HB664 establishes a new Office of Gun Violence Prevention within the Department of Law Enforcement, headed by a governor-appointed director. The office would be responsible for public education on gun safety and prevention, coordinating with state and county agencies, advising on policy and legislation, and administering a grant program for community-based gun violence intervention initiatives. It would also create a gun violence resource bank to collect and share data, research, and statistics, and develop a statewide plan to address gun violence.
The bill also creates a Gun Violence Prevention Special Fund to receive appropriations, grants, and donations, with money used to support the grant program. It requires annual reporting to the Legislature on fund sources and expenditures, as well as on the office’s activities, grants awarded, stakeholder engagement, and recommendations. In addition, the bill amends existing law to move the Gun Violence and Violent Crimes Commission from the Department of the Attorney General to the Department of Law Enforcement, makes the Director of Law Enforcement the chair, and adds the Attorney General as a commission member.
The bill’s impact on state law is to add a new statutory chapter establishing a permanent administrative structure for gun violence prevention, create a dedicated funding mechanism, and shift oversight of the existing commission within state government. It would affect the Department of Law Enforcement, the Attorney General’s office, counties, community organizations eligible for grants, researchers, and public stakeholders involved in gun violence prevention efforts. The bill also authorizes appropriations for staffing, the resource bank, and grant awards, though the dollar amounts are left blank in the text provided.
The general sentiment reflected in the available voting history is supportive, with the bill passing Senate committees on Public Safety, Judiciary, and Ways and Means, including unanimous votes in the latter two committees. The amendments suggest the measure was refined during the process, but the committee results indicate broad backing for the overall framework of prevention, data collection, and grant funding.
The main points of contention appear to be institutional placement and governance, rather than the concept of gun violence prevention itself. The bill shifts authority from the Attorney General to the Director of Law Enforcement for the commission chairmanship and administrative placement, while preserving Attorney General participation on the commission. Other potential discussion points include the scope of grant eligibility, the requirement that funded programs avoid contributing to mass incarceration, and the use of state funds for a new office and special fund.
HB664 would amend the Hawaii Revised Statutes by creating a new chapter for the Office of Gun Violence Prevention, establishing a special fund, and requiring annual legislative reporting and rulemaking. It would also revise existing provisions governing the Gun Violence and Violent Crimes Commission by relocating it to the Department of Law Enforcement and changing its chair and membership structure. The bill would directly affect state administrative agencies, grant recipients, researchers, and community-based organizations engaged in gun violence prevention.
The available legislative record suggests generally favorable sentiment toward the bill. It advanced through multiple Senate committees with strong support, including unanimous votes in Judiciary and Ways and Means and a 3-1 vote in Public Safety, indicating broad agreement on the need for a coordinated gun violence prevention framework. The amendments imply some negotiation or refinement, but not fundamental opposition to the bill’s purpose.
The most notable contention concerns which state agency should house and lead gun violence prevention efforts. HB664 moves the commission and its chairmanship from the Attorney General’s office to the Department of Law Enforcement, which may reflect differing views about operational control and policy leadership. There may also be debate over the design of the grant program, the emphasis on community-based interventions that avoid mass incarceration, and the use of public funds to create a new office, resource bank, and special fund. However, the committee votes suggest these issues were not enough to prevent advancement.