So Much for Inviting Public Comment

Testimony for Hawaii's "bump stock" ban proposal [More]

Commentary from George Pace:

Tabulation:
FOR    5 (five)
OPPOSED 104 (one hundred and four)
I haven't read all the comments (and even my quick tabulation looking through over 100 pages could be off by a couple), but the support is from HPD, Maui Prosecutor, Big Island Mayor Harry Kim, Americans for Democratic Action and one individual.
Now let's see how the committee "translates" that public input into action.
I appreciate everyone who took the time to submit testimony to attempt to defensively defeat legislation to further restrict our rights.
Now, can we please take the same energy and attempt to use it to go on the offense and get the committee chairs to hear the bills to restore our rights (CCW shall issue, handgun mag limit change to 17, and end stun gun ban)?  :shaka:
* * * * *What a waste of time. I don't get it. This is "representative government"? Representing who or what?
Chairman starts off the committee meeting by saying that there are too many people who want to testify on SB2046, so (even though you took time off work and came all the way down here and maybe paid for parking, etc.) you won't be able to testify. Why have "in person" testimony if there is a "time limit" that is interpreted to mean the vast majority of people there to testify can't testify? So much for "public input".  :crazy:  :wtf:
Then there's the fact that only two of the five committee members are present, so there is no "quorum" and they can't do anything after they sit there for 90 minutes listening to all the people they did allow to testify on other bills, and postpone action until at least the next meeting on Feb 6. Why even have the meeting and hear all the "public input" (such as is allowed given the "time constraints") when the majority of the members aren't even there? It's almost like they all have their minds made up before any procedural events (testimony, meetings, votes, etc.) take place, so they haven't really missed anything by missing the meeting and the in person testimony (such as was "allowed").  >:(