logo
Hawaii lawmakers seek tougher fireworks enforcement, but no statewide ban

Hawaii lawmakers seek tougher fireworks enforcement, but no statewide ban

State senators declined to move forward with a statewide ban on all fireworks on Monday, and instead are working to significantly strengthen law enforcement's ability to investigate and prosecute fireworks cases.
Within the last week, measures to increase fireworks penalties, boost funding for investigations and allow for the random inspection of containers at the ports have all cleared their initial hurdles in the Senate.
Together, the measures represent the most significant steps to crack down on illegal fireworks that legislators have taken in more than two decades. Over those years, a series of reports outlined steps that lawmakers, law enforcement agencies and prosecutors could take to curtail fireworks in Hawaiʻi, but those recommendations were rarely acted on.
The moves this week in the Senate show how dramatically the politics of policing fireworks changed after an explosion at a neighborhood fireworks display on New Year's Eve left six dead. Police have so far made 10 arrests. The incident gave lawmakers a new sense of urgency.
'I feel like we should have done more in the past,' said Sen. Brandon Elefante, chairman of the committee primarily responsible for advancing fireworks bills this year.
Aerial fireworks have been illegal in Hawaiʻi since 2000, and most consumer fireworks except for firecrackers have been outlawed on Oʻahu since 2011.
Elefante said that he and other senators are focused this session on giving law enforcement officials the tools they need to pursue fireworks-related cases.
Gov. Josh Green's administration has also proposed rewriting fireworks laws to make it easier for prosecutors to bring criminal cases and enhancing penalties for offenders.
The most significant part of the governor's proposal under Senate Bill 1324 changes various fireworks-related definitions in the state's laws. For example, the current definition of an 'aerial device' is a firework with 130 milligrams or less of explosive material that, when ignited, produces an audible or visible effect.
Law enforcement officials said that definition requires forensic testing and the testimony of expert witnesses to prove a crime occurred. And that's assuming there's anything left of the device to test.
It's particularly a problem 'if the firework has already gone up. There's no evidence to collect,' Deputy Attorney General Tricia Nakamatsu told lawmakers.
Under the proposed changes, an aerial device would be defined as anything that shoots at least 12 feet into the air and explodes or emits fireballs. The Attorney General's Office said the bill creates 'common sense' standards that most people would be able to testify about in court if called upon.
The bill also increases penalties for some fireworks violations. Under the current law, throwing a firework out of a moving car is treated the same as igniting one outside of designated times. Both could only be punished with a fine of up to $5,000.
SB 1324 would create higher penalties for more dangerous acts and raise penalties up to a class C felony, punishable by up to five years in prison.
Honolulu City Councilmembers are also considering stricter penalties for people who have illegal aerials on Oʻahu. Their Bill 7 would make possession of 25 pounds or more of aerial devices a class C felony, punishably by up to five years in prison. It is scheduled for its first committee hearing on Thursday.
The state measure under consideration would also allow prosecutors to pursue civil fines in addition to criminal charges. However, that provision drew opposition from the state Office of the Public Defender. Indigent defendants who can't afford an attorney would be assigned a public defender in a criminal case, but would not get representation in a civil case.
'We believe that's frankly unconstitutional,' said Sonny Ganaden, a deputy public defender.
The office instead supported lawmakers' other efforts to fund initiatives aimed at cracking down on illegal aerials.
More Resources For Officers
Lawmakers appear keen to funnel more resources to state law enforcement to stem the flow of illegal fireworks into the state.
Senate Bill 1226, which also cleared its first round of committee hearings last week, would institute a container inspection program at harbors in Hawaiʻi.
Under the current draft of the bill, the law enforcement department would have discretion over which containers to inspect. Once a container is selected, it would be sequestered from the rest of the port to avoid disrupting the normal flow of container goods carrying essential items to store shelves.
Senators made that change in part because harbor users and shipping companies had objected to past container inspection proposals.
The proposed new inspection program would utilize dogs who can smell fireworks within closed containers. In cases where the explosives are hidden at the back of a container, the dogs could detect the scent once the doors are opened.
Senators have asked for $750,000 for the program, but the department said that may not be enough. Two more dogs alone could cost more than $600,000, and more costs are expected.
Law Enforcement Director Mike Lambert told lawmakers that the state currently spends at least $1 million every time it needs to ship a full container of confiscated fireworks to the mainland for disposal. He asked them to pass those costs on to the fireworks importers and intended in-state recipients.
Lawmakers are proposing additional funding for the law enforcement department to create a new explosives unit and continue a task force that has already seized more than 220,000 pounds of illegal fireworks in the last two years.
Lambert said that he eventually wants the task force and explosives unit to take up gun violence investigations and envisions its future as a state-level version of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
'As the issues switch throughout the state, we'd have the latitude to move between fireworks and firearms,' Lambert said.
Russell Fong, the department's finance officer, said that the new unit would cost about $5 million in its first year of operation and $3.2 million in its second. The unit would be staffed with eight investigators and one clerk. Included in those first-year costs are $2.1 million for an explosives testing lab.
Consumer Fireworks Survive
On Monday, state Senators gave preliminary approval to a measure, Senate Bill 999, that would increase fines for minor fireworks offenses and divert funds from fireworks penalties to the state's general fund.
However, language to outlaw the fountains, sparklers and firecrackers that are currently permitted on Hawaiian islands except for Oʻahu was struck from the bill.
The Honolulu Police Department and the state Department of Law Enforcement supported the ban, saying it might deter fireworks users. But the bill was opposed by retailers who say the ban would impact small businesses that sell fireworks around the holiday season.
James Fuller, who represents the pyrotechnic industry, said that fireworks producers and retailers support a crackdown on illegal aerials and measures to increase resources for law enforcement. But the original draft of SB 999 went too far.
'We've go to get illegal fireworks off the streets,' Fuller told Civil Beat. 'Banning all fireworks … does not represent a fix to that challenge.'
Consumer fireworks give people an alternative to popping aerials, and don't carry the same risks of fire or the noise that disturbs people and their pets on New Year's, Fuller said.
He encouraged Hawaiʻi officials to instead pursue educational campaigns that remind fireworks enthusiasts to keep sources of water nearby, to not light fireworks near flammable structures and to keep the audience at a safe distance.
Elefante, chairman of the Senate Public Safety and Military Affairs Committee, said he proposed changes to the bill after hearing concerns about the original draft from other senators.
At the hearing Monday, the public safety committee voted to remove language from SB 999 regarding an outright ban on all fireworks. Senators also included provisions for a new community safety program, which would be run by county police departments.
___

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Sen. John Kennedy and Linda McMahon make significant math error in congressional hearing
Sen. John Kennedy and Linda McMahon make significant math error in congressional hearing

Yahoo

time26 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Sen. John Kennedy and Linda McMahon make significant math error in congressional hearing

On Tuesday, Secretary of Education Linda McMahon tested before the Senate on behalf of Trump's 2026 budget. During this hearing, McMahon and Louisiana Sen. John Kennedy were discussing federal spending for grant programs for disadvantaged students when the pair made a significant mathematical error. The math error occurred when the two spoke on how much the government has spent in the duration of ten years on TRIO and the Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP). After McMahon confirmed to Kennedy that the government spends approximately $1.58 billion a year on TRIO and has been funding this program for over ten years, Kennedy said, "So that's over a trillion dollars that we've spent on this program..." "We give this money, as I appreciate it, to colleges and universities to encourage poor kids to go to college,' said Kennedy before he went on to imply that colleges have been stealing this grant money from the government for their own purposes, The New Republic reported. McMahon failed to catch and correct Kennedy's math error, however, Sen. John Reed spoke up and corrected the counting mistake. 'I'm not a great mathematician, but I think you were talking about a trillion dollars? I believe $1.5 billion times 10 is $15 billion, and that's a little bit off from a trillion dollars,' said Reed. McMahon said in response that the budget cuts $1.2 billion, to which Reed then replied, "Well that would be $12 billion, not a trillion dollars." Presley Bo Tyler is a reporter for the Louisiana Deep South Connect Team for Gannett/USA Today. Find her on X @PresleyTyler02 and email at PTyler@ This article originally appeared on Shreveport Times: Sen. John Kennedy math error. What he said education costs

Gov. Josh Stein signs six NC bills into law
Gov. Josh Stein signs six NC bills into law

Yahoo

time30 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Gov. Josh Stein signs six NC bills into law

RALEIGH, N.C.(WNCN) — Before heading into the weekend, North Carolina Governor Josh Stein put his support behind six bills. House Bill 506 creates the North Carolina Investment Authority, which is tasked with overseeing state investments, taking some responsibility away from the state treasurer. The authority would be responsible for managing investments for retirement systems and the General Fund. 'We're changing the degrees that we're headed by a slight amount, but it will have profound differences for our state over long periods of time,' said State Treasurer Brad Briner. 'If we can deliver 1% more, we will able we will be able to deliver $2 billion a year more to our state budget, and that is why we're doing this.' The governor also signed Senate Bill 231, which is designed to lower barriers for social workers to practice in or out of the state. North Carolina now joins an agreement with 29 other states allowing licensed social workers to practice in any state included in the agreement. Social workers say that Hurricane Helene showed the need for change after the storm displaced patients out of state. 'Licensed clinical social workers couldn't legally continue therapy with their clients unless they were licensed in each of those states, disrupting care at a time when it was most needed,' said Valerie Arendt, executive director for the National Association of Social Workers NC. 'The compact helps ensure continuity of care no matter where life takes rural residents.' House Bill 50, also signed by the governor, aims to retain some of the state's most experienced law enforcement officers. Before this new law, after 30 years of service, an officer had the choice to retire or stay on the job and lose out on retirement fund dollars. The new law gives officers more options to stay on the job. 'If we make it hard to retain our most experienced law enforcement officers, we're doing ourselves a grave disservice,' said Stein. 'If we want to keep the best, we have to support them, and that's exactly what this legislation does.' Most notably the governor did not sign or address three controversial bills on this desk. Two are related to cracking down on illegal immigration, and the third would allow concealed carry without a permit for adults over 18. Governor Stein also signed the following bills into law: House Bill 477: Retirement Death Benefits Rewrite Senate Bill 248: Birth Certificates for Persons Adopted Senate Bill 477: DNCR Agency Bill Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Forcible removal of US Sen. Alex Padilla signals a dangerous shift in American democracy
Forcible removal of US Sen. Alex Padilla signals a dangerous shift in American democracy

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

Forcible removal of US Sen. Alex Padilla signals a dangerous shift in American democracy

Democratic leaders and a lone Republican senator, Alaska's Lisa Murkowski, quickly decried the treatment of U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla of California and called for an investigation after he was removed from a press conference with Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem on June 12, 2025, in Los Angeles, handcuffed and forced to the ground. 'Sir! Sir! Hands off!' Padilla, 52, shouted as several federal agents surrounded and moved him out of the room where Noem was speaking about the Los Angeles protests against immigration enforcement. 'I am Senator Alex Padilla. I have a question for the secretary.' Padilla, who unexpectedly appeared at the press conference and interrupted Noem as she was speaking during her prepared remarks, was released soon after and met with Noem. Tricia McLaughlin, the assistant secretary at the Department of Homeland Security, shared a video of the incident with Padilla on X, and wrote, 'Incredibly aggressive behavior from a sitting US Senator. No one knew who he was.' Amy Lieberman, a politics and society editor at The Conversation, spoke with Boise State University political scientist Charlie Hunt, an expert on Congress, to understand how political polarization and a shift in American political decorum may have contributed to the shocking moment of an American senator being forcibly removed from a press conference. What is striking to you about what happened to Sen. Padilla? What stood out to me was the aggressiveness with which Noem's security officers detained Sen. Padilla and took him out of the room. We do not ever see something like this happen to members of Congress and particularly members of the Senate. Sen. Padilla represents 39 million people – he is not some back-bencher member of the House of Representatives. I think it's safe to say that no other modern presidential administration has come close to treating an individual member of Congress in this way. This is also a real turn in terms of the completely autocratic way in which Department of Homeland Security staff responded to the incident. They claimed in a social media post that Padilla didn't identify himself at the briefing, even though, 'I'm Senator Alex Padilla' were the first words out of his mouth in the video that they themselves shared. What safeguards, if any, do members of Congress have that might protect their ability to speak freely, and publicly oppose the executive branch? Members of Congress enjoy the same basic free speech rights that all Americans do, but they do also have an additional set of protections that are relevant to this incident. Members of Congress have significant oversight power, which involves doing due diligence on what actions the executive branch is taking and making sure they're complying with laws that Congress has passed. As a Senate member from California, it's perfectly legitimate for Padilla to want clarity on immigration enforcement actions that are taking place in Los Angeles. Padilla even clarified after the incident that he was at the press conference to get answers from the Department of Homeland Security that he and other Senate members have been seeking for weeks about deportations. This is completely in line with Congress' oversight power. Senators often question officials in committee hearings like we typically see, but they also conduct fact-finding missions to learn how executive actions are affecting their constituents. Congress members also have protections stemming from the Constitution's speech and debate clause. Essentially, they cannot be arrested or indicted for things they say in their official capacity, which – because of Congress' oversight responsibility – Padilla was clearly within the bounds of here. Yes, of course, Padilla was also trying to draw attention to himself and the issues he's focused on. But it's not against the law to be a little bit disruptive or to engage in political theater, especially thanks to these additional protections members of Congress typically enjoy. What other factors led to this moment? Something I've written about previously is a phenomenon called negative partisanship. This means that voters and Congress members alike are driven not so much by loyalty to their own party but instead a sort of seething hatred for the other political party. What gets the most clicks and views, and what drives voters more and more, is the idea that 'we don't just want to see voting along the party line – we want to see our team beating the other side into submission.' This incident with Sen. Padilla was a very literal embodiment of this principle. More broadly, this helps explain why political violence is becoming a more accepted form of political speech, particularly on the far right. We have seen violence during Trump's campaigns, where hecklers would be roughed up by participants at rallies, at Trump's encouragement. Certainly, we saw it at the Capitol attack on Jan. 6, 2021, and Trump's subsequent pardons of those rioters. Does Padilla's removal have anything to do with Donald Trump specifically? We can't ignore the singular role Trump has played here. This is a uniquely authoritarian presidency, even much more so than the first Trump administration. By authoritarian, I mean a leader who tries to rule on his own and suppress all dissent. Trump didn't create partisanship, political violence or negative partisanship. But there's no getting around the fact that his past behavior and openness to violence have lowered the bar for decorum in American politics. For example, if you have convinced your supporters that the people on the other side of the political aisle are 'sick' or 'nasty,' that they are going to ruin the country, then those supporters will become more willing to accept some of the actions Trump has taken, such as calling in the Marines on protesters in Los Angeles, or pardoning the Capitol attackers – even if they wouldn't have been willing to accept that kind of response 20 years ago. All of these things combined – negative partisanship, plus having a leader on one side that is willing to lower the decorum bar beyond where we thought was possible – is a recipe for things unfolding like we saw with Padilla. What will you be watching for as this situation plays out? My concern is the balance of powers between the executive and legislative branches of government. We expect competition between the branches, for 'ambition to counteract ambition,' as James Madison put it, to ensure one branch doesn't get too powerful. This incident was a huge step in the wrong direction. As Congress has been steadily torn apart by partisanship, it's given up lots of its power over the past half-century and no longer seems to see itself as a coequal branch of government with the executive. As a result, authoritarian presidents and administrations see an opening to treat them this way without consequences. What Congress does in the next several days about this episode will speak volumes – or not – about whether it intends to ever reassert itself as an equal branch of government. Democrats held the floor in the Senate all afternoon to demand answers about Padilla's treatment. It will be revealing how Senate Majority Leader John Thune and others respond. Lisa Murkowski has said she's pretty appalled by what happened. Meanwhile, Lindsey Graham seemed to imply that Padilla deserved what he got. Which route will Republicans, who control Congress, take? This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Charlie Hunt, Boise State University Read more: Trump orders Marines to Los Angeles as protests escalate over immigration raids, demonstrating the president's power to deploy troops on US soil Supreme Court ignores precedent instead of overruling it in allowing president to fire officials whom Congress tried to make independent Politics based on grievance has a long and violent history in America Charlie Hunt does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store