Hawaii County Council adopts local firearms carry ordinance after floor amendments

The Hawaii County Council voted Nov. 16 to adopt Bill 220, a local ordinance establishing licenses to carry concealed and unconcealed firearms and enumerating so-called "sensitive places" where licensed carry would be prohibited or restricted. The motion to pass the bill on second and final reading was moved by Councilmember Chang and seconded by Councilmember Inaba; the roll call recorded five ayes, one no and two absences, and the chair announced the motion carried.

The ordinance, presented as draft 3 on the floor, was amended multiple times before the final vote. Councilmember Kimball moved a package of clarifications intended to narrow how permission and notice operate on private property and to reference existing definitions of "places of public accommodation" in county code; Kimball said the changes aim to "provide clarity and transparency" for business owners and the public. Deputy corporation counsel explained the tradeoffs between affirmative posting (requiring owners to post where carry is allowed) and the alternative (owners posting where carry is explicitly prohibited), noting both approaches have been used by other jurisdictions.

Public testimony before the council reflected deep division. Russell Ruderman, owner of Island Naturals Markets, urged the council to allow businesses to post signs making private firearm-carry legally binding and said "we're protecting kids in parks and schools. Well, there's kids in the grocery store too." Opponents such as Dan Petty and Brian Lay told the council they viewed the ordinance as unconstitutional or poorly drafted; Petty said, "I think it's against our constitution" and predicted that the measure would face court challenges. Supporters and other speakers urged practical adjustments or expressed concern about public-safety tradeoffs in remote areas.

Council members and legal staff repeatedly referenced recent federal court rulings and litigation affecting concealed-carry law; during floor debate members cited the Supreme Court decision underlying the current policy context and said the ordinance is a local response while the state legislature considers a broader framework.

The final ordinance includes the amendments adopted on the floor (communications referenced by the council as 1022.131, 1022.13 and 1022.132). According to the final voice/roll call, Councilmembers Chung, Inaba, Connelly Lee Kleinfelder, Kimball and the chair voted in favor; Councilmember Kirkowitz voted no; two members were recorded as excused. The council suspended the five-day hold to proceed to final action.

The council did not complete any implementation directives tied to enforcement dates; deputy corporation counsel said enforcement and reporting would be handled by the police department per the ordinance and existing statutes. The council chair said the measure will take effect under the charter and code process and that any subsequent clarifications would be handled in future communications or committee work.