Should the right to bear arms should be clarified?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Auhea on June 17, 2008 at 1:13pm

Why change a good thing anyway.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by dekepalo on June 27, 2008 at 8:48pm

A wonderful practice from the founding fathers. Booooya

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Curtis Muraoka on June 29, 2008 at 1:03am

Clearly, "well regulated militia" is the operative phrase; "well regulated" in that there is purpose behind, and justification for the citizenry being prepared to defend themselves against threats, both from abroad and at home; therefore all citizens should know how to shoot. A certain segment of The People have somewhat shirked this responsibility because guns are portrayed as dangerous, evil and criminal, rather than tools of defense.

Militia are intended to balance and check against threats, including our own government, and therefore should be powerful enough of a buffer to dissuade standing armies from wanting to take on The People.

Hawaii's constitution should encourage availability of safe shooting ranges on all islands and in most communities. It should encourage training programs and safety classes specifically for non-hunting type gun use, especially focused on hand gun awareness. That would support the "well regulated" element.

Further, Hawaii should ease restrictions on legal purchase or transfer of ONE defensive firearm for any citizen who wants to own a gun, pretty much ANY kind of gun from a .22 to a 9mm semi-auto, to a .308 NATO rifle, to a light .50. That addresses the militia part, including the intent to dissuade tyranny in governance.

Additionally, hunting rifles, curio/.relic, and collectibles should be allowed without too much red tape.

Beyond that, a Federal Firearms License (FFL) should be required.

It is my opinion that the right of citizens to keep and bear arms might be limited in quantity and type of arms, but not the initial ability to be armed at all, as Hawaii's stringent laws dictate at present.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Gordon Becker on July 4, 2008 at 9:51pm

The July 3, 2008 issue of the Maui Weekly included a half page by Governor Linda Lingle on page 15 with the headline "A Con Con Would be Beneficial for the Entire State". She noted that "In 1996 Hawai'i voters cast more "yes" than "no" votes in support of a con con. However, that year the Hawai'i Supreme Court ruled that blank ballots be counted as "no" votes. Consequently, a con con hasn't been held in our state since 1978."
She also stated that Lt. Gov. Aiona is heading a committee studying the costs of a con con, that a report will be made by Aug 1 2008, and that "Residents can provide their comments to the task force at concon@hawaii.gov"

▶ Reply to This

▶ Reply to This