 Okay. Community Matters. I'm Jay Fidel, and we're going to talk about chicken and egg, legal chicken, legal egg, national burning issues, which is a program that is going to take place on September 30th at 10 a.m. on Tink Tech Hawaii. And if you want to register, go to our website, tinktech Hawaii dot com, and you can register right there. One of the speakers is here with us today, Chris Marvin. Chris Marvin is going to cover the area of gun violence prevention. Welcome to the show, Chris. Glad to be here, Jay. Thanks for having me. Let's play, let's play our little promo so we can get the flavor of this and let people know, you know, the four corners of this program. We'll play it now. In transitional times, every action has a reaction. This cycle gives us an echo chamber. New events lead to legal changes, of course, and legal changes lead to new events. Yes, it is chicken and egg. And these days could it be that the interaction time is faster than before? Your host for this conversation is Avi Soyfer, professor and former Dean of the William S. Richardson School of Law at the University of Hawaii in Manoa. Panelist Kimmy E. Day Foster is a partner in the law firm of Chunker in Honolulu, Hawaii. In this program, she will discuss abortion in America. Panelist Chris Marvin is a former military helicopter pilot and principal of Marvin Strategies, a strategic communications firm specializing in cultural advocacy through socially minded narrative building. In this program, he will discuss gun violence prevention. Panelist Richard Walsgrove is an assistant professor of law and co-director of the Environmental Law Program at the William S. Richardson School of Law at the University of Hawaii in Manoa. In this program, he will discuss the challenges of climate change. Panelist Sylvia Albert is the director of voting and elections at Common Cause in Washington, D.C. In this program, she will cover voting rights in America. Panelist Jeff Portnoy is a partner in Cade Shadi, a law firm in Honolulu, Hawaii. In this program, he will cover insurrection and beyond. Come join us for this important discussion. You can register to attend on ThinkTechHawaii.com. Please do, and we'll see you there. Aloha. Chris, it's so nice to talk to you today. I'd like to ask you a little about yourself. Helicopter pilot, how does that inform your discussion of gun violence prevention? Yeah, well, so I was a Black Hawk helicopter pilot. I was actually with the 25th Infantry Division. I'm an Afghanistan veteran who was wounded in Afghanistan. I actually come from a long line of military service. My father, grandfather and great grandfather are all Army combat veterans. And my sixth great grandfather actually served in the Revolutionary War, 1776 in New York, Malaysia. So I have a strong military family history. But what I really believe is that anybody who served in the military has a valid, credible, strong opinion on gun safety because we were trained by taxpayer dollars to learn about weapons and specifically learn about gun safety and accountability. One of the things we talk about often when we're engaging veterans in the gun violence prevention conversation is that the military has three pillars of its gun culture. And those are training, safety and accountability. And if you ask any veteran, you'll probably get them to sort of nod, yes, like those are the three pillars. And that's when my drill sergeant, you know, drilled into my head. A lot of times when we look at civilian culture, civilian gun culture, we don't see training safety and accountability in our culture or laws. And we kind of see that the military uses that really effectively to preserve the force and to utilize those weapons, you know, that profession of arms. And so, so when we look at the civilian world, and we don't see that, it causes alarm for a lot of veterans and it causes them even if they're gun owners, even if they're, you know, even pro gun rights folks, it causes a little bit of alarm to look at the state of our country right now, and where our gun laws are, and maybe that they should look a little bit more like the military. What is the state of our gun rights laws right now? How would you characterize the state of our gun rights laws? Chaos, corruption. You know, we live in a country where 95% of Americans support a law that would require a federal law that would require a background check on all gun sales, right? So basically, what what we need to do to get there is to close loopholes that currently exist about guns that are sold at gun shows, and guns that are shown sold over the internet, which is which is, you know, way more prevalent now than it was 10 or 20 years ago. We need to close those loopholes and 95% Americans agree. Let's let's do that. Let's just make sure everyone buys a gun gets can pass a background check. That's that's easy. It's really easy. Every federal license firearm dealer does that today. We have 50 senators in the US Senate who won't vote to advance that bill, who won't make that bill a reality, defying 95% of Americans and their and their preferences. So there's not a Republican senator out there who doesn't have the majority of their constituency that thinks we should have background checks yet they won't vote for it. So I see that as a fundamental failure of represented democracy. These these senators were were opposing background checks at the federal level on every gun sale. They are they are sort of flouting the idea that they represent their constituents. And they are they're voting on behalf of you know, the donors in the gun lobby and what they think that the culture is. And by the way, that 95% is also 85% of gun owners and 75% of NRA members. So three quarters NRA members are like, yeah, people should have the best background checks. And those are responsible gun owners. But we're we're letting these gun laws kind of go wild and then getting guns into the hands of people dangerous people who shouldn't have them. And that's causing death. That's just it's strange. It's an irrational disconnect. You know, when I was a kid, I had a 22 rival that a lot of kids in my world had them. And we belong to the NRA and the NRA was all about safety and training. And extraordinary how the NRA has changed. Do you understand the you know, what you want to call it the the environment of the NRA that it would oppose any kind of gun control or steps to avoid violence with guns? It's hard to understand it. It's hard to understand it if you're a rational person who you know, doesn't enjoy seeing people die from gun violence. But if you can compartmentalize your motivations to profit, the profit of the gun industry, then you realize that, you know, especially because guns are durable goods, right, like they last a long time. So you own one gun, you don't need to own two or three or four or five, you don't replace them like toilet paper, you know, you gotta, you can own it for lifetime. You can pass guns down. And so to sell more guns, we have to create more urgency and more demand. And, you know, the NRA and the gun lobby has done a great job of saying convincing Americans that they need to buy more guns. And they'll they'll use, ironically, of course, they use the mass shootings, like the newsmaking gun violence and gun death events to promote and the, you know, the sale of guns by saying like, Hey, if you don't buy these guns now, they're going to be banned, then you're not going to be able to get them. So run out and buy your AR-15s right now. And so you, you've seen them take, you know, all for the purposes of profit, you've seen them take a any gun anywhere for anyone at any time, no questions asked stance. That is their, that is their policy. And so when you, when you look at any potential gun safety law that is proposed, they're going to compare that safety law to that agenda and see how it compares. And that's how they'll draw their position. And it's always to oppose anything that has to do with the safety or, or any type of restriction or any type of common sense measure that would, you know, keep our children safe, keep our communities safe, etc, etc. Extraordinary. And half of the Senate, for example, will never vote for prevention of gun violence. You know, the politics is interesting, too. There must be a political narrative that those lobbyists are also selling. Maybe like they're coming for the Russians are coming. I don't know if Russia is a good example, but they're coming for us. They're coming into your community. They're threatening you, your lives, and you have to be ready to defend yourself. Is that part of a lobbying narrative? It certainly is. I don't know if the threat is ever the Russians or any foreign threat. Honestly, I mean, there's we have the strongest military in the world and the National Garden reserves to back them up. And I think that most people think that that is relatively sufficient. I'd love to get into a debate that says that our military is not sufficient to at least protect our domestic interests. So the enemy they created couldn't really be Russia or China or Iran or anything like that or North Korea, you know, the enemy they created was internal, right? They said that your enemy is Antifa. Your enemy is, you know, government goons who are going to come knock down your door and take your guns from you. You know, the enemy is, you know, the sitting president, if he or she happens to be a Democrat, right? That's that's what they that's what they said. And so they continue to say and so this idea that we have to have guns to protect ourselves against ourselves is seems quite anti American. And and and it's, you know, it's, it's couched in this narrative about the way the Second Amendment was created. And we think about minute men and we think about, you know, the Revolutionary War when we think about the Second Amendment, but for a second minute, it wasn't written until a decade after the Revolutionary War was complete, right? That that we need to remember that the Bill of Rights wasn't written until the Constitution was ratified. And and it was written by slave owners, right? It was written by James Madison, right? It was written by Thomas Jefferson, like these people, they they they all they owned humans and bondage. And it's clear even today that that the gun rights narrative that has percolated through our culture for more than two centuries is actually moored in racism and slavery and those things like those those gun rights were given so that we could control slave rebellions, we being the United States or slave owners slave owners could control slave rebellions and capture runaway slaves. And you see shifts in in the middle part of the 19th century in the way that gun laws were written to try to keep guns out of the hands of the freed slaves after the Civil War. And of course, you see the way that the black people were treated with gun rights in the Jim Crow era. You even see in the 1970s as the black panthers started to become a prominent armed group of black people that the state of California started instituting much stricter gun control laws at the end that era. And even today, there was a recent study that said that that the you can look at a county today, and the proportion or the the rates of gun ownership are correlated to the rates of slave ownership in 1850. Wow. Today, a county that had more slaves then has more guns now. So I think that you know, it's really tied that the long term closer to this is inherently tied to race, which becomes immediately more complicated in Hawaii, right? Because it's not the same. And we weren't part of the United States in the middle of the 19th century. So that begs a lot of questions about sort of the local aspects of that. But nationwide, it is it is inherently tied to race. So if you could talk to your distant relative who fought in the Revolutionary War, what do you think he would say to you? Do you talk to him? What do you think he would say to you? His name was William Marvin. So he's in my paternal line. My nephew is also William Marvin. And that's the William Marvin I talked to. He was a private. I don't know that he was doing much more than farming in, you know, Onondaga County near Syracuse when he joined that revolution. But 1776 in in New York States, if he was in his downstate New York City was was pretty insane with with the British and the naval assets that they had. And they took New York and held New York for the Revolution. I think that he would have been proud and scared. And, you know, New York didn't have Minutemen like the like the New England States did or New England, excuse me, New England colonies did. There was more of more of a regular army and it was George Washington's army at the time. And so, you know, he owned a gun, most likely he may have owned a gun. Prior to being in the military, it would have been, you know, a nothing compared to the weapons we see today, right? And we always need to remember that the Second Oval for constitutional originalists, we need to remember that the Second Amendment was written when we had muskets, right? You want to be an originalist, that's really the only gun that it should protect. The second is to write the bare muskets and the rest of it needs to be decided in legislation. Moving forward, we have another in the top of that. We've kind of grandfathered everything in. Gun is a gun is a gun, including ghost guns, which we can talk about later. But, you know, I think I think that my, my sixth grade grandfather would have understood the utility of the weapon that he owned for the purposes that he owned it, whether it was personal or military, and he probably used it for hunting. And then he used it to defend himself and his family against, you know, what he thought was a foreign invader, I suppose the time and sort of the British. And, and I did the same thing, right? Like I served as it my great grandfather, my grandfather, my father, we all bit forearms for this country. And we did it in combat, we did it on foreign soil. And that was an intentional purpose and a good use of those weapons to the, to the limits of war being good, right? But it was a legitimate use of those weapons. And, and it's vastly different from the yet today. It's gone gone mad. So, you know, Marvin strategies, you organize Marvin strategies. It's an important organization in your life and work. Why did you organize it? And what does it do? And what is it doing, you know, to affect control of gun violence? You know, Marvin strategies has done a lot of different things. We've been around for about seven years now. I sort of hung my own shingle after running a large national nonprofit that was working on the way veterans were portrayed on film and television. So working a lot with the entertainment industry. And I, I saw opportunity to do things on my own that I wasn't able to do is but because of the constraints of a nonprofit. And I've, well, sort of what the firm is doing now is is really narrowed down to, to sort of a couple things. One, there's still some work in film. And I'm actually just have a couple clients right now that are that are that are film related. But the bigger clients are usually large nonprofits. And I'm working on how they are able to engage veterans and veteran voices in the issues that they're dealing with their mission and their advocacy. And I work primarily in gun violence prevention. I work for every town for gun safety as a consultant. And that's the largest gun violence prevention organization in the country. I also work on something that's not quite related, but national parks advocacy. I work for the National Parks Conservation Association, doing the same thing, bringing veteran voices to their work. And in both instances, I really, you know, I see in the organization see how those veteran voices are effective in delivering their message and their advocacy. I like to tell people often that I'm working when I consider working on what I consider to be the best thing about America and the worst thing about America, right? So national parks being the best and gun violence, gun violence, being the worst. And so I get to sort of work at either end of my passion spectrum. What can you do? What do you do to change the way Congress is thinking and you know, that those 50 Republican senators, for example, are you going down there? Are you encouraging other people to go down there? Are you writing letters? Are you are you hitting the you know, the media with this issue? So what I am doing is is is adding veteran voices to that conversation, right? And so we see veteran voices as well, veterans is very as respected by most Americans for their service. And then really credible and trusted for their opinions on guns because we come from that profession of arms. And so whether it's a veteran running an op ed, a veteran testifying for Congress meeting behind the scenes with congressional congressional members or staff, you know, grassroots organizing too, we're trying to, you know, every time for gun safety has the largest, it's not the only the largest gun violence prevention organization, but it has the largest grassroots effort in mom's demand action, right? It's the same organization, mom's demand action is the grassroots arm. And so I'm helping to teach the leaders at the mom's demand action level how to engage veterans on their own. So it's not just, you know, there's there's a veteran advisory council we have at the national level, 32 veterans who are a wealth of diverse experience and backgrounds. And so we'll use them for the sort of more high level federal national level things, but also expanding it to the grassroots so in field work so that they can have veterans speaking up on all of this. And we see it over and over that veterans tend to be a politically moderating voice, right? That when we have these contentious issues, there's nothing more divisive right now in this country. Well, there's things are as divisive, but tied with things like abortion, gun rights are pretty divisive along party lines. And so when a veteran comes in to talk about it with that respect, with that credibility, you might get both sides of the aisle to take a decent listen to what he or she has to say. And that's that's what we're trying to leverage in whatever way we can. You know, our moderator for the program on September 30, obviously for the former dean of the law school and constitutional lawyer is, you know, he may very well ask you this question. So I would like to ask you this question too. We're covering, you know, gun violence prevention through you, we're covering abortion in America, we're covering the challenges of climate change, we're covering voting rights in America beyond insurrection. Let's take a moment and put the flyer on the screen. There you are. I see you. There you are. So if you were to take a stab at what the common denominator is for all these issues, I mean, you mentioned, you know, that there's a political divisiveness, at least for a few of them, maybe all of them. Yeah, certainly seems like all of them, doesn't what, you know, how do you see the common denominator for dealing with all these five prominent issues? I do. I mean, I think you answer the question in the question, which is it's political divisiveness, it's hyper partisanship, it's tribalism, you know, it is it is thinking that, you know, I'm right and you're wrong. Even with this work I do on national parks, right, a lot of the work we do on national parks can be nonpartisan. We want to designate, you know, a specific area at, you know, I think we're working on there's a designation coming up in Colorado, an old military base or the 10th mountain train that we think we'll go through and and everybody looks at and like, yeah, that's a great idea. We should make that a national monument. But but a lot of what we're doing within parks is kind of change, right? And if you look at the floods in Yellow Stone and the fires in Yosemite and, you know, the drought in California and all of that is is climate change. And so you get to these points where to really solve a problem that does become hyper political. And so it's it's interesting to work in the gun violence prevention world and try to navigate that. I recently had a conversation with someone in Hollywood who is interested in addressing these issues on film and really wanting to address it from a from a bipartisan lens from a sort of multi ideological lens. And one of the things I said is well, you know, how do you do that? Because if it really feels like it in the gun violence prevention world, it is the extreme gun right angle versus the middle of the road common sense. Like the left has come to a point where on guns they're in the middle. Like there's nobody saying repeal the Second Amendment. There's nobody saying take guns away. There's nobody. I mean, there's few and far between. But like that the federal legislators are not saying that they're just saying like, can we have the background checks that 95% of Americans want? Can we do that? I don't think there's a more middle of the road approach to politics than let's do what the vast majority of Americans want us to do. And so when I was talking to these folks, like, how do you how are you going to get both sides? If one side has had to shift shift all the way to the middle just to have the debate? Let me offer a thought. See what you think about it. You know, there may be this is that if you get into the right wing side of the divisiveness and call it the Trump side or the Republican side, the, you know, the right wing extremist side of it. You may not feel all that strongly about gun violence prevention. You may be moderate about gun violence prevention. But when you get into that bubble, you, you wind up, you know, taking the right wing side of all the issues. So I may, I may have strong feelings for religious reasons, for example, about abortion. And that takes me into the bubble. Now I feel well, if I'm in the bubble, I should oppose gun violence prevention. I should provoke, you know, I should oppose anything about a climate change. I may like voting rights, but I, you know, I believe that the government ought to turn over and we ought to have an insurrection. What I'm saying is that if you get in for one reason, it seems like you have to join up for all the reasons. Is this the way things work? You agree with that? Oh, yeah, I mean, I think for for the last, I mean, I suppose most of my lifetime, you know, last 20 or 30 years, the, the, the political right seems to be a confederation of single issue voters, right? It's just like, you know, hey, I'm here for abortion, I'm anti-abortion, and therefore I'm going to vote the party platform and, and it becomes deeply ironic. I mean, I, I was raised Catholic. I went to 16 years of Catholic school. I'm, I'm a graduate of the University of Notre Dame, and, and was, was very much raised pro life. Where does gun violence prevention fall in the pro life spectrum? Right? Like it's, it's pretty clear that if you are a pro life or you need to be against gun violence, like you have to be. And if you're Catholic, the Pope is very clear about that as well. And I'm just, you know, I'm just pulling out Catholics, not all Christians, but same with the death penalty, right? We have this sort of this, how can, how can the right be pro life and for the death penalty? Right? Like it just doesn't make sense. So, so there's a lot of hypocrisy. And it has to do, of course, with the two party system. And you know, I'm not a political science expert, but I mean, I do know that when I look at the 95% of Americans that support background checks, that's the, when you ask them about that issue, that's what they support. But, you know, the, the, the from from 50 to 95, those folks, they're still going to vote Republican. And then they're going to have, you know, a vote for someone who's not going to support background checks. So it doesn't, it doesn't make the mark to change their votes, even though that's what they support, which is fine. And that's fine. If and only if your representatives aren't, you know, voting or aren't voting in blocks, right? If that, if that representative can look and say, well, that my personal position is that we shouldn't have background checks for whatever reason, but I'm recognized that 75% of my constituency wants that. And they voted for me. And maybe they voted for me because of my position on abortion, but I know what they want on guns. So I'll vote for the background check thing. And that's where you get sort of moderate compromise. You represent a democracy. It's, it is what the framers wanted. But, but, you know, we don't, we don't see it today. And so we have to find other ways, right? Like we're really only thinking about legislation right now. But, you know, there's, there's also litigation is a huge part of the gun violence prevention movement. And you've seen some success in what folks have done with, with Sandy Hook and the, and the gun manufacturers and their advertising. There's also, you know, the market forces and what, what big business can do from Walmart to MasterCard and on and on. And, and then of course, it's just culture, right? There we have a gun culture in this country. What, what do we want that to say? And we touched a little bit about that, but there's a lot of ways to sort of intervene and figure out how to reduce gun violence. It's not, not just legislation. So, and yet, and yet with the technology of ghost guns that you mentioned earlier, and with these extraordinary massacres, just to the casual observers, he was to be getting worse. Am I right? It's absolutely getting worse. Right. So the gun violence rates are significantly up, gun deaths are up. The pandemic certainly inflamed that, you know, for a while, it went down, it kind of went like down. And when it came back, it went way back up, you know, so lockdown prevented some gun violence, although maybe increased sort of domestic instances. And also it left the lockdowns and sort of just the being at home during COVID left a lot of people at home with maybe, you know, not properly secured firearms, right? So a lot of increasing in suicides and increasing in accidental shootings. You know, I think that there's, there's a lot to think about with the mass shootings because they, they're what makes the headlines, right? And there, you know, you see the assault rifles that put the mass and mass shooting and a lot of a lot of sentiment against, you know, the availability of assault rifles and the ability to have them on civilian streets. It's a real small portion, proportion of gun deaths come from mass shootings and school shootings and those things. And there's also way more mass shootings than we think they are, right? We only hear about the ones that you got to get into the teens these days with the death count to before you can really make the news, you know, there's going to be mass shootings on a near daily basis that have, you know, for for deaths, right? And we just, if it doesn't happen in our home, in our near our home, we're not going to hear about it. We're not going to hear about that mass shooting in Tulsa tomorrow, where only four people died. But that's incredible because a couple decades ago, that would be, you know, the lead story on the nightly news nationally. But you see we see some action happening after the recent mass shootings in Uvalde and Buffalo and the few others this summer. And you saw the first bipartisan legislation on gun safety passed out of Congress in I want to say was 20 more than 25 years. And so was that enough? Oh, no, it's definitely not enough. And I think, you know, I think that there were there were we had higher. So we didn't get background checks out of it. I mean, that the one I've been talking about for the whole time. So that that would have been a big step. But we got some things. It was it was the kind of laws that that at least brought some of the states up to par with. I mean, I looked at it and there's not much that was going to affect Hawaii because the things that were created by federal law have already been legislated at the state level in Hawaii and other states that have good gun laws New York, California, Illinois, et cetera, et cetera, like they there was not a lot that that federal law did, but it was a good sign. The other thing that's happened is we have an ATF director and alcohol alcohol tobacco and firearms. We have a director for the first time in. Well, I want to say it's been more than I don't know. It's been definitely more than five years. It's been a long time. We've had just had interim directors. So we've finally got one confirmed. And one of the things the ATF did actually I believe is before he was confirmed was they did make ghost guns illegal, right? So so there's there's no reason to ghost there's just there's just no reason you're literally letting, you know, people build their own guns. And so we were able to the ATF was able to change the definition of a firearm effectively. That's the simple way to put it. They changed the definition of a firearm so that an 80 percent complete firearm was deemed a firearm and previously it wasn't and they were shipping out 85 percent complete firearms with a drill bit and a and a and a template to drill a couple holes and then now you have a functioning gun. And so it's like that. That was the easiest way for a dangerous person to get guns just with a couple hundred bucks. And so we have made progress there as well. It all takes me to the last question when I ask you and that is so this is about legal chicken legal egg. And when I think of that, I think first of the Dobs case and, you know, abortion and Roe v. Wade and all that. And so the Supreme Court takes it, you know, they repeal Roe v. Wade and they and they leave it to the states. And then you have and then you have chaos. Fifty states, you know, and hundreds of rules and hard, hard to find real stability there. It's hard to find a pass and you go which which state do you go to? Which which country do you go to? And I and I suspect that the same kind of, you know, phenomenon exists for other issues that we're going to cover. And I wonder whether it, you know, it also applies in gun safety, gun gun violence prevention in the sense that, you know, shouldn't this all be federal? Why? Why are we leaving it to this kind of perverse federalism where every state has its own rules? Isn't the federal government the one that should be opining on this? Shouldn't we have this legislation stronger, stronger legislation, rather than leaving it to the states because if you if you take action one way or the other and then you leave it to the states, then then you get a kind of you get chaos. And I wonder what your thoughts are about legal chicken legal egg with the notion that, you know, you do something at one level, and then there's a reaction and the reaction may not be what you want. And then you have to do something else to clean that up. And before you know it, you're in this this spiral where nothing is getting done. Guns are very interesting when it comes to that. It's there's a little yes and a little no to your question. I and I actually I actually have a friend, a veteran who works with me on gun violence prevention. He's a libertarian and he thinks that the federal government should do nothing except gun violence prevention. He does think that there should be gun laws at the federal level. So so yes, there's there's that sentiment in a lot of the, a lot of the you'll see folks trying to prevent that sort of federal oversight when it comes to the gun safety law. So again, background checks, red flag laws that are that are saving lives and preventing suicides like all of these things that are instituted at state levels and proven to work are not happening at the federal level because people are saying, well, that should be a state thing. And then the exact same week, I think it was like two days apart or one day apart from the Dobson decision was the Bruin decision, which was out of New York, same Supreme Court, same justices, same more or less same division of the justices saying that that's the one that struck the Sullivan law. States don't have the right to figure out who should have a concealed carry permit. Right. And talk about chaos. Yeah. So the while you're saying, let's throw it to the state's proportion, but gosh, states could not ever handle concealed carry permit. That would be crazy. And so what what's happening in Hawaii is we're currently the counties are restructuring the way that they issue permits for for firearms and Honolulu counties in the process of doing it now, Maui and Hawaii counties have already done it. And it's moving from what we call a May issue state where I may issue a permit state in this sort of up to the sheriff's discretion and you need to provide a proper cause that proper cause for the permit has now been deemed unconstitutional. And it doesn't mean there's a constitutional right to conceal carry a firearm, but it means that that the standard that the state stat was unconstitutional. And we're certainly concerned about the way that Honolulu is going to change their sort of the sheriff's discretion. But what it's going to do is we're going to have more people in our state carrying guns around. And that's that's ultimately what's going to do. And so like, what else do we need to do now? Because we actually don't have laws in this state that will help us, you know, figure out where people can and can't carry a gun. I talked to my kid's school the other day and I said, do we have a firearm policy? They said, no, I said, let's get one really quickly because you have hundreds of people in line in Honolulu County to get concealed carry permits. And we need to make sure that if that's a parent at our school, then they know that they can't drive on to our school property with that gun. Right. We have the right to do that as a as a school. But we didn't have that policy in place. And so I think this is examples of the ways we're going to have that's the chicken and egg. Right. We're going to have to catch up. We're going to have to make new county and state level laws and legislation and policies to back up this fact that the federal government, the Supreme Court, the nine people are less than nine people, but six, five or six people decided that we are not responsible enough as a state and a state governing a, you know, entity to, you know, to determine what's best for our citizens when it comes to firearms. That's and it's it's deeply ironic and deeply hypocritical of the Supreme Court to put those decisions in the same week and the fundamentally different legal arguments. But such is America in the 21st century. Yeah, such is America. Well, I think after this show, I have to go soak my head. I often have to go soak my head. Chris, is there any message you want to leave with our viewership about, you know, this issue in general or the program on September 30? I hope that folks join join the program and watch and we'll have a much more in depth and spirited conversation. I assume on all those other four issues, which I'm excited to hear about and maybe find some of those connections. But I think when it comes to gun violence prevention, I think that the people in Hawaii need to they need to wake up a little bit. The one thing I would say is that we actually have a very, very vocal minority of pro gun people, gun rights folks that are actually getting to our representatives. They're sort of getting to our our lawmakers and their their influencing policy in an undue way, sort of the 5% overweighing the 95%. And so I think we need more people, especially with the laws I was just describing, to stand up and say, we want to save Hawaii. We want to have, you know, certain laws in place in this next legislative session and we need we need people to speak up for it. It's much easier to speak up when you're like, I'm pro gun, I love guns, I want to talk about it because being anti gun violence is sort of a natural state. Right. So like, but we need to have vocal voices, vocal voices. We have loud voices on gun violence prevention. And I hope that many, many people who hear this and join us next week will stand up and do that. Chris Marvin Marvin, the strategies. Thank you so much for joining us today, Chris. Look forward to seeing the program next week. Awesome. Thanks, Jim. Aloha. Thank you so much for watching Think Tech Hawaii. If you like what we do, please like us and click the subscribe button on YouTube and the follow button on Vimeo. You can also follow us on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and LinkedIn and donate to us at think.kawaii.com. Mahalo.