, you know, a lot of these tools mentioned in these numerous testimonies, such as, let's say, well, I don't know, a threshing kind of knife to cut grass and such may be a 12 inch blade.

So I think it, I didn't want to interpret the intent of the, the Committee or the introducer of the bill and give a specific length.

On behalf of HPD, I would just add, you know, our concerns where we would request, if there could be a definition, you know, included that we could, you know, review and, and give them a little bit more of a narrower scope. That's Kind of the point of the testimony today. I'm sorry. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

Okay. Thank you very much. Members, let's turn to Senate Bill 2575, relating to firearms. Again, we do have a large group of testifiers. First on top is, let me see. Office of the Public Defender in person. Mr. Bento, thank you for being here.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is William Bento. I'm a deputy public defender. The Office of the Public Defender does oppose this bill. We've outlined our reasons why in our written testimony. But I would just like to share this with you.

If there's a person who has no criminal record whatsoever, and their neighbor goes and gets a TRO against them for whatever purpose, justified or unjustified, and that person also is legally in possession of a firearm, they do not relinquish that firearm in the proper way as described in the law, and they get charged with being in possession of that firearm while also being a respondent to a TRO.

Then you take another person who perhaps has a very lengthy criminal record of violent offenses, including terrorizing people with firearms, and that person gets caught with a firearm and is also charged with being a felon in possession. Under the current language of the statute, both must be treated exactly the same, and both will serve 20 years of jail with no probation, no parole, no release.

Our real concern here with the language in the bills outlined in our written testimony is that a judge needs to be able to look at the differences in people who are similarly situated and treat them accordingly under the law. But bills of this nature and the language in this bill would not allow for that.

And I think most people looking at the two individuals that I described would say that they're probably very different people. Thank you. And I'm available for questions. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Bento. Next we have Department of Law Enforcement Director Lambert. Okay, thank you very much. We have Department of the Prosecuting Attorney, City and County of Honolulu, Daniel Hugo. Welcome.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Daniel Hugo. I'm testifying in support of this bill with the Honolulu Prosecutor's Office. Just heard the Public Defender act as if when people violate a TRO that's a very minor issue.

The first police officer that I knew in my professional capacity who was killed, was killed while responding to volatile situation that involved multiple TROs. These are highly dangerous situations, and I think it's a very small ask for the court to say that if you have a deadly weapon with you, you should be able to follow court orders.

This bill is not about the Second Amendment. It is targeted at felons. It is targeted at people who are defying court orders deliberately. These are not George Washington's friends. This bill is in memorial for Officer Suzanne O, who was killed on Maui last year.

In my work as a prosecutor, I have worked long enough to where I can recognize some of the names on the memorial wall and I can remember when they were alive and I can remember the faces of the children whose parents are not coming home. These are dangerous people.

This law is aimed at incapacitating these people, if they're taken alive, which very often they're not. So I would ask the committee to view this bill with the seriousness of the real world consequences that it deserves. Thank you.

Thank you. Next we have Maui Prosecutor's Office, submitted written testimony in support. Maui Police Department Chief Pelletier in person. Oh, thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, and Members of the Committee. I'm Assistant Chief Joy Medeiros. And on behalf of the leadership of the Maui Police Department, I am here to testify in strong support of SB 2570, which strengthens penalties for certain firearms offenses.

The necessity of this measure has been brought into sharp and painful focus by the recent line of duty death of Officer Suzanne O. Officer O was a dedicated public servant who wore the uniform with honor and commitment, answering the call to protect our community.

Her loss is deeply felt within the Maui Police Department and across the state of Hawaii. With no... While no legislation can undo this tragedy or tragedies that came before, it is incumbent upon us to take every reasonable step to prevent similar acts of violence in the future.

Felons in possession of firearms represent a clear and documented threat to public safety and law enforcement. Individuals who are legally prohibited from possessing firearms have already demonstrated a willingness to disregard the law. When such individuals are armed, routine encounters can rapidly escalate into deadly confrontations.

Strengthening penalties for this offense is a critical deterrent and an essential tool for protecting both officers and the communities we serve. SB 2575 reinforces accountability and underscores a seriousness of firearm prohibitions for convicted felons. This legislation does not infringe upon the rights of law abiding citizens.

Rather, it targets those who knowingly violate firearm laws and place others at grave risk. Our officers place themselves in harm's way every day. They deserve clear laws that prioritize their safety and the safety of the public. Enhanced penalties for felons in possession of firearms support proactive enforcement, promote deterrence, and affirm Hawaii's commitment to reducing gun violence.

Passing Senate Bill 2575 would send a strong message that the state of Hawaii stands firmly behind its law enforcement officers and will act decisively to protect its communities. Equally important, it would be a meaningful step toward honoring the service and sacrifice of not only Officer Suzanne O, but for every officer who has laid their life down protecting their community. Thank you.

Okay, next we have Chief Pelletier in person. Okay. If not, next we have testifying for the Hawaii Firearms Coalition, Andrew Roberts.

Good afternoon. Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members. So, you know, I do have sympathy with what the officers are saying, what the prosecutors saying, criminals shouldn't have guns. But, and there's always that. But what is a felony? Did you know that if you took a car battery and you threw it into a river in Hawaii, that's a felony.

That's a non violent crime. We're not talking about just criminals that are out here committing violent acts and hurting people. We're talking about non violent crimes too.

In addition to that, we're also talking about situations where a person may have a firearm, and they're in possession of prescription drugs legally given to them that now comes with a mandatory sentence. There is a lot more to this Bill than what's being talked about here. We're only looking at a small chunk of it.

Should somebody that has a back problem not be able to possess a firearm? Should a person that has a TRO be able to transfer that firearm to a friend or family member who doesn't have a TRO to get rid of it instead of surrendering it to the police?

Because right now, if I got a TRO against me and I tried to transfer that firearm, even transfer it to a gun store to get rid of it for me under this, I'd be looking at 20 years in prison because that's the minimum mandatory sentencing for that. This isn't about just what we're talking about.

The Bill is very, very broad. It covers a large amount of things. It catches way more than what they're intent is, again, I feel for them. I understand that we need to take these criminals off the street. If somebody's got these big records, they've got a TRO for violent threats and they can't own a gun. Guess what?

They shouldn't be on the street. They should be in prison. We should be prosecuting them and taking bigger steps to put them in jail. We shouldn't be letting them walk away. So for that reason, I hope that you oppose the Bill or amend the Bill to take out some of these big egregious steps.

It is absolutely ludicrous that somebody that has a TRO that tries to get rid of their firearm, other than letting the police take it, especially if it's worth hundreds, if not thousands of dollars to be destroyed, would go to prison for 20 years when they're still trying to get rid of the firearm or ammunition.

They're still trying to do the right thing and comply, just not in the way that the government takes control of their items.

Thank you, thank you, Mr. Roberts. Next, we have Jerry Yuen for Puuloa Rifle Club. Okay. Next, Michael Rice on Zoom.

Aloha again. Feeling sick. So my brain's not 100% there to build off of what Andrew said. Yes, a lot of these. I do feel that some of these, the minimum is justified for some of the laws against these.

But as Andrew said, there's some of these things that are Mellon victim that are illegal because we just say they're illegal as opposed to being malicious. Like if I had, if I took my gun and had it on me and I just took a sip of alcohol, I don't normally drink.

That's, you know, that's automatic 20 years if I get convicted of that. You know, while it's stupid to get drunk while having a gun, it in of itself should not be equated to something like murder in this state where the maximum you can get is 20 years.

And this also, this also kind of goes against some federal guidelines that they have set out where, like felony possession, where somebody is a convicted felon and should not have a gun if he's found with ammunition or a firearm. It's supposed to be five years minimum. And I've seen that not happen here.

As opposed to what the 20 is this law is proposing. So I yield the rest of my time and I defer to my written statements. Thank you.

Thank you. I inadvertently skipped. Austin Martin for Libertarian Party of Hawaii on zoom. Mr. Martin, please proceed.

Aloha and thank you, Chair Austin Martin. I'm the Libertarian Party of Hawaii Chairman. I also sit on the LNC, the Libertarian National Committee. This Bill is a problem and I'd like to clarify why and something that I have not heard from other testifiers. This Bill makes it a crime to be accused and armed.

You do not have to be convicted of the crime you are accused of. So a false accusation can disarm anyone. And if they do not comply with the rigid unconstitutional. Once again, we're reaching around the Constitution and trying to break the law. I believe these kinds of considerations are illegal.

I do not believe we should be having these discussions in the people's house. It is a slap in our faces. You're talking not just about the second Amendment here, though. You're talking about undoing due process. The idea that you can just assume the possession of a gun is automatically a felony. And let's really quickly.

We heard from the prosecutor's office. One of the reasons I'm here today is because your corrupt prosecutors charged me and my wife with violating the Emergency Powers act and disorderly conduct for using the word Nazi in public to describe your guys's policy. That's the kind of prosecutorial integrity that they have.

And this is a, this is a very serious problem we were talking about. They came in here and basically committed fraud. It's their fault that these people are on the street. It is their fault and their friends on the bench. There is no accountability. There is. They have total immunity for everything that they do.

So the freak show on the streets, these guys telling you to give life sentences to people who have not been convicted of any crime, finding them summarily guilty because they were accused and armed at the same time, that's madness. And those people who are in support of this Bill are the reason why the problem is so bad.

Yeah, they know those names. They use them as confidential human sources. Set them free on the streets and let them cause havocs and run gangs. This is racketeering. This is not good governance. We have real needs and I expect better Bill selection.

Okay, next we have Kevin Cole in person. It's Mr. Cole here. Okay, next. John Terry in person. Okay. If not next we have Jennifer Kabdran on Zoom. Not present on Zoom chair. Okay. Elima Dicosta on Zoom. Also not present on Zoom chair. James Unidentified last name on Zoom. Also not present on Zoom chair. That's right.

You were present in person.

Chair, Vice chair and Members of Committee. I support the firm meaningful penalties of criminal misuse and firearms. Protecting our communities from genuine threats is essential. However, SB 2575 does not limit itself to violent misuse.

Instead, it creates a sentence structure that equates technical, status based and nonviolent firearm violations with the most serious crimes in our criminal code by imposing a mandatory 20 year minimum prison in term sense without parole. Number one constitutional, legal and practical concerns is disapproval in the 8th amendment in punishment.

A class A felony in Hawaii is the same as tier for murder, rape and kidnapping and would apply to tier situations such as logistical and timing issues and surrendering firearms such as temporary and restraining order allegations of being quote unquote under the influence under while lawfully carrying and then a non violent possession or status violations.

Number two, removal of judicial discretion by manding a flat 20 or minimum parole. The Bill removes a judge's ability to consider the facts of an individual case. And courts rely on discretion to distinguish violent offenders from technical violators which is eliminating the distinction of constantly suspect and under determines.

Excuse me, undermines a justice system's ability to a justice in individual cases. Number Three, due process and a vagueness the phrase quote unquote under the influence of a controlled substance is under undefined and extremely broad and quote unquote controlled substance is can include common prescription medications without objective standards.

Number four, our second amendment standards under current federal law which is Supreme Court decisions require firearm regulations to be consistent with the nation's historical tradition and nar narrowly tailored. Number five, a TRO provisions over broad which are strictly from firearms individuals possess credible threat to a reasonable.

Number six is research and seizure concerns which is a Bill for recovery path during TRO situations and a better path forward. Can we protect the public safety without a creating sentence scheme. Remove the 20 year mandatory minimum restore.

Thank you very much for your testimony. Okay, next we have. Let's see. I'm sorry. Dennis Dunn in person.

Good afternoon. Good afternoon Chair Committee. I'm here to support this in the strongest terms possible in the sense that I really believe especially with the use of firearms and violation restraining order clear and present danger to our domestic violence victims. I believe in the mandatory minimums.

However, I do think that maybe this Bill goes a little bit too far. And so I think while I would support the measure, I think maybe ratcheting down some of it a little bit might be seen as a little more reasonable.

Hopefully some people can agree we are targeting the most violent individuals people who use firearms commission of crimes, domestic violence. That's we want to hit. Maybe this goes a little too far. So ratchet it down a little and I would strongly support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else who would like to testify on Senate Bill 2575 if not Members questions?

I would like to.

Oh, excuse me. Please proceed.

Hi Chair again, my name is.

By yourself?

Yes, by myself. I'd like to testify again on the SB 2575. I'd like to give strong examples as far as for the TRO situation. I'm a law abiding citizen. I've never been arrested or convicted of any crimes in my past.

Just an example last month I had gotten a TRO placed on me on false allegations from my soon to be ex wife that is a felon herself. I had gotten my firearm stripped from me. I was not able to transfer it to my dad's name that he also is a law-abiding citizen.

Never been convicted a charge of any crime in his lifetime. It's just shame to me where certain laws like this prohibits people like me. That's actually in the public eye. And luckily I still hunt archery.

But you know, it also affects my kids as well because I take my children to go hunt with these firearms and now I don't have this just due to false allegations on a typical TRO that was placed on me all because my ex-wife was mad because I got custody of my children.

May I stress that I'm not trying to make it personal but I'm just giving an example onto where law abiding citizens such as myself, even as a gay management advisory commissioner chair of the Big island is strongly affected because of this.

So I just want to stress that to all of you folks and maybe amen and think about things like this because I am a victim to laws like this, you know that's being affected. That's what I wanted to say. Chair, thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else who would like to testify in person or on Zoom?

Yes, Aloha Tara Rojas as I was listening to this. Yeah I would like to comment as well. Again scrolling through the testimony and just hearing Palala T's testimony as well. I read that in somebody else's testimony about that type of situation.

And so also the other previous testifier who mentioned about false accusations I seen live as well a false false accusation for something has no related not even related to even guns but false accusations for felonies can and do occur and it was found to be false and dropped.

I also took a look at the overview of who supported it was you know LAOs DLE they supported.

It was interesting to hear that the public defender they opposed and then you look at the majority of the 121 on pages or says or yeah pages, individuals they oppose, and they mention the reason why, and they just gave you the concrete examples.

And one that I really want to point out though is that a 16 year old I don't know if you really paid attention a 16 year old sophomore is talking about this and then he even sees the issues with the just the wrongfulness of this Bill and he's saying that in school they're learning about the justice system it should be fair and based on individual circumstances automatically giving I'm reading just quote, you know verbatim giving the harshest punishment especially for nonviolent or possession related offenses can lead to unfair outcomes.

As someone who will grow up under the laws passed today, I hope decisions are made carefully and focus on real solutions instead of extreme penalties. And then also urging you to oppose or redo or whatever this SB 2575. And so really take a look at this.

And again one last thing is about how by Giving these minimum sentences, you're disenfranchising even the system to make the decision because you're automatically going to just slap the minimum 20 years. So with all this in mind, please really rethink this. SB 257.

Thank you very much for your testimony. Okay. Is there anyone else who would like to comment on Senate Bill 2575? Okay. If not Members, any questions? Senator Lee.

Thanks for the prosecutor's office. Thanks. I'm looking at data from the National Institute of Justice that shows that about 80% of all female victims who were murdered have previously been stopped in those sorts of cases.

I imagine that's where a lot of TROs would probably come into play, where you have domestic violence situations and stalking and things like that. Is that typically what you see?

That that's correct. And I should probably clarify for this Committee, too, that there are procedural safeguards in place in the TRO process. So, first of all, any TRO petition has to be reviewed by a judge before the TRO is issued.

Then once the TRO is served, the person, the respondent, has an opportunity to present information as to why it shouldn't and contest that TRO. Being falsely accused, I'm sure, is horrible experience to go through. And having firearms taken away, that definitely, I'm sure, is a terrible thing.

We see the opposite when those firearms aren't turned in and a woman is killed in broad daylight in Pro Ridge.

So the purpose, so for those folks, I think, who were worried about in a situation where they had a TRO placed against them, that their guns would.

They didn't have the ability to handguns off to a friend or sell them or something like that, is the accountability to hand those over to law enforcement to ensure then that those weapons have been removed from that person because they were deemed by a judge as a serious threat?

Well, it's not a strict liability offense. It has to be done with a knowing state of mind. In other words, there are defenses, choice of evils. For example, if you have a good excuse for the reason why those firearms weren't turned in, the law accommodates.

The law is constructed to accommodate all sorts of reasonable frailties that come up. What we're looking at here is the opposite example. When irremediable mistakes happen and somebody who shouldn't have had a firearm has it. And the statistics that you point to, these are not isolated cases.

I mean, they're very personal for us because we remember the exact cases. But statistically, this is a huge problem in domestic violence and even those situations.

Let's say there's TRO that's taken out even if it's a situation where someone's intentionally trying to file, you know, false statements or whatever to get a TR on someone. In that case, even if someone's weapons are taken away, are those destroyed?

Are those held on to by the by law enforcement until such a time that there's a resolution?

No, they're held until there's a resolution and.

And then the person gets them back.

Yes. And even if you stipulate, for example, to some parts of the order, there are many orders that are issued. This is common with military personnel where there's an exception made for having the firearm because there's legitimate purposes.

And the last thing that was raised was possession of other drugs and various things. In that case, the way I'm reading at least your testimony, I don't have the Bill in front of me right now, the language of that particular section, but it creates a prohibition on possession of a firearm while in criminal possession of drugs.

Not something you'd get a prescription for. Thank you very much. Thank you, Chair. Thank you.

Members, any further questions? If not, thank you very much. Okay, let us turn to Senate Bill 2382. Next on our agenda. This measure is, let's see, wow, I have so much 433 testimony. First we had J.M. Musto. Dr. Musto from Office of Collective Bargaining, not present. Melina Sanchez, Deputy Attorney General on zoom not present on Zoom.

Chair, she's here in person. Welcome.

Good afternoon, Chair Fukunaga and Members of the Committee. I am Deputy Attorney General Molina Sanchez appearing on behalf of the Department to provide comments on SB2382. This bill adds a new section of Chapter 353C of the Hawaii Revised Statute to create a retention program for the sworn law enforcement officers employed with the Department of Law Enforcement.

As drafted, the Bill may raise concerns regarding the consist consistency with section 89.9, subsection A of the Hawaii Revised Statute, which requires employers and exclusive bargaining representatives to engage in good faith collective bargaining. To ensure consistency with Chapter 89. We respectfully suggest amending the Bill to add the preparatory language as we submitted in our written testimony. Thank you for allowing me to testify.

Okay, thank you very much. Next we have Department of Law Enforcement. Director Lambert.

If I could just share this.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Director Lambert, Department of Law Enforcement what I've shared with you folks is kind of what our authorized strength report versus vacancies. I know that Judiciary particularly had some concerns with our ability to Provide safety to them.

The reason why we need a Bill like this or a mechanism to fund this pay gap is if you take a look at the tables I gave you right out, right out of recruit school, they make 20,000 less.

When you add in for HPD giving a $25,000 bonus and Maui PD giving about 30,000 within the first three years of service. A deputy sheriff would make nearly 100 grand less in the first three years of service.

What this Bill would allow to do, and I appreciate you, Chair, for introducing and showing support for of us, it would at least cut it in half. Again, we have to have more battles through collective bargaining agreements. But in the meantime, we need to have something to have people interested in the Department of Law Enforcement.

That gap is just way too much. We do acknowledge that the counties do take on the heavy lift of the 911 calls, but the Department of Law Enforcement is still in charge of critical infrastructure such as airports, harbors, courts, as well as our new initiatives for fireworks, ag and firearms.

So we want to at least be competitive. We are happy to see that the Honolulu Police Department just graduated 27 and they reported having 49 in their last recruit class, which means there has been a turn in interest in law enforcement.

And what I would hate to do is for us to wait two or three years for, you know, the counties to scoop up all the good ones and, you know, due to pay and whatnot, and then we're having to compete afterwards.

I like to compete up front and try to get the best of the lot that's available and interested in law enforcement. Thank you.

Thank you. Members, any questions? Yes Senator Inouye.

Yes, thank you, Mike, for being here as well. And your testimony, knowing that the officers also cover the airport and the airport also has its own security that's on a contract by DOT. So they're the ones that sit down within, like the TSA. Is that your people?

So that is actually contracted by the Department of Transportation. Director Sniffen has the authority to essentially provide them with basic police authority. Right now, that contract is satisfied by Allied and their starting pay is 67,000. So they actually make 12,000 more than our sheriffs. We've actually had people leave the Department to go work private.

And I think that that's a huge backwards situation. Right. Typically you start off as a private security and you try to work your way towards more traditional law enforcement, such as with the state or with the county.

But you did indicate that they are at the airport. So we have two securities then. So we have law Enforcement. And then we have the contract.

Correct. So the contractors are utilized for static positions. So within the airport, there are certain positions that, due to TSA regulation, requires an armed security. So the. I guess the intent at some point, talking with Director Sniffen would be that it would actually be all the sheriffs and we would be able to cancel that contract.

But we're years away from that being a reality. We would have to hire 90 more sheriffs for us to get rid of that.

So the ones when you're checking in at TSA and I notice there's one of the security officer sitting down before you exit and you go into the lobby area, that's our people.

That is DOT Allied. So if they don't. If they don't have the brown like me, then they're.

So contracts are our people.

So we're the ones that have the patrol function. So essentially we have everything else. So, like, we're the ones that are like the dogs are looking for drugs being imported and stuff like that. But all the static stuff are the contractors.

Understand? Okay. Thank you Chair.

Thank you, Senator. Okay. Any further questions? Okay. If not. Thank you, Director. I inadvertently skipped over Judiciary. Paul Quick testifying in person.

Paul Quick. Chair, I stand on my written testimony supporting the intent of these measures.

Okay, thank you. I believe we had a written testimony from UPW with comments. Hawaii Government Employees association in support. Are there any others who would like to comment on this Bill? One person on zoom. Thank you.

Aloha. Austin Martin with Libertarian Party of Hawaii. Thank you for hearing me today. I just want to point out we're talking about paying a lot more for a service that provides a lot less. And we're getting better bang for our buck out of private security in the first place. So that's one issue.

But aside from the duplication, we don't really have any accountability with our state law enforcement. I mean, just as an example, you have, you know, Pelletiers guys over here. How is he still in office after handling Lahaina the way that he did? Oh, that's amazing. Nobody lost their seat.

The people of Maui just decided that the worst handling of the natural disaster in US History was totally okay and no one needs to be elected to lead us. Instead, we'll just keep going with these guys. Come on. Like, we have bills this year to protect the chief elections officer who's been caught rigging the elections.

I think it's ridiculous. And this is just another example of the government organizing against the people using the concept of collective bargaining. Not to protect people's rights, not to protect workers rights. There are going to be more people displaced by this spending and fewer jobs.

Can you explain whether you are testifying in support or in opposition?

Oh, I'm certainly in opposition. I don't think we should spend any more this. Okay. We need county sheriffs. No worries. Yeah, county sheriffs would be a lot cheaper. I think moving that to the counties would make a lot of sense and give people a lot more control policed.

And they can provide security functions at the airports just as easily. You need a state police force for that. Fine. But like doing the private security is great. That's working. So I see there's a couple of bills here that are definitely collective bargaining reflections of the government organizing against the people.

And I really don't think that's appropriate. I yield.

Thank you. James Smith. Mr. Smith, thank you for being here in person.

I'll try to keep this short and sweet compared to my other fast ones here. Vice chair, Members of the Committee. As for the SB 2382, I am in support of it. As a teacher, we always see a shortage and that's one of the biggest things that we run into.

So I know how these officers feel when it comes to getting pay. When it comes to officers leaving, especially teachers as well, it's worked hard. Not enough pay. Better opportunities off island. We want to keep our people here.

The training, onboard costs, things like that, we could definitely use and supporting them as they do support teachers as in tuition reimbursement. Okay.

In the testimony that I did write, which I'll let you guys read if you'd like, but I did give different pillars as me as a teacher, I teach student objectives and things that move on.

But I did put in seven pillars in ways that we can help not only our officers here, but also HPD, Maui and others in which we can make that happen over time. And within that, I am in full support of that. Okay, there is the seven pillars, as I said that you can read.

I won't go through that because only have 45 seconds. But at the end we would like to get them paid fairly. They are in a dangerous world.

We like to have them have a life and a structure in which works for them and their families first and foremost and help them to afford to live in Hawaii, to give them a future and also to support them properly day in and day out. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, anyone test who would like to testify on Senate Bill 2382? Keep not turning to Senate Bill 2383. Again, Jan Musto testifying for Office of Collective Bargaining. Not present. Deputy Attorney General Sanchez.

Good afternoon again, Chair Fukunaga, Members of the Committee, because this retention bonus that the Bill seeks to provide may have conflict with Chapter 89-9A, again, we submit that to avoid any inconsistencies that the Committee consider the recommendations that we submitted. Thank you.

Thank you. Let's see. State Judiciary, Mr. Quick.

Chair, Vice Chair. Again, both Judiciary stand on original testimony, support this measure.

Thank you. Department of Law Enforcement, Director Lampert.

Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, I just wanted to say, because it is duplicate in 10 of 2382, we wanted to provide two vessels, one that would allow me to put it into statute, which would give me three years with a sunset.

And if it's valuable, we can continue on instead of having or just changing the sunset date. But if that's asking too much, then 2383 would at least provide us with an appropriation for this year, and we would constantly fight for it year over year to ensure that we can recruit and compete with the counties. Thank you.

Thank you. I was wondering why the duplicates. Thank you for explaining.

Well, hopefully that will improve its chances in Ways and Means. Okay. We've also received other written comments. Is there anyone else who would like to testify on Zoom or in person? Okay. If not, Members, questions? No? Okay. Moving on to next bill. Senate Bill 2503. First up, I believe, is Department of Law Enforcement again, Director Lambert.

Afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Member of the Committee. We are in support of this bill. We actually were able to over the last two years, collect over 1500 guns that were willfully turned in. And we believe that that does increase public safety. You know, this, the buyback is not meant to suppress or hurt gun owners.

It's for individuals that perhaps maybe the husband was a lover of guns and has passed and now the wife no longer has use for it. And we want to provide a meaningful way for them to get rid of it instead of just destroying it. So we'd like to continue with this to trade gift cards for guns that no longer have purpose in that household, to reduce the availability of guns being stolen and used in crimes.

Questions? Senator DeCorte.

Director, I noticed that this bill didn't have any appropriations, but the effective date is in July. Do you have any idea of what kind of appropriations this might...

Originally it was 800,000 was the last round, but I'm thinking a little less this time around. I'm thinking we're hoping for somewhere around 500k. We did expend about $150,000 in gift cards, but we also want to use that money for public education and to ensure that we can destroy them appropriately.

Right now we have a vendor that does it as a community service. But if ever one day they should say, you know what, sorry, it's costing me money to do this. It costs are anywhere around $10,000 a month to lease a machine that could appropriately destroy it. To purchase it, it would probably be about 400,000. So we want to start to have those discussions. I told the vendor we appreciate it, but we should really look at a be self sustaining.

Follow up really quick. How many guns have you collected or firearms have you collected since you started the program?

1500. 1500.

Thank you, Chair.

And that was even before your time? A year at least.

Correct. Yeah.

Just out of curiosity, Chair, what happens with, as an example. My husband was a police officer and he died in office. And so he did have, you know, his own personal ones. So I gave it to our kids. But then our police, I mean our children turned it into the police department.

And you know, this is back in the early days. Now what happens if that happens to someone and the rifles, the guns are still in the home, not registered to the new owner or whatever, and something happens within that household. So the police would end up getting into the home. Then you find that there's some rifles there and guns. What happens to that kind of situation and they haven't registered it?

Then I would, we would have to look at that case potentially through criminal aspect, criminal means because the guns aren't appropriately registered.

Oh, but they don't get charged with...

It would depend on the circumstances. Like if it was involved in domestic violence, then it could be enhanced. Correct. So like when my grandpa passed away, he didn't make it clear on who the rifle belonged to. So then it goes into probate and some other things. But typically you'd want to address that so that we have tracking of it. So it just would be on a case by case on what the discovery was and what the circumstances were with that weapon because we had to be reasonable too. So.

All right, thank you. Thank you so much.

Any further questions? Seeing none. Thank you. Let's move on to the next measure, SB 2516.

Testimonies.

Oh, I'm sorry.

So I need the first one.

Okay. It's enough. So 2503. Thank you, everybody. Right here.

Andrew Roberts.

Okay. Yeah. So up next then, Hawaii Firearms Coalition. Thanks for the catch.

Good afternoon again, and I know we want to go home too. So we're in opposition, as you guys would probably expect. Spending $800,000 to buy back 1500 guns that we never owned to start with seems a little bit crazy. It works out to over $500 per gun. There is much better options available.

A program where we instruct the public on how to dispose of their guns. Why not allow the police departments to take these firearms into the police station at anytime? Why are we putting on these events that are costing $250 to $300 per gun than the actual cost we're giving the people?

The people are getting 100 to $150 but we're spending $500 per gun. Those people could go to any police department and just turn them in any day of the week. Why are we not doing this?

It just seems absolutely crazy to spend $800,000 of taxpayers' money when we have police departments, we have law enforcement that can come to your home and collect them. Put something into the law that would allow that and make it easier for that to happen. In addition to that, you know, we're collecting 1,500 dollar guns.

I've been to a few of the buybacks and stood there and watched these guns getting collected. Why are we destroying them? We're destroying tens of thousands of firearms potentially. I've seen guns get turned in for a hundred dollars that are street valued through a gun dealer in the three to $4,000 range.

I have seen artifacts bought back from World War II that should be in a museum. It's crazy that we're destroying these historic firearms just because somebody's decided that they don't want them anymore. As I said, a better option would be to provide education to the public with some of this money.

You could do a campaign for $100,000 and have them sell them to gun shops, bring them to the police department, and we don't have to pay any extra. If people genuinely want to get rid of these firearms, yes, buying them for gift cards is a great idea, but it shouldn't cost $800,000. It shouldn't cost $533 a gun. Three to 400 dollars in administrative costs just to take something off of somebody's hands for them. That just seems absolutely crazy. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next we have Jerry Yuen in person. Okay, thank you. Nahelani Parsons, is she present?

Aloha, Chair and Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. Nahelani Parsons testifying in support on behalf of the Hawaii State Association of Counties. I did review some of the testimony, and I understand the concern that criminals do not necessarily come forward and hand in their guns. Public safety, however, is not only about enforcement after a crime occurs.

It's really about prevention. Programs like this are voluntary, not mandatory, and they recognize that mental health challenges, especially family stress and access to unsecured firearms, can turn into a difficult situation, into a permanent tragedy. By providing this voluntary option, helps individuals act responsibly before a crisis escalates and helps us make our communities safer.

If we can reduce that risk even once, especially when children are involved, it's definitely worth doing. Mahalo to the committee for hearing this important measure.

Thank you. Next we have Michael Rice on Zoom.

Aloha. Again, Michael Rice testifying on behalf of myself. As Andrew said, my main, my main objection to this is that this is something that could be done all year round and not just like two days out of a year, which could also result in problems.

These buybacks are sometimes even a source for black markets to get their firearms. Like unscrupulous police officers, unscrupulous vendors who are supposed to be doing the destruction don't do it. I mean, Mike Lambert himself has even testified that some of his offers have come up to him and said, hey, can we just take this?

We need like five of these for our armor. He told them no. I can't imagine how many didn't ask. As Andrew said, I myself have seen some of the firearms turned in these. I would have easily dropped $1,000 on a gun that somebody turned in for a $50 Food Land gift certificate.

And that's not even just the unscrupulous officers. Like, I believe the event they had in town. They had cars lined up around blocks waiting in traffic with the guns in the trunks for the to wait in line and turn into, not HPD, DLE So, I mean, if some...

If some of these criminals start wising it up, you know, they can easily just steal a car and now they got a bunch of guns. And there's also another reason my gun buybacks don't work is people often abuse it.

Like, I myself have considered making some guns to turn into these buybacks just to, you know, get three weeks worth of groceries for like 50 bucks worth of work. All right, stand on the rest of my written testimony. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Next we have Alice Abellanida.

My name is Alice Abellanida. I'm a legal gun owner and a citizen. And I'm also a member of Hawaii Rifle Association and Hawaii Firearms Coalition. And I'm concerned about the propaganda from the media that's placing unreasonable fear of gun ownership.

If you study history, all the countries that, when you disarm a country, tyrannical governments come in and they murder their own people. That's where it always goes when you're conditioning people to get rid of guns. That, that the guns are evil. A gun is a tool.

It's only, it's just, it's going to sit on the table. The person that's utilizing the gun is the one that's dangerous or safe. You see what I'm saying? In a, in a lot of these shootings at malls, the cops, it takes a long time to get there.

And if you, if you're armed, the good guys a lot of times stop crime. So we're conditioning people to be afraid of guns instead of educating people when they're young on gun safety and how to handle a firearm. And I understand that there's people with mental issues and stuff, I get that.

But when you start taking guns away from a society, that's a very slippery slope to tyranny. And that's what the second amendment says. It's our rights shall not be infringed and it's to protect against a tyrannical government. And that's where I see this is going. So thank you for your time.

Thank you. Next we have Jon Abbott. Okay, thank you. Next we have Kevin Cole, followed by John Terry. Okay, Jennifer Cabjuan on Zoom.

Not present on Zoom, Chair.

Ryan Hopf on Zoom.

Not present on Zoom, Chair.

Jacob Wruck in person. Not present. James Smith.

Chair, Vice Chair, Members Committee. Thank you again for having me up for probably the seventh time. Here we go. I am in support in both sides of the coin. I am a hunter gatherer and also a concealed carry permit owner. So with all this being said, there is a couple things that a gentleman said over here about out money where it's being used in $800,000. Why don't we just give it to the gentleman over here that need it?

Why don't we just take the funds that we need and if we're going to have people hand in money or hand in guns, why don't we just let the gentlemen who are short staffed or have time to go out and gather those guns and make a program where we can go to those homes, collect those, and take that money.

Whether you have like Oahu auctions, you have all these things that are happening but you do it under a the correct style of administration, such as gentleman over here as yourself. And they run the auction and they sell it and that money goes to them. Simple as that.

And let them have that money just like we can do with teachers need more money. We all need more money. But at day's end, I respectfully for the committee to reduce the amount of General Fund appropriation.

One of the biggest things, the last thing I'm going to say here is that where our tax money goes. And so instead of giving out gift cards and which is taxpayer dollars, why don't we have hotels or bigger businesses come in and help out with giving things such as helping out with the community and such so that it all brings the community back together, not dividing. Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much. Next we have Dennis Dunn in support.

Good afternoon again, Chair and Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Strongly support this measure. The dollars spent are well worth it for every single life we save. I think a lot of the rhetoric and concern around this ignores the fact that forgotten ignored firearms are often used in suicides. I believe that's the actually the largest number of gun deaths in Hawaii from suicides or children who have accidents where they find the gun and accidentally kill someone, seriously injure them.

I myself had two friends during my years growing up in Michigan back in the 1950s that were killed in gun accidents where someone had a gun around, didn't know it was there and forgotten about it, and kids got killed. Every single life that we save by this gun buyback is well worth it. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we have Bill 2516. Members, we are kind of running a little bit behind. So, for the testifiers, many of you are the same testifiers. So we're going to be asking whether you'd like to stand on your testimony and be available for questions. Senate Bill 2516 for Attorney General's Office. Michelle Pu‘u on Zoom. Oh, in person. Okay.

Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Deputy Attorney General Mark Tom for the Department. Department is in support of Senate Bill 2516. This is part of the law enforcement coalition package. Received unanimous support by all members.

The members include the Attorney General, chief of police for each county, the prosecutors from each county, as well as Director of Law Enforcement. I will, at this point, knowing the time is of the essence, I'll stand on my written testimony. But the Department does support this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Office of Public Defender Hayley Cheng.

Good afternoon again, Chair, Vice chair and Members of the Committee. Just very briefly, the Office of the Public Defender obviously recognizes the importance of not permitting the offense of hindering prosecution.

Our main point is that we already have laws to address this, and they already address the severity of the offense, petty misdemeanors, and class and felony designations as we've outlined in our testimony.

I'd also just like to highlight one thing and ask the Committee to refer back to the commentary that's outlined in the statutes for these offenses, which indicate that conduct relating to an offense which has already been consummated ought to be determined more with regard to the dangerousness of the post offense act rather than the prior offense committed.

So if the goal is to punish the person who is accused of hindering prosecution, we believe the framework should be their conduct and what they've done, rather than the offense that they are accused of hindering the alleged perpetrator. So I'll be available for questions. Thank you.

Next, we have County of Hawaii Prosecuting Attorney Kelden Waltjen on Zoom.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members. Hawaii County Prosecuting Attorney Kelden Waltjen, I respect the opinion on noted by First Deputy Cheng. However, we disagree. You know, just to note for the Committee, you know the origin of this Bill is that in recent years here on Hawaii island, we've encountered several instances.

The 2018 killing of Officer Kaliloa, the March 2025 near-fatal shooting of a vice officer here in Hilo, and also in March 2025, the killing of Leticia Suarez. Instances where a serious crime was committed and a wanted suspect was later assisted by others, and it resulted in an island-wide manhunt.

This creates significant financial burdens and undue strain upon our island's limited resources, and it simply jeopardizes public safety. The other part of this issue is justice, and it should go without saying, but we need justice to hold offenders accountable for their actions. Under current law, we can't hold these people accountable.

Those who help their friends and family escape justice by lying to police, providing things like shelter, information, transportation, money, and other forms of assistance. At present, no matter the degree of felony offense that the other person committed, someone who hinders their prosecution is limited to facing only a maximum penalty of a five-year prison term.

This bill can address that issue. It proposes a fair gradient penalty structure that is dependent upon the offense committed by the other person.

In addition, I want to bring attention to my written testimony where I provided a suggestion to include a provision that clarifies that an individual who assists another person committed murder in any degree be subject to a Class A Felony. I encourage this Committee to pass this Bill and to continue to introduce legislation that promotes public safety.

We need legislation that supports law enforcement and prosecutors' efforts. SB 2516 is that type of legislation. Let's focus on holding criminals accountable to make our community safe. We submit our written input, and I'm available to answer any questions you may have. Mahalo.

Thank you. Next, Daniel Hugo from Prosecuting Attorney's Office.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Daniel Hugo for the Honolulu Prosecutor's Office. And we are in strong support of this bill. I will just note that the only thing this bill really is doing is grading the offense according to the predicate.

So the more severe the predicate offense, the more severe the hindering that restores the traditional understanding of accessory after the fact under common law. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here who would like to testify on this measure? Mr. English? I'm sorry. That is, Mr. Smith?

Yes, ma'am. Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. I want to state clearly that I am in strong support for the accountability for those knowingly assist violent criminals. However, I respectfully ask the Legislature to reconsider how SB 2516 structures its penalties and safeguards to ensure that law remains constitutional, precise, and fair in the application.

Concern one is proportional punishment of the Eighth Amendment. Concern two, due process and clarity, and the quote unquote "the render assistance" and also quote unquote "hinder" may narrowly be defined without statutory language requiring proof of the person that exact nature and severity of the original crime, and the law will be applied too broadly.

Supreme Court precedent of Kolender vs Lawson requires law to be sufficiently precise. Ordinary people understand that conduct is prohibited. Concern number three is accessory after the fact and historically treated as lesser. And I'll just skip that, let you read that if you'd like. And also as for the five adjustments.

Require proof of the accused had actual knowledge of the specific felony committed. Number two, require proof of the intent to help the offender evade law enforcement, and merely association or delaying reporting.

Number three, limit Class A felony exposure to cases involves substantial or active assistance or such as destroying evidence, transporting the offender across jurisdictions or concealing the offender with a significant period. Number four, provide explicit explanations for individuals acting under duress, coercion, and or reasonable fear.

Number five is clarity, definitions of the rendering quote unquote "assistance", and to avoid unintentional broad application. These adjustments will preserve the bill's public safety goals while ensuring withstands constitutional scrutiny. And apply to those who knowingly and deliberately protect violent offenders. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. We also have Cacique Melendez for SHOPO. If not, let's turn to Senate Bill 2517. Testifying for Office of the Public Defender, Mr. Bento.

And good afternoon, once again, Chair, Vice Chair, and members of the committee. The Office of the Public Defender does oppose 2517, and I'll try to be brief. I think you've seen from this afternoon's testimony people that legally possess and own firearms, very passionate about that and the fact-- and when it comes to the government perhaps trying to take that away from them.

In this-- under the language of this bill, a person could be convicted of violating a TRO and be guilty of a misdemeanor. If they had not relinquished their firearms in the proper way, as the law requires, they would be guilty of a felony, and thus never be able to possess a firearm legally again in the State of Hawaii.

So what does that mean for the Office of the Public Defender? Well, it would mean that people are going to fight these cases as much as they possibly can. And that's going to require us to perhaps seek more resources to be able to handle all of those cases and that litigation, and that's also a burden on the Judiciary as well.

And so, you know, when you seek to change the law in this manner, there are ramifications that are like ripples in the pond, and I just want to point that out. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Members-- Mark Tom, Deputy Attorney General.

Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee, Deputy Attorney General Mark Tom for the Department. Department supports Senate Bill 2517. Again, this is part of the Hawaii Law Enforcement Coalition Package. It was voted on by unanimous support, and based on this, it just adds more protection to ensure public safety. I will be here for any questions. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Next we have Maui Prosecutor's Office, in support--let's see--Kelden Waltjen on Zoom.

Hello, again, Chair, Vice Chair, committee members. Hawaii County Prosecuting Attorney Kelden Waltjen. We stand in strong support of this bill. This bill is also part of the LEC package, as noted by DAG Tom. This bill addresses a critical gap in our current law. This bill isn't about disarming law-abiding citizens.

This bill is about promoting public safety by protecting victims and survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, and other forms of harassment. This conduct is already criminal.

Currently, individuals prohibited from possessing or owning firearms or ammunition by a court order, which is often oftentimes issued via a protective order or restraining order, only face a misdemeanor penalty for their noncompliance. These court orders are in place because these people have already been identified to pose a heightened risk for violence and lethality.

We appreciate the Legislature's efforts to support survivors and hold offenders accountable. We submit our written input and we remain available to answer any questions you may have. Mahalo.

Thank you. Next, Bradon Ogata for Honolulu Police Department. Oh. Okay. So they-- oh.

Apologize; we could not submit our written testimony in time, so that's why we're testifying in person. My name is Arnold Sagucio, Acting Major of the Records and Identification Division of the Honolulu Police Department. The HPD strongly supports Bill Number 2517. The bill will protect the victims of domestic violence within the state.

Protection of these vulnerable people of our community is paramount for HPD, and the law is-- will greatly impact our community for the better. The law will provide HPD and the Department of the Prosecutors the ability to restrict possession, control, and illegal transfer of domestic violence respondents' firearms.

It will also make it a Class C felony and provide the vital tools needed by law enforcement to prosecute offenders and to protect the innocent. We urge you guys to support Senate Bill 2517, and I yield back the rest of my time.

Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to testify on Senate Bill 2517?

Okay, go ahead.

Okay.

Good afternoon. My objection is to the transfer being included in this bill. I know I--oh, sorry. Andrew Namiki Roberts for Hawaii Firearms Coalition. You know, I know I mentioned earlier when I was looking at a previous bill. This has the same language.

If you don't transfer your firearm to the Police Department and instead you give it to a friend, or you don't have possession of the firearm anymore but you got rid of it in a manner that's different to what the law wants you to, which is surrendering it, you know, you now become a felon.

So, something that was a misdemeanor-- you know, you didn't intend harm. You just wanted to get rid of it but you don't want the Police Department to take your $10,000 worth of guns; you want to actually get some money out of it. You would become a felon for this, and that's the only part of the language that I object to is the inclusion of transfers.

Thank you. Anyone else--let's see--in person? Next we have John Wolfort on Zoom. Is John Wolford on Zoom?

Currently unavailable on Zoom, Chair.

Okay. Jennifer Campon?

Also unavailable on Zoom, Chair.

Jacob Brooke?

Not available. Okay, turning next to Senate Bill 2518. Sorry.

James Smith.

Okay, I'm sorry, I don't have him. James Smith. Sorry.

Chair and Committee James Smith. Laws that exceed constitutional boundaries do not exceed safety. They create litigation uncertainty for law enforcement and uneven application and narrowly tarot approach for distinguishes between ex parte orders and orders issued for full bearing for with findings and dangerousness would serve both victims and constitutional protections.

I respectfully asked the Committee for 2517 in its current form if the intent is to improve safety first protected parties that the legislation must be carefully aligned with due process requirements and recent Supreme Court precedent to ensure is both effective and constitutional. Thank you.

Okay, Members turning to Senate Bill 2518 see testifying for Office of the Public Defender Mr. Bento.

And good afternoon once again, chair, vice chair Members of the Committee. The office of the public defender does oppose this measure and we've specifically addressed some of the concerns we have in our written testimony. But I just wanted to say this.

The Bill doesn't do anything that a judge sitting in a case like this cannot already do if the judge wishes to and it's necessary. The judge can give any defendant in this situation a year of jail as a condition of probation anyway or give them an open five.

Well, I'm sorry, I should say indeterminate term of five years of incarceration. And so the judge already has that ability. And they're put in the best position to know whether a person needs to be incarcerated in that manner. Mandatory sentences take away the ability to negotiate on cases and 98% of the cases go by way of negotiation.

And so it will create more litigation. And again, as I talked earlier, that means added cost for everybody. And I'm available for questions if need be. Thank you.

Thank you. Department of the Attorney General.

Good afternoon. Chair, vice chair, Members of the Committee, Deputy Attorney General Mark Tom for the Department in this Bill. Department strongly supports Senate Bill 2518. This was part of the Hawaii law enforcement coalition package.

I would just note that for these two charges sought on a law enforcement officer in a first and second degree does already carry a mandatory sentencing. So it was the legislature's intent for these two specific charges to have a type of mandatory sentencing.

So this Bill just refines the penalty structure and ensures that there's professionality and sentencing and to deter future offenses in these types of cases. Thank you. I'll be here for questions.

Thank you. DLE. Director Lambert here for questions. Thank you. Okay, next we have Kelden Waltjen for County of Hawaii Prosecutor's Office on zoom.

Although a chair, vice chair, Committee Members, Hawaii county prosecuting attorney Kelden Waltjen. We stand in strong support of this Bill. Last week I had the privilege of. Addressing the Hawaii Police Department's Recruit Class 103rd Recruit Class during their graduation ceremony. One of the things that I did was commend them for answering the call.

To serve and their willingness to serve. Our community across the nation. Right now it's safe to say that law enforcement is under a lot of scrutiny. It's not an easy time to be a police officer. That being said, challenges in recruiting and retaining law enforcement officers remains.

In fact, Director Lambert talked about it earlier this afternoon in his previous testimony. SB 2518 is the type of legislation that will not just ensure that offenders. Are held accountable for their actions fairly. But it will also send a message to our law enforcement community. We appreciate you and we support you.

We submitted our written input and we're available to answer any questions you may have. Mahalo.

Thank you. Next we have Daniel Hugo for Department of Prosecuting Attorney.

Good afternoon Chair, Vice chair and Senator to court. Daniel Hugo for the Honolulu Prosecutor's Office. We're in strong support of this Bill. I just want to point out that our written testimony highlights the increase in assaults on law enforcement officers and that we also believe the mandatory sentencing provisions.

While it's true any judge could use their discretion, judges look to the signal that the Legislature sends them and by increasing the the mandatory sentencing provision, the Legislature is sending a signal that it's taking this serious crime seriously. Thank.

You. Let's see Mr. Smith.

Vice Chair and Members Committee James Smith I fully agree with the legislature's findings and our officers facing real danger every day and recruitment retention are difficult. Meaningful deterrence for assaults and and officers it is necessary. My concern is narrow and practical.

2518 expands the offense to include situations as a person quote unquote recklessly causes injury or serious or substantial bodily injury to an officer imposes mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of one year with no penalty of suspension.

In chaotic and fast moving situations this language could unintentionally apply to a good face citizen who is attempting to assist an officer during a struggle. Consider a scenario where an officer is attempting to subdue a violent offender.

A nearby citizen acting out concern and good faith steps in to help restrain with the off the offender in the struggle. The offender falls and collides with the officer and the officer is seriously injured.

Under the current wording the assistant excuse me, the citizen could be accused of quote unquote recklessly causing bodily injury and face a mandatory one year jail sentence even though the citizen's intent was to help to protect the officer. I ask for a revise that out of this hypothetical concern.

Hawaii law recognizes that citizens may lawfully assist officers under the jurisdiction Statutes of Chapter 703, Hawaii Revised Statutes and 25 does not refer to these protections. So all I ask is that the subsection shall not be applied to the person who is in good faith and render assistance to the law enforcement officer.

And so that 703 is just in place into the into the 2518 as well.

So the amendment would preserve long stronger penalties for those who intentionally and recklessly harm officers and also encourage community Members to assist officers in emergencies and also make it in line with SB 2518 with the existence of Hawaii jurisdiction laws and prevent unintended prosecutions for good samaritans. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Turning next to Senate Bill 2519 relating to law enforcement Department of the Attorney General.

Chair Vice Chair Members of the Committee Deputy Attorney General Mark Tom for the Department. The Department is in strong support of Senate Bill 2519. This is again is part of the Hawaii Law Enforcement Coalition package and was voted unanimously by all Members.

This is a very important Bill because everybody would like to make sure that the certification for all law enforcement officers in the state is done properly and effectively, and this will extend the deadline to ensure that that is done correctly from July 1, 2026 to July 1, 2028. I will be here for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Hawaii Law Enforcement Standards Board Victor McCraw.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair. My name is Victor McCraw. I'm the administrator for the Hawaii Law Enforcement Standards Board. We mainly stand on our written testimony. I wanted to address you for purposes of just acknowledging and introducing myself to your Committee, but also to give you a visual of the entire administrative staff of the Law Enforcement Standards Board.

It's just me. So the additional time is to attain funding, hire staff and put systems and processes in place so that we can take on the very important task of certifying peace officers throughout the state of Hawaii. I appreciate your time.

Thank you. There's any questions. This has been a long process. Adrian Dakawa testifying for Law Enforcement Standards.

Board Chair Fukunaga Vice Chair Lee Senator to Court Adrian Dhakhwa, Chairman of the Law Enforcement Standards Board. You have my testimony. You know what happens if we don't pass this Bill. I'd like to spend the time to address the concern of what's different this time.

I think some of the testimony or even some of the Senators might have concerns of, you know, we've had to kick the can down the road. 2019-2021-2024-2026. So what's the difference now? And the difference now is we finally have our first or only full time employee administrator Victor McCraw.

We are fortunate to be poised to finally get funding for additional positions for staff. We are poised to get funding for a training database as well as a certification database. So this is the first time in since 2018 we've actually been positioned to say that the certification deadline is real, a realistic one. Thank you.

Be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Director Lambert from Department of Law Enforcement. Thank you. And we have Mr. Smith.

Aloha Chairman, Vice Chair, Members of Committee I'll try to be quick. I'm ready in support of 2519 and the extent to the Law Enforcement Standards Board certification deadline be deadline from 2026 to 2028. The extension is necessary to prevent unintended staffing crisis across our county police departments and state law enforcement agencies.

And without this extension, many current officers who are trained experience actively protecting our communities will be ineligible for work duly to certification backlog and administrative capacity issue that would lead severe officer shortages, increased overtime costs, slower response times and reduced public safety for our communities.

And however, with the extension with the responsible and practical action, it also highlights a serious implementation problem that deserves an examination. In 2026, dynamics was set without a realistic asset of staffing systems and funding required for the Law Enforcement Standards Board to certify thousands of officers across multiple agencies.

The board, the departments and the Legislature were also placed in position with a timeline that did not match operational realities. As taxpayer and community Members, we respectfully ask what planning analysis was conducted in 2026? Deadline was established.

What staffing and budget was allocated for the Law Enforcement Standards Board to accomplish with that task and why are we our capacity limitations not identified and addressed earlier? What specific changes were made now to ensure that the same situation does not occur again in 2028? This is not about assigning blame to individuals.

It's about ensuring accountability in government and blaming planning and protecting public safety and taxpayer resources.

The extension of 2028 should be accomplished by a clear implementation plan as a teacher would have as well for the daily lesson plans, increasing staffing or system improvements for the Law Enforcement Standards Board benchmarks and reporting for Legislature assurance for the officers to meet the standards without disrupting the public safety.

With all that being said, please require a plan and reporting structure so there's no more delayed results.

Thank you. Turning next to Senate Bill 2520 relating to habitual virtual crime, Attorney General's office followed by Prosecutor's office.

Good afternoon. Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee Deputy Attorney General Mark Tom for the Department. Department is in strong support of Senate Bill 2520. Again this is part of the Hawaii Law Enforcement Coalition package.

It in full support by the coalition and the Department is in strong support of this measure in removing the sunset for the charge of habitual violent crimes. Thank you.

Thank you Mr. Hugo

Chair, Vice. Chair, Members of the Committee stand on our written testimony.

Okay, thank you. Next we have Senate Bill 2592 relating to firearms and testifying on behalf of the Hawaii Firearms Coalition. Mr. Roberts.

I think this is the first time I've done this in quite a while. I'm in support of the Bill. So yeah, I mean any time that we're having more reporting the better. The only thing I would say is can we please change the date from April until June?

Let's give them six months so that they have time to do it. I know that you know there's a lot of reports that come out from the AG's office during that time period and giving them that extra couple of months would help them out and provide a more accurate and better response. Thank you.

Thank you. Next we have Ryan Hopf and Jerry Yuen. They are no longer here. We have Mr. Smith.

My timer. All said and done. I feel like I've sit in one of those chairs. All right, here we go. Chair, Vice Chair and Members Committee. I respectfully submit the testimony in opposition. 2592 with presentation a statistical reporting measure that goes bey far beyond aggregate data data collection.

It mandates the annual public release of highly sensitive demographic and personal information tied to firearm incidents, including race, ethnicity, gender, and also past criminal history and past mental health and substance abuse and such. This raises constitutional and privacy concerns placed the state on legal unstable ground.

Some of the constitutional concerns are second amendment, Fourth Amendment and first amendment. With some of the places that are in for the Whalen versus Row and the NAACP versus Alabama, New York State Rifle Pistol Association versus Bruen. These are just some of the pieces that could be used.

Some of the other pro problems that could become become concern are privacy and HIPAA considerations. Even though the Health Private Insurance Portability and Accountability act may not directly apply because these information flows through law enforcement channels. The Bill effectively requires the public reporting of mental health and substance abuse history connected to identifiable incidents.

This creates a profound privacy concern and technical falls outside the HIPAA scope. But the core issue does not merely produce statistics. It's it creates a state-mandated demographic and behavioral reporting system tied to firearm ownership and Incidents intended to evaluate and justify future legislation. That function moves into public safety reporting into constitutionally sensitive territory. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Smith. Members, this brings us to the end of our allotted time frame. So we have not completed all the bills. So the chair is going to propose that we defer the remaining over to finish. Okay. We can. I guess we can continue to meet if our Members are available more measures. Okay.

We'll continue to take testimony on Senate Bill 2720 with Michael Rice on Zoom. Mr. Rice, are you available?

One second, yes. 2720. First and foremost, this Bill is a violation of federal law, protection of law for commence and clause, the protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. It's attempting to extort manufacturers into paying into legal fees that they are not liable or due to acts by third parties. This, as I said, this is not only a second amendment violation, it is against federal law.

And this is especially relevant considering that most of the gun violence here is connected by ghost guns or with ghost guns, I should say, which don't have a manufacturer. It is usually made from parts from different sources or even just 3D printed. And you.

And like I said, you're asking gun manufacturers to pay an extortion fee to pay to play in the state. We're not. They're probably just gonna say, nah, go ahead and then this will be a de facto gun ban because we can't get any guns here because Colt Glock and all those won't sell here.

All right, I...the rest of my testimony. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, Mr. Rice. Next we have Alice Evelynida. Okay. John Abbott. Okay, next, let's see, John Terry. Jason Wolford on Zoom. Jennifer, I'm sorry, Kabwon on Zoom.

Unavailable on Zoom, Chair.

Okay, great. Let's see. Jerry Yuen in person. Ryan Hopp in person. Todd Yukutake on Zoom.

Unavailable on Zoom, Chair.

...on Zoom.

Also unavailable on Zoom, Chair.

Mr. Smith in person. Okay, next we have Senate Bill 2721. This is the last bill on the agenda relating to Administration of Justice. State of Hawaii, Department of Health, Behavioral Health Administration. Thank you. Next we have Paul Wong testifying for the judiciary.

Good afternoon, Chair. Vice Chair. My name is Jennifer Wong. I'm a staff attorney for the criminal divisions. Judge Wong Day. We'll stand on our written comments.

Thank you. Haley Chang from office of public defender.

Good afternoon from the public defender's office. We will stand on her written testimony that offers comments and some suggested considerations for the Committee. Thank you.

Thank you. Department of the Attorney General.

Just briefly good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Deputy Attorney General, Trisha Nakamatsu. Appearing on behalf of the Department of the Attorney General. We did submit our written testimony, which is more detailed. But just to note that we have.

Concerns about language on page 27 regarding changes to the length of probation. We have some specific suggestions on additional. Offenses that we would ask the Committee to consider more carefully adding to the. List of exemptions for the four year probation. We also have concerns about language on page 31.

I believe we had specific suggestions on wording that could be added there as well. Thank you. Available for questions, if any.

Thank you. Pamela Ferguson-Bray for Crime Victim Compensation Commission.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair Members I'm Ferguson Bray.

I'm the Executive Director of the Crime Victim Compensation Commission and we also serve on the Committee helping represent the interests of crime victims. You have our testimony. We support the bill.

With the exception of provisions reducing the term of probation to three, from four to three years, we're very concerned about the impact that will have on crime victims, especially as it relates to restitution.

It shortens the period of time to collect restitution effectively for that period of time, transferring the burden of collecting restitution from the judiciary whose job it is to enforce their own orders to crime victims.

Some of the offenses that are included in this are negrom in the second degree, sex assault in the third degree, some child abuse offenses promoting child abuse. Those are the types of offenses that are included in this reductions.

Criminal justice reform believe must not only serve the interests of offenders but also include meaningful protection for the interests of crime victims to avoid any harmful or unintended consequences. Restitution is the primary pathway to mitigate the financial impact of crime on victims. How important is this concept of justice?

It is a core concept of justice in our criminal justice system.

In a 2011 letter to the editor written by Rod Miley, then the administrative Director of the Court, after a series of articles that were highly critical of the judiciary, both for not having any data about restitution cases and restitution in general, Rod Miley commented clearly, offenders failure to fully pay restitution is a difficult, complex and long standing problem, but one that absolutely has to be addressed because of the hurtful impact that it has on victims and because non compliance with court orders undermines public trust and confidence in the judicial system.

We're a Member of a consortium of folks across the country who look at and enforce victims rights and one of the suggestions they had for people thinking about criminal justice reform is they Ask one of these. This is one of the questions. Does this strategy eliminate or reduce the opportunity for victims to receive court ordered restitution?

If so, how will the financial recovery of victims be supported in the Committee? One of the suggestions is that victims just avail themselves of the civil enforcement system. As you can see from our testimony, it's a hollow promise. We know of almost no one who's been able to avail themselves of this procedure.

I would challenge the Committee to look at the directions that the judiciary provides and see if they could possibly even file their own order, much less garnish wages, garnish bank accounts without an attorney, which is one of the things the judiciary suggests that they do in case victims can't understand their directions on how to file.

The average restitution that people owe when we did a survey with council state governments is less than $1,000. Please do not create a system where we transfer the burden from the judiciary because it's a difficult process to crime victims who then will have no help of receiving the financial justice they deserve.

We also support, we noted Dennis had some suggestions and we also support his suggestions as well. Thank you.

Thank you. We have Mr. Smith. Okay, thank you. Dennis Dunn.

And again Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, I will not read my testimony. As you can see, it's rather lengthy. I served as a member of the Code Review Committee and was a pleasure to serve with the individuals. And for the most part I'm in full agreement with the recommendation. Et. However, in section.

I'm sorry HRS I'm sorry, the part related to probation. I'm sorry, I'm losing my spot here. As far as the actual section, I have very serious concerns and I think you should give the serious consideration to reducing the periods of probation.

Primarily because the only way that victims get restitution experiments, which is about 50 years working with victims, is that if there is a significant incentive coming from the courts to do that. As Ms. Fergum Ferguson-Bray has already pointed out, the record thus far for probationers is not very good in Hawaii.

And although the Legislature has provided alternatives in terms of the tax refund intercept, in terms of freestanding orders and so on, I'm not aware of any victims who've been able to successfully use either of those means to be able to get restitution.

So that maintaining the court's authority and ability to be able to get individuals to comply, I think is critical. Therefore, I provided a couple of amendments that I'm suggesting. Not directly part of the report, I admit that, but suggestions that I think will help to improve the process.

One is that an individual would not be allowed to get early release from probation unless they've completed their restitution.

And the second, as you'll see in my further in my testimony would not only provide as is currently this in the statute that a victim be notified if someone is put on probation, but currently there's no requirement that an individual, a victim be notified if an individual is being released from probation.

Mr. Dun, person who is in that situation, the victim would never know unless they found out independently some other way.

Thank you very much for your testimony. Okay. Is there anyone else who wish to testify on Senate Bill 2721? Okay. If not.

Aloha, Tara Rojas. Just a suggestion for the future of your meetings that you're going to have and I take a moment to check online to see if there are people on and give them a moment because they may have be having issues.

Can you identify yourself?

Tara Rojas. Can you hear me okay? Can you hear me okay? Can you hear me okay?

Okay, we can hear you. Please proceed.

Oh yeah. Okay, so tag so let me restart just for the future meetings that you're going to have. Just take a moment to always take a look online for Zoom and give people a moment to get.

Excuse me Ms. Rojas, can you turn your video on?

Yeah, it's on. Okay. So my testimony regard this regarding this SB2721 is.

I'm so sorry we can't see you and we need to have your video up here for our our testimony during the hearing. If you have submitted written testimony, we will accept your written testimony.

Okay, got it. So Tara Rojas, SB2721 start again. Starting again. Just for suggestions for the future meetings that you're going to have. Take a moment to look online if there's anybody you know waiting to testify and give them a moment to get logged on.

Regarding the 2721 I really and the others that we testify on, I really hope that in your deliberation you really are taking into account and not just coming coming with their own decisions ready to be made and always take a look at what the public and the majority of individuals are saying.

For this one I notice that individuals are opposing and yet the organizations and the agencies are approving and those even that are approving have given recommendations for amendments again regarding victims and restitution and making sure you know that they they receive compensation and they again I just heard that previous testifier to not put the burden on on them as well.

And so just as in general, there's, gosh, there's so much that is going on. And again, I just really want you to to hear the people really read the recommendations, take a look at what majority the people want, you know, versus institutions and agencies. And thank you for your testimony.

I believe you exceeded your two minute time frame. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay, Members, we have reached the end of the agenda. We're going to take a quick recess and come back for decision making. Reconvening for decision making in public safety and military affairs.

We did have a fairly lengthy agenda today and we appreciate everyone's indulgence in getting to this late time. On the first measure on the agenda, Senate Bill 433 relating to weapons. I think the overwhelming sense of the testimony was that there is not support for this measure in the way that we would like it to move forward.

So the Chair would like to recommend that we defer this measure indefinitely. Any discussion questions? Okay. If not with respect to Senate Bill 2575 relating to firearms, there were a lot of good testimonies that were presented and Chair would like to defer decision making on this measure so that we can circulate a proposed SD1 with amendments.

And so everyone will have an opportunity to take a look at it and we will post a new decision making date for that measure. Any questions? Okay. Concerns if not moving to Senate Bill 2382 and Senate Bill 2383. These are the two law enforcement measures to assist Department of Law Enforcement in in recruiting and retaining their employees.

Chair proposes to accept the amendments from the Attorney General's office and report both bills up with amendments. So for Senate Bill 2382, we also have technical, non substantive amendments. So the Chair recommends that we report it out with an SD1.

Voting on Senate Bill 2382, recommendation is to pass with amendments. [Roll Call]Chair, the recommendations adopted.

Thank you. On Senate Bill 2383, same recommendation for an SD1 with the Attorney General's amendments as well as technical, non substantive amendments.

It's voting on SB2383. Recommendations to pass with amendments noting all present with Senator Inouye excused. Are there any reservations or noes? If not? Chair, the recommendations adopted on Senate Bill.

2503 relating to firearms. This is the buyback program. Chair recommends that we pass this measure out with a defective date. So that'll be a Senate draft. One passing with amendments, voting on SB2503.

Recommendations to pass with amendments noting Senator Inouye excused. Are there any other reservations or noes? Seeing none. Recommendations adopted.

Okay. With respect to Senate Bill 2516, this is relating to public safety and it's part of the law enforcement coalition. Chair would like to moved this package forward to the Judiciary Committee.

So recommendation on Senate Bill 251, 2517, 2518, 2519 is to pass these four measures as is. Any discussion? Senator Decorte.

Chair, I will be voting Aye to all bills except SB 2517. That will be a no vote for me.

Okay, thank you. Vice Chair Lee.

Oh, excuse me. 2516 as well. That's a no vote.

Okay, thank you very much.

Okay. Voting on going to take these all together. SB 2516, SB 2517, SB 2518 and SB 2519. The recommendation on all bills is to pass unamended, noting Senator Inouye excused and with no votes on 2516 and 2517, Senator to court. Are there any other reservations or noes? Seeing none, the recommendations are adopted.

Okay. On Senate Bill 2520, this is relating to habitual violet crime, the last Bill in the law enforcement package. This one has technical, non substantive amendments. So Chair would like to recommend that we pass it with an SD1.