Senator trying to ban all folding knives in Hawaii

Total bull from our politicians. Senator is trying to pass a bill banning all folding knives in Hawaii. I sent him a letter objecting as well. If you care, here it is:


Senator Ihara,

As a law abiding citizen and tax payer in the state of Hawaii, I must offer my objections to the bill (HI S 126) that you introduced. I actually find it incredible that something like this can even be considered. While I support criminalizing anything used as a weapon and in committing a crime, the amount of time a knife is used as such must be infinitesimally small compared to its legal use.

I have carried a pocket knife of some sort all my life and still do. When I travel, I feel naked having to check it until I arrive at my destination. As an avid outdoorsman, I will always have a knife with me. As part of my daily life, I find having a pocket knife handy and useful. It is used for some task or another almost daily. Does that make me a criminal? I certainly don’t think so. But your bill, if it passes, would as I would likely continue to carry and use a pocket knife. Or if the pocket knife is somehow banned, I may have to resort to carrying a fixed sheath knife. The knife is one of man’s oldest tools, probably only sticks and stones would be older.

If you truly want to reduce crime, stop making ordinary mundane things that don’t hurt anyone criminal. Rather focus on things like drugs that alter people’s normal behavior that lead to crime. There was a time in our country’s history that if you went to school without your pocket knife, you would be scolded for not being prepared. I feel many people carry a pocket knife as part of their preparedness planning. I know I do. You tell all the Boy Scouts they can no longer have a knife. You tell the construction workers. And you tell the tourists that visit.

If I had to protect myself or my family, I would not likely reach for the knife in my pocket but rather pick up a stick or a rock. I view the knife as a tool not a weapon. And besides, I suspect most people would be like me and try to not be in a situation where any kind of force is needed.

You may as well ban cars as I feel more people are killed and injured by cars than knives. I know, I was injured in an auto accident fairly recently. And no, I do not want to give up my car. But I think when a car is used illegally or improperly, the driver should be penalized. In my case, the guy that hit me was uninsured and had no license. He even hit me while I was parked. Do I feel the vehicle was the problem? No, that would be foolish. The driver was the problem.

So to conclude, I think your bill is not only short-sighted, but foolish. You will wrongfully harm the citizens of Hawaii who carry and use pocket knives legally to satisfy some constituent that may have complained to you because they saw someone use a pocket knife and got scared by it. Over the past several decades, our society is being emasculated and weakened; and your bill will further that trend. Not only that, you will likely harm our economy as well by adversely affecting the honest businesses and people who use and sell knives and possibly our valuable visitors. I know many people that visit our islands and many will bring a pocket knife of some sort with them.

Perhaps, if legislators are also penalized for the harmful laws that they pass; more consideration would be taken before something is proposed. Please reconsider what you are trying to do with your bill.

Mahalo,


Please contact the senator:

Les Ihara, Jr.
Majority Policy Leader
9th Senatorial District
Hawaii State Capitol, Room 220
415 South Beretania Street
Honolulu, HI 96813
phone 808-586-6250; fax 808-586-6251
e-mail: senihara@Capitol.hawaii.gov

Would this fall under a class ban as in the Washington DC ban on handguns that was just overturned in Heller v. DC? I do believe an argument could be made that knives are protected as well.

As for the legislation, dumb and myopic.

Wow, I'd feel naked without my Leatherman.

Did you contact Knife Rights about this, send them a link to information on the proposed ban, etc?

I would not mention Heller, as it could be seen as an acknowledgment that knives are classifiable as weapons rather than tools.

Aloha, I know you probably wouldn't want to leave your tropical paradise for subarctic pergatory, but I'm surrounded by refugees where I am. One more family could be easily handled.

Bet I can guess where your letter ends up...

The pols in Hawaii are pretty much bats**t crazy and have been for many years. I once thought about moving there 25 years ago but would have had to quarantine my dog for 3 months and leave all my handguns behind. I would not have even been able to keep my CCW that I was able to get in California as a former LEO.

Hopefully, the rest of the pols colleagues are not as insane as he appears to be. People get the government they deserve and all that.

Agree, at this point referring to them as tools is better. If they were banned, a good lawyer would be wise to look at Heller.

Mahalo IronRaven,

I think I will gut it out.

Which one of the "10 Essentials" will they go after next?

Nice letter, comes from the heart, unfortunately, the pols don't care unless they thing it will affect votes or fundraising.

People: This post is near and dear to Doug's heart and his efforts. Let's just keep the inevitable politics out of it and no problem.

"Dear Senator,
On a recent Boy Scout camping trip, the children of Troop XYZ were engaged in several activities related to learning outdoor skills and advancing their knowledge of the outdoors.
During the outdoor survival portion, the boys were required to create a shelter overnight. They found it quite difficult to cut ropes to appropriate lengths to lash together their construction materials, and were thus harshly exposed to a rain storm that night. As a result, 2 of our boys contracted pneumonia and are currently hospitalized.
We had a great time cooking as well. Unfortunately, without a knife, we were unable to properly gut and prepare our fresh fish. Fortunately, we adapted and overcame, using volcanic glass as a cutting implement. 1 of our boys cut part of his tongue on a piece left in the fish, and another underwent emergency surgery after another piece perforated his intestines.
Finally, we had a phenomenal time working on our rock-climbing. We learned many techniques and the boys had a great time. Disaster struck, however, when 2 boys were on one rope and one of the anchors shifted. Had a knife been available, the lower boy could have cut loose, and probably safely fallen the last 15 feet, while allowing the boy higher on the rope to safely descend. However, that was not to be, and both fell, resulting in numerous fractures in both boys.

Fortunately for all involved, no boys were threatened by other outdoorsmen encountered. I'd like to thank you for your foresight and the leadership you showed in outlawing such hazards as proper cutting instruments. I'm glad none of the boys cut themselves during our excursion.

Sincerely,
Happy Scoutmaster"

The sad thing is, something like this would probably be interpreted as compimentary. Idiot.

Has there ever been a society that's attempted to ban knives to this extent? I can't imagine there has.

I can't even imagine what my life would be like without being able to possess a pocket knife. I must use one at least twice a day every day now. And I can't imagine the implications for people that really use knives for work. Carpet knives, boxcutters, Xactos, fishing knives, electricians, multitools, pruning knives, etc. Those and many more work-related tools would need special exemptions that I didn't see in the proposed bill.

It's like they're finally trying to out-kooky California.

England. If they're not there already, they've got to be getting mighty close by now. I think they were talking about banning kitchen knives with points on them. I don't know if that ever became law.

THis may be an over generalization, but it seems the farther west or east one travels from Texas, the stranger things become.....

I sent my letter of objection.
Now ever traveler who arrives with a SAK in their luggage will be a criminal.

I just can't believe that anyone can be that myopic!

I carry a pocket knife every day. I hate travelling and having to check it. More than once it was in my carry-on and I didn't realize it and it went through without a problem.

While being from Nebraska and not Texas, I would have to agree with this statement. Its pretty spot on.

'Tis the season folks - a new legislature, a new bill enters the fray. Often new bills are introduced by legislators at the request of a single constituent, there is no popular call for the bill in the legislature or in the public at large. Why they should introduce such an obviously unpopular bill I don't know, but gauge its logic and public interest, it won't go far if anywhere.

In Washington state we have been dealing with assigning an age for under-age hunting without an adult present - 14, 16 and 18 are all in play. A legislator has introduced a companion bill to require anyone recreating in a hunting area in season to wear blaze orange, which has hiking and other recreational groups up in arms. That kind of bill has similar issues that make it unlikely to pass, and immpossible to enforce if it does. Golly, do you wonder which bill is getting the hottest debate, and most legislative attention? Think what you will, that's smart politics.

We have just passed through 8 years during which our congress and executive branch leaders saw fit to suspend and deny important constitutional protections, allegedly for our mutual safety. Whether you agree with that or not, it was accomplished without too much hullabaloo and has had a critical impact on everyone's lives, yet still it was tolerated by most folks.

Rattles my non folding moderator's sabre.Once again, No politics of partisan nature, no geographic insults.

Do something about it ... join and support the Knife Rights advocacy organization mentioned on equipped.org:

http://www.kniferights.org/

...speaking of near and dear to Doug Ritter's heart

Sorry Chris, didn't mean to offend or start a political argument. If its any help, the 8 years of congressional and executive branch decisions I was referring to were exceedingly bi-partisan in nature, if I had meant to attack one political party for the actions I would out of fairness have had to attack the opposition as well. I didn't try to touch on partisan politics there, though I appreciate your impression that I did and I will abide and not go there again in this forum.

One thing I like about modern legislation, is the accessibility of legislators and staff on topics of legislation. Even just a few years ago, you couldn't reasonably get a hold of a legislator on the topic of their bill - too busy, too unconnected, there were actually staffs set up to buffer them from contact. If you got a response, it was typically typed, canned, and may be intended to obfuscate the goals of the politician / legislator. Today, anyone can contact their representative on a bill such as this one to outlaw folding knives and ask the question, why do you want this bill to pass? What do you hope to accomplish? I would recommend to anyone in Hawaii who has an interest in this bill to contact Senator Ihara and ask him who or what motivates his bill: its one thing to come at them with automatic opposition to the legislation, and in this case probably derservedly so, but its another to engage in dialog withhim and find out why he would introduce what is surely an unpopular measure.

You know what REALLY bugs me about the government lately? Now mind you, this is my perception, which may be skewed.

Representatives are there to REPRESENT their constituents. Lately, though, it seems less and less like they're doing that, and instead knee-jerking to a "crisis" and doing things to get re-elected. This happens despite often clear evidence that the general public doesn't agree with them.

Honestly, I really think we should wipe the slate clean and start over (meaning get rid of current government officials, not something catastrophic). Kind of like Tom Clancy did in his books when Ryan became president.

This was posted on the Knife Rights site and sent out to members this evening:

Hawaiian State Senator Introduces Pocket Knife Ban Bill

For those who claim that we are paranoid, I present Hawaii Senate Bill 126. It was introduced last week by Democratic Senator Les Ihara and would ban the manufacturing, transfer, sale, possession or transportation of folding knives "suitable for carrying in the pocket."

You can review the full bill as proposed here: http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2009/bills/SB126_.htm

Being somewhat gracious, one might conclude that Senator Ihara is seriously misguided and the more widespread presumption by many in online forum posts is that he is an idiot. The reality is that he's just being a politician. Still, the fact remains that this is symptomatic of attacks on our knife rights of which we can expect to see more in coming years. You’re not paranoid if they really are trying to get you.

In fairness, it should be noted that this bill was introduced "by request," meaning that it was at the request of a constituent, not a piece of legislation developed by the Senator. Many such bills, often of questionable value and support, are introduced every year in legislatures throughout the U.S. as a means to gain points and votes, often with little or no thought given by the legislator and knowing that they probably will not go very far. I contacted Sen. Ihara's office and was told that the bill was introduced just as a courtesy for his constituent and that Sen. Ihara did not support the bill, nor do they expect it to reach the floor for a vote. I have emailed the Senator to get a personal statement of his position, but as of this evening had not yet received a response.

However, the Senator is under no obligation to submit radical legislation such as this and in my opinion it should never have seen the light of day. It is imperative that Senator Ihara understand that knife owners do not take such things lightly. The knife industry and knife owners are up in arms over this bill. Many of you have already emailed or called after notices were posted on various online forums. While this is not an organized grassroots response, it’s a beginning. You can find a mailing address and phone number at: http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/site1/senate/members/Sen9.asp

While it may feel good to launch into an invective-filled tirade, those don't accomplish much. If you're going to write, make a reasoned argument. We want him to know that the next time a constituent tries this; he should just say "no," because that's the right thing to do.

It's not likely that such a radical bill as this would actually make it through the legislative process at the current time. However, we also cannot overlook the possibility that some future tragedy might occur that helps this bill or another one in a similar vein to garner popular support and traction in the media. A less radical proposal could be another story, especially given changing attitudes and political climate. How much of your rights would others not mind trampling upon?

Perhaps this bill will serve as a wake-up call for those who maintain it could never happen here. We must maintain our guard and gird ourselves for a continuing fight. It isn't a question of "if," it's only a matter of when and where.

Doug Ritter
Chairman / CEO
Knife Rights, Inc.
Knife Rights Foundation, Inc.
www.KnifeRights.org
Email: dritter@KnifeRights.org

Mahalo Doug.

Your contacting Senator Ihara representing Knife Rights means a lot to me personally. I appreciate it.

Senator Ihara emailed the following response to Knife Rights' concerns about SB 126:

From: "Sen. Les Ihara, Jr." <senihara@Capitol.hawaii.gov>
To: Doug Ritter <dritter@KnifeRights.org>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 01:23:12 -1000
Subject: RE: SB 126

Doug: I am opposed to SB 126 and would vote against it if I ever voted on it. Because the Hawaii constitution allows only legislators to introduce bills, my policy has been to introduce bills on behalf of my constituents whenever requested. But if I cannot support a constituent bill, I sign it "by request" which signals to other senators that I am not requesting a public hearing for it. I believe this is a common view of many in the legislature, except for the senate president who introduce all Executive and Judiciary Branch bills "by request" though she may support some of them.

In my 22 years in the Hawaii Legislature, I have signed many constituent bills "by request", but I may now reconsider this policy and possibly refuse to introduce a constituent's bill in extreme situations (such as SB 126). Thank you for your inquiry and for helping to inspire the several hundred emails I received opposing SB 126. I am encouraged for our democracy by seeing so many people interested in public policy issues.

Aloha,
LES IHARA, JR.
Hawaii State Senator, 9th District
Senate Majority Policy Leader

IMHO his policy of submiting anything someone send to him needs to be thought out a bit better. I can see how he would want to submit anything so no one can come back and say he refused to represent them but I think he need to take a more careful look at what he submits first. I wonder if he would tell who requested it?

Nice to have him actually respond back on this issue.

People, An elected representative of the people has an ethical obligation to respond to his constituents, even when they are in disagreement.Now, suppose Aloha asked him to present a bill REQUIRING every able bodies Hawaiian to carry a emergency belt cutter, glass breaking knife?

The policy Sen Ihara describes is fairly common across state legislatures around the U.S. - in most cases it upholds a tradition of access, if not influence, over legislative affairs, and allows participation by minority or unpopular points of view. Remember the saying, I oppose what you say, but will fight to the death for the right for you to say it. This is a hopefully less violent variant of the same. Politics - tis the season. The corollary to the quip that all that is necessary for evil to win is for good men to do nothing is that all that is necessary for bad legislation to die is for good men to do as little as possible. Good men tend to respond to bills going no where with dignity and rationality. Don't let your outrage get out of whack, or focus on the messenger - the senator is doing his job, representing his constituents but also signalling his dissent from his own bill by a common practice. Spend an hour or two on your local legislature's website where bills are introduced and tracked, you'll find lots of stuff there going no where, bound to enrage somebody.

I'm reminded of an old boss of mine, who with his wife had to bury two sons - one died of an illness, the other was mugged and died of his stab wounds under an overpass in Portland. Burying two sons - it was hard, you don't expect to do that in life. He never did, but if he wanted to introduce by request legislation and try to convince people to outlaw knives, I for one wouldn't have the heart to say no. I couldn't vote for it, and would work the courts to reverse it if ever passed, but you let some folks have their lead.

I'm also reminded of the line from Charlie Wilson's War, "$5,000 a year earns you the right to call me Charlie once a year. $10,000 earns you the right to call me Mary Lou and have me come over and clean out your gutters."

I think thats where the Senator could have used some better judgement, if someone makes a request like that explain to them that it would never pass so why cause people to just get mad.
What if your box wanted to introduce legislation outlawing the illness that took the first son, would you submit that?

It didn't. It wasn't even seriously proposed (eg in Parliment, or by a politician who could actually do something about it); it was just a crazy idea from a doctor put out to draw attention to some report or other, which the media picked up on and sensationalised in order to provoke their readership. British law is quite specific that short, folding knives are de-facto tools rather than weapons.

Hey! Great idea Chris. Plus EDC a pocket kit. And if they don't want to make their own, we all know where they can buy one ready made. May I name you in my letter to him?

Slipjoints only. Anything with a lock is a no no.

I believe every elected official also has an ethical obligation not to bring frivilous issues up for discussion at assembly. Banning folding knives from carry by the gen pub is a frivilous, if not capricious idea.

Maybe so - but this bill isn't getting a hearing in committee, it isn't getting debate, it's going nowhere. The total cost to the lege from introducing this bill is minimal. The only place its being debated afaik is here in this and a couple other knife forums.

Besides, one man's frivolity is a serious issue for someone else, and should be placed in context. There were probably bills introduced for years to ban smoking in public before anyone took them seriously. Or bills to address the effects of global warming - frivolous or serious stuff? If you deem it frivolous today, would you accept the bill in 25 years when the mean temperature is .4 degrees higher and Arizona is complaining of too much heat and too little water? Standard of frivolous, who decides?

It seems to me that part of effective governance is hearing from the public on all issues that concern them - the duty of a representative is to winnow the wheat from the chaff, and let the small stuff fall away. I've seen alot of bills introduced in all seriousness that could and should be deemed frivolous and capricious - downright against the constitution, I say. They all start as bills, no harm in that. Its when folks feel that they can't submit legislation because they can't beat someone's metric of frivolity that we should begin to worry.

Hey, let's talk about something else, a real survivor, like Sam the Koala...

This is copied from "The Shooting Wire", an e-publication by Jim Shephard. Dougs actions were noticed outside the survival and knive arenas. Thanks Doug!

"And I'm offering Kudos to Doug Ritter of KnifeRights.org for taking a slice out of a Hawaiian bill that was introduced to - you guessed it - outlaw the pocket knife. Having been one of those people who has been accused of being paranoid, I think it's appropriate that Ritter was the first to tell about Hawaii Senate Bill 126. It would ban the "manufacturing, transfer, sale, possession or transportation of folding knives."

When Ritter first told of the bill, he also took the opportunity to blister State Senator Les Ihara for introducing a bill "by request" - meaning at the request of a constituent, not legislation Ihara had developed himself. In other words, a political introduction - that's "eyewash" in Washington-speak.

"It is imperative," wrote Ritter, "that Senator Ihara understand that knife owners do not take such things lightly."

Boy, did he make that point abundantly clear.

Yesterday, we were copied on a note sent by Senator Ihara to Ritter. Seems he's seen the error of his ways about introducing legislation he never intended to support:

"I am opposed to SB 126 and would vote against it if I ever voted on it. Because the Hawaii constitution allows only legislators to introduce bills, my policy has been to introduce bills on behalf of my constituents whenever requested. But if I cannot support a constituent bill, I sign it "by request" which signals to other senators that I am not requesting a public hearing for it. I believe this is a common view of many in the legislature, except for the senate president who introduce all Executive and Judiciary Branch bills "by request" though she may support some of them."

"In my 22 years in the Hawaii Legislature, I have signed many constituent bills 'by request', but I may now reconsider this policy and possibly refuse to introduce a constituent's bill in extreme situations (such as SB 126). Thank you for your inquiry and for helping to inspire the several hundred emails I received opposing SB 126. I am encouraged for our democracy by seeing so many people interested in public policy issues."

Seems MP Breitkreuz and Mr. Ritter are both deserving of atta-boys for their work toward common-sense in government.

Don't expect that to be a trend that catches on anytime soon, but it's a great thought.

Later this week, we'll have the story of a man who has discovered that a good idea given some exposure, can quickly turn into a lot more than expected.

It's not going to be the "million gunowner march" but it looks like we'll all have an opportunity to visibly express our displeasure with the way gun owners and the Second Amendment have been treated lately.

We'll keep you posted.

--Jim Shepherd "

Any sort of request which has no basis in fact, no empirical evidence that would support such a position, or otherwise goes against the sensibilities of the common man would be frivilous or worse. Global warming, along with knife and gun control, are frivilous at the least, and possibly capricious or even malicious in intent. Their ends cannot be justified nor rationalized, they are purely the result of emotive expression or perhaps reactionary.

Lawmakers have a responsibility to the public not to waste their time, nor their staff's time, nor the floor's time, in developing or bringing such ridiculous motions. The magnitude of the cost is not the issue. Waste is waste. Even moreso if they go on the record against such a position, for the very notion that a legislator would oppose such a position would by its nature make it at the least frivilous in context. That is just plain logic. It is as ridiculous as asking them to put forth the motion that the sky be called now and hereafter green rather than blue.

Great piece with Ken Onion on the Pocket Knife Ban bill.

http://www.khon2.com/news/local/39409572.html

Make sure you watch the video and note the email shown!

Well Benjamin I think that's where you and I will have to agree to disagree, for the benefit of the forum and this thread. Because while I'm a die hard you'll pry my weapon from my cold dead hands kind of guy, I will submit that you can regulate aspects of gun ownership rationally and for the benefit of society. And while 'knife control' has all sorts of logic against it, I'll still admit that people should propose regulations to do so when they feel they're necessary. And climate change - don't get me started, I know even less about the science there but I sure don't find anything lacking empirical evidence or frivolous there. There's nothing illogical about these except willful blindness that throws out opposition to your views or mine.

Good plan...Didn't want to lock this thread. <~>

Thanks for the link Doug.

Whatever the intent on the part of the Senator the issue seems to have received more negative press than he expected.

Three things about the video:
1)I noticed the email
2)So that's what Ken Onion looks like - Too Bad they could not also do Tom Mayo
3)Why, oh why, does Ken have to show off the assited opening - too many people think "switchblade"

All too true my friend, and we are certainly all entitled to an opinion. If our views never varied, we'd end up with nothing to discuss eventually.

You may be right about the illogical aspects too. Just because it doesn't make sense to me doesn't mean it won't make sense to somebody. I have to admit, in my lifetime I've met many people who's logic I never understood, and probably wouldn't want to, but some of them were quite interesting to listen to anyways, kinda like a horror movie can be interesting.

The good senator made the comment "Because the Hawaii constitution allows only legislators to introduce bills..."
I seem to remember another constitution that says the people of this nation have the right to keep and bear arms, and that that right shall not be infringed. If a constituent sends this to him, he should thank them for their interest and tell them 'Unfortunately I cannot even introduce this bill since it is so obviously unconstitutional.'

That is the other reason why, we thought this was serious, I had suggested not bringing Heller into this. Never show your hand during the first few antes- keep it focused on tools. There is nothing in the Constitution about tools. There isn't a single amendment that regulates the ownership of can openers, screw drivers and sewing machines, but you really can look silly trying to regulate them.

Then again, I'm also the guy who says that we should try taking on bans of "ugly" guns as a freedom of speech issue. First Amendment gives you as much right to own an ugly rifle as you have to sing off key.

I think the senator did it half right. He does have a duty to represent his constituents so submitting bills by request seems reasonable to me. He should have (maybe he did, maybe he didn't) taken an extra step in telling the constituent that he does not support the bill but will propose it to represent him/her. But do they really want to propose it as it will likely never pass and the proposal seems to be extreme and many people will be upset by it. So are they sure they want this out. And if the constituent says yes, then I think the senator did his job. And if they say no, he still did his job and it would never have been proposed. But to just propose it even marked by request without going through the argument first would be irresponsible. At least that's my take on it.

"Folding" is now interpreted to mean a knife which folds directly, without a lock. However, it's wrong to say that "anything with a lock is a no no". They are legal to manufacture, sell, own etc, and legal to use in public with reason (just as fixed-blade knives are; they've not been banned either). They are considered tools not weapons if you are using them as a tool.

(For the record, I live in England and own two of Doug's fine locking folders, and one of his fixed blades, quite legally. I wouldn't want a misunderstanding of British law to influence new US law.)

Thanks for clarifying. My bad. I thought locking folders were not allowed to be carried generally.

I agree - to a point. I can understand banning 'dangerous items' to those who are mentally unstable or to those with a criminal record, but not to the population as a whole. The people of this nation have the right to arms whether they like it or not or agree with it or not. They are bound to 'play by the rules.'