SB2504 is a fiscal measure aimed at strengthening Hawaii’s existing gun violence protective order framework. The bill does not create the protective order law itself; instead, it appropriates unspecified general funds for fiscal year 2026-2027 to help the Judiciary enforce gun violence protective orders under part IV of chapter 134, Hawaii Revised Statutes, including staffing, administrative support, a new court officer unit, petition review, and hearing coordination.
The bill also appropriates funds to the Department of Law Enforcement to conduct community-based gun violence intervention initiatives and public awareness campaigns. Those campaigns are intended to educate residents about gun violence prevention, safe and responsible gun ownership, how protective orders work, and how to access related mental health and substance abuse resources. The stated goal is to improve implementation of Act 150 (2019) by increasing public awareness, training, and interagency coordination.
Impact
If enacted, SB2504 would increase state spending and operational capacity for both the Judiciary and the Department of Law Enforcement, but it would not materially change the substantive standards for issuing gun violence protective orders. Its main legal effect would be to support enforcement and administration of existing law, especially chapter 134, part IV, by funding court staffing and public outreach efforts. Counties and law enforcement agencies would likely be affected indirectly through training, coordination, and expanded intervention efforts.
Sentiment
The bill’s stated purpose and framing suggest generally supportive sentiment around gun violence prevention, with emphasis on practical implementation rather than new restrictions. The available context shows no recorded committee testimony or votes, so there is no direct evidence of opposition or amendment activity in the materials provided. The bill appears to be presented as a public safety and administrative support measure within a broader county-associated package.
Contention
The main potential points of contention are fiscal rather than policy-based: the bill uses unspecified general fund appropriations, which may raise questions about cost, staffing needs, and whether the proposed funding levels are justified. Another possible area of debate is the effectiveness of public awareness campaigns versus direct enforcement or mental health interventions, since the bill relies on education, training, and outreach to improve use of protective orders. No specific opposing viewpoints are documented in the provided transcripts or vote history.
Requesting The Judiciary To Convene A Working Group To Study How Effective Existing Laws On Domestic Violence Temporary Restraining Orders, Protective Orders, And Harassment By Stalking Are In Preventing Continued Abuse And Harassment.
Requesting The Judiciary To Convene A Working Group To Study How Effective Existing Laws On Domestic Violence Temporary Restraining Orders, Protective Orders, And Harassment By Stalking Are In Preventing Continued Abuse And Harassment.
A resolution to direct the Clerk of the House of Representatives to only present to the Governor enrolled House bills finally passed by both houses of the One Hundred Third Legislature.
Relating to nonsubstantive additions to, revisions of, and corrections in enacted codes, to the nonsubstantive codification or disposition of various laws omitted from enacted codes, and to conforming codifications enacted by the 88th Legislature to other Acts of that legislature.