Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fireworks Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hawaii lawmakers advance funding and new division to step up illegal-fireworks enforcement; broader penalty bill deferred
Summary
The House Committee on Judiciary & Hawaiian Affairs voted to advance two measures to fund and staff illegal-fireworks enforcement while deferring a larger statutory overhaul that would expand definitions and penalties.
Get email alerts on the Fireworks Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The House Committee on Judiciary & Hawaiian Affairs on Thursday advanced two bills to strengthen Hawaii’s response to illegal fireworks, voting to move Senate Bill 227 (SD1) and Senate Bill 222 (SD1) out of committee with technical amendments and funding language, while deferring Senate Bill 1324 (SD2) for further work.
Committee members said the measures aim to turn the temporary fireworks task force into a sustained, resourced enforcement effort and to keep paying partner agencies for operational costs.
The Department of Law Enforcement (DLE) testified it supports SB 227, which would establish an illegal-fireworks enforcement division within the Department of Law Enforcement and provide dedicated positions and funding. “Our department is in support of the measure,” Deputy Director Jared Redulla said in committee. Redulla and other DLE witnesses told legislators that fireworks enforcement has become a full-time job that strains investigators assigned to the task force as a collateral duty.
Redulla told the committee the new division would provide six full-time positions to focus on hazardous-storage, transportation and criminal activity around large shipments of illegal fireworks. He said the other funding measure (SB 222) is also necessary because the task force’s current operational expenses — transportation, storage, overtime and pay for partner agencies — are not covered by personnel appropriations.
The Honolulu Police Department also testified in support of SB 222. Major Randall Platt said the department works closely with DLE on the task force and supports staffing and funding the effort.
Why it matters: committee members said residents want stronger enforcement and the two bills take different but complementary approaches — SB 227 for DLE staffing and SB 222 for operational funding to pay partner agencies during investigations and seizures. That division of roles was emphasized repeatedly during questioning.
Debate and public input: written testimony on the bills was mixed. Committee staff reported receiving multiple written statements: for SB 227, 12 in support and 6 in opposition (counts provided at the hearing); for SB 222, committee staff reported 13 in support and 6 in opposition. Public testimony included both safety advocates calling for stronger enforcement and civil-liberties speakers who cautioned about criminalizing cultural practices.
Prosecutors and defense concerns surfaced during discussion of SB 1324, a broader bill (SD2) that would amend definitions and increase penalties — including creating first- and second-degree fireworks offenses and adding infraction categories. The Office of the Public Defender opposed parts of SB 1324, saying enforcement of existing law, not increased penalties, would better serve deterrence and raising concerns about a concurrent civil/criminal-trial procedure in the draft bill.
Daniel Hugo of the Honolulu Prosecutor’s Office said the bill attempts to address distinct supply-side and demand-side enforcement problems. He told the committee that once a firework has exploded there often is no material evidence to measure explosive content, so the bill’s dual definitions for aerial devices would help both unexploded-device prosecutions and cases where the device already exploded.
What the committee did: the committee voted to advance SB 227 (SD1) with technical amendments to clarify the roles of DLE and county police and to include the requested appropriation in the committee report. The committee also advanced SB 222 (SD1) with technical edits and asked staff to include the appropriation request in the report. Decision on SB 1324 (SD2) was deferred to March 20 to allow additional work comparing the House companion bill and attorney general input.
Votes at a glance: - SB 227 (SD1) — Establish Illegal Fireworks Enforcement Division (DLE). Committee action: recommended passage with amendments and referral (recommendation adopted). Named recorded votes: Chair (aye), Vice Chair (aye), Representative Belotti (aye), Representative Hashem (aye), Representative Kahalua (aye), Representative Prusso (aye), Representative Takayama (aye), Representative Todd (aye), Representative Shimizu (aye). Representatives Cochran and Garcia were recorded as excused. (Source: committee roll-call at 03/13/2025.) - SB 222 (SD1) — Appropriation for Illegal Fireworks Task Force and extension of sunset to 06/30/2030. Committee action: recommended passage with amendments and referral (recommendation adopted). Named excusals: Representatives Cochran and Garcia were excused; committee announced no opposing votes on the record. - SB 1324 (SD2) — Comprehensive fireworks code changes (definitions, new offenses, enhanced penalties). Committee action: deferred to March 20, 2025 for additional work and comparison with the House bill.
Clarifying details: the DLE told members the staffing request tied to SB 227 would create six state positions; specific appropriation amounts were not provided on the record and were placed into the standing committee report per committee direction. Committee staff reported counts of written testimony for each bill as noted above.
Where it goes next: SB 227 and SB 222 were moved out of the committee with requests that appropriations be included in the standing committee report. SB 1324 will return for further consideration after additional drafting and AG review.
Ending: committee members said they plan to follow up on the larger penalty proposals in SB 1324 to reconcile enforcement mechanics, constitutionality concerns and the public defender’s objections before deciding whether to move the measure forward.
Speakers quoted in this article are drawn from the committee hearing transcript of March 13, 2025.

