SB 898 -lose your gun rights without a hearing (Read 4920 times)

hvybarrels

Re: SB 898 -lose your gun rights without a hearing
« Reply #120 on: March 15, 2017, 12:29:53 AM »
This is basically a set up for martial law. They know the economy can't run forever on military pork-barrel welfare, tourism, and real estate flipping. When it goes tits up they want to be the only ones with the guns.

It's like when Obama signed those emergency powers that allow the feds to grab all land/food/water/transpo/etc in case of a loosely defined emergency. Basically what it means is that the government owns everything, but for now they'll let us use our stuff as long as we play nice.

Such is the life of a debt slave.
“The workers must be armed and organized…under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered. Any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary.” - Karl Marx

punaperson

Re: SB 898 -lose your gun rights without a hearing
« Reply #121 on: March 15, 2017, 07:58:27 AM »
Got it,so a 3rd party has to make a complaint.
As EEF explained, a third party complaint is not necessary, but it is sufficient if the cop "believes" it to be "reliable" (and we all know that cops' "judgment" on such matters is infallible, especially in cases of, say, "domestic disputes" where humans have time and again shown the highest levels of honesty and integrity and never fabricated "evidence"). I was commenting on the "low bar" criteria that would result in the revocation of one's Constitutionally-guaranteed rights. Hearsay, in this case, is considered sufficient. I'm with David Codrea on this one: If you can't trust a person with a gun, you can't trust that person without a custodian.

eyeeatingfish

Re: SB 898 -lose your gun rights without a hearing
« Reply #122 on: March 16, 2017, 09:02:50 PM »
Basis?

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

Where is this basis where the government can restrict and remove rights from hearsay and in secret?  Which constitution are you getting your assertions from?

This proposed law is wholly unconstitutional and dangerous to liberty.

I am not suggesting we remove due process and I am not in agreement with the law as it is currently proposed.

punaperson

Re: SB 898 -lose your gun rights without a hearing
« Reply #123 on: March 17, 2017, 07:52:03 AM »
I am not suggesting we remove due process and I am not in agreement with the law as it is currently proposed.
But you have stated, in several rather muddled versions, that you believe that under some undefined conditions that at least a partial temporary suspension of full due process may be justified. You then ask other people to define those conditions for you, rather than laying out your own parameters. Neither do you state clearly and precisely what wording changes to the current proposed law would meet with your new standard. Why don't you just tell us?

eyeeatingfish

Re: SB 898 -lose your gun rights without a hearing
« Reply #124 on: March 17, 2017, 09:28:30 PM »
But you have stated, in several rather muddled versions, that you believe that under some undefined conditions that at least a partial temporary suspension of full due process may be justified. You then ask other people to define those conditions for you, rather than laying out your own parameters. Neither do you state clearly and precisely what wording changes to the current proposed law would meet with your new standard. Why don't you just tell us?

I did lay out my parameters, I stated that a hearing must be held within 48 hours, the same as an arrestee must be either charged or released. This would both allow the government to step in in serious instances but would also minimize the revocation of an individual's rights until a hearing can be held. I listed a number of proposed changes I had in mind. I didn't list specific wording but I didn't think people wanted me to put it in legal language. I don't have a concrete idea in my head though, my post was really the initial brainstorming on how I would modify the proposed law to be acceptable.

rpoL98

Re: SB 898 -lose your gun rights without a hearing
« Reply #125 on: March 17, 2017, 09:40:57 PM »
in principle, it sounds like SB898 is an infringement of the 6th amendment.  going back to the intent of The Founding Fathers.  a notion completely lost on Hawaii's lost-cause politicians.  they only want to be USA for some things, and not others.

banana republic?

z06psi

Re: SB 898 -lose your gun rights without a hearing
« Reply #126 on: March 18, 2017, 05:30:22 AM »
It is the typical liberal mentality. "We only support freedoms when it supports our agenda of total control".  That and federal funding.  They need that federal funding to maintain control.

ren

Re: SB 898 -lose your gun rights without a hearing
« Reply #127 on: March 19, 2017, 04:10:12 PM »
I think the motive behind this bill is more to attack those conservatives like us, who are likely Republicans and Trump supporters.
Life, which you so nobly serve, comes from destruction, disorder and chaos. Now take this empty glass. Here it is: peaceful, serene, boring.

punaperson

Re: SB 898 -lose your gun rights without a hearing
« Reply #128 on: April 10, 2017, 07:25:27 AM »
No movement at all on this bill since "crossover"... no announcement of a scheduled hearing in the assigned Judiciary committee.

Wondering if they are going to do a "last minute" hearing/vote/floor vote... as the legislative session ends May 5.

No one will tell me who asked for this bill to be introduced, as it was "Introduced by request of another party". The senate and house members who sponsored the bill for the "third party" will not reveal who that is. I wonder why?

A bill with extremely similar language exists in the Nevada legislature this session, with strong support from the "Nevada Gun Safety Coalition", which I suspect is an astroturf organization likely funded by some billionaire somewhere, but I could be completely wrong about that. It just seems highly suspicious that these Hawaii legislators would also put for a bill with such near identical language.

https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/politics-and-government/nevada/gun-seizure-bill-reminds-nevada-legislator-of-tom-cruise-movie/

Gun seizure bill reminds Nevada legislator of Tom Cruise movie

Excerpts:

It may be easier to keep firearms out of the hands of people in Nevada who are considered to be a risk to themselves or their family members.

Senate Bill 387 would allow a law enforcement officer or an immediate family member to seek a civil court order that would keep the person from having firearms in their possession. The measure would not require the person to be arrested before taking their firearms, but they would have to show a pattern of either threats, or violent acts.

Sen. Julia Ratti, D-Sparks, a sponsor of the bill, said the intent is to be a tool for law enforcement and be used only “when there is a clear and present danger that needs to be addressed.” [I have to ask, again and again, why would you leave a "clear and present danger" "on the street" with access to all weapons and means of violence EXCEPT guns?]

* * * * *

Senate Minority Leader Michael Roberson, R-Henderson, said he was concerned the bill was overly broad and may infringe on Second Amendment and due process rights.

He compared the bill to “Minority Report,” a futuristic 2002 Tom Cruise film with law enforcement officers who arrested people before they commit murders because their crimes were predicted.

Second Amendment and gun rights advocates, including the National Rifle Association, criticized the bill because it takes away firearms from people without an arrest.

punaperson

Re: SB 898 -lose your gun rights without a hearing
« Reply #129 on: April 18, 2017, 02:12:05 PM »
No movement on the bill... hopefully it's dead... but I didn't post that a week or so ago I called (after getting no response to emails sent a month ago) both Souki's and Kouchi's office to ask who was the "another party" for whom the bill was introduced by each of them in their respective chambers. After some delays I finally got call backs, both of whom confirmed that the bill was introduced by request of the governor. I then emailed the governor's office (they have no phone number on their .gov site... imagine that!) asking them for the source of the bill, and (can you guess?) never heard anything back. Since a number of states have nearly identical bills this year, I'm sure there is some leftie "commonsense gun violence prevention" organization behind it (Bloomberg?) but doubt I'll ever find out.

rpoL98

Re: SB 898 -lose your gun rights without a hearing
« Reply #130 on: May 02, 2017, 02:20:27 PM »
so, is it dead?  or do we have to wait till close-of-business May 4th, "adjournment sine die" whatever the heck that means...?

punaperson

Re: SB 898 -lose your gun rights without a hearing
« Reply #131 on: May 03, 2017, 02:02:07 PM »
so, is it dead?  or do we have to wait till close-of-business May 4th, "adjournment sine die" whatever the heck that means...?
I just called Judiciary chairman Rep. Nishimoto's office and asked about SB898, since it's current status is assigned to  his committee for a hearing. "Technically" it is held over for the 2018 session. When I said I know that, but what about "actually"... is he, at this point, planning on holding a hearing for the bill in 2018? Answer: You'll have to wait until next year to find out.

In the meantime I wrote the governor asking him, again, where he got the bill from. Since I asked two weeks ago, I guess there's been a delay/SNAFU in getting an email to me with the answer. [How hard is it to type "Bloomberg" or "Grabby Giffords"?]
« Last Edit: May 03, 2017, 02:14:54 PM by punaperson »

rpoL98

Re: SB 898 -lose your gun rights without a hearing
« Reply #132 on: May 03, 2017, 02:11:16 PM »
thanks for the update.

chrissake, so we have to fight this fight again, next year?  i guess it never ends, the gun grabbers never give up, they're like zombies.

well, at least, since we know it's coming around again, maybe we'll be more ready next time, with a running start, and can maybe double or triple the voice of opposition.

punaperson

Re: SB 898 -lose your gun rights without a hearing
« Reply #133 on: May 03, 2017, 02:19:00 PM »
thanks for the update.

chrissake, so we have to fight this fight again, next year?  i guess it never ends, the gun grabbers never give up, they're like zombies.

well, at least, since we know it's coming around again, maybe we'll be more ready next time, with a running start, and can maybe double or triple the voice of opposition.
Last time the testimony was something like 111 to 7 AGAINST and they passed it unanimously... I don't think they're phased by numbers. They have an agenda. Maybe they'll skip this one next year in favor of some new equally or even more egregiously unconstitutional "public safety" enhancement. I wouldn't be all that surprised. But I'd still hate it.  :shaka:

FBI

Re: SB 898 -lose your gun rights without a hearing
« Reply #134 on: May 03, 2017, 03:58:37 PM »
You don't have any "gun rights"
in Hawaii.
You are idiots if you think
you do.

Flapp_Jackson

Re: SB 898 -lose your gun rights without a hearing
« Reply #135 on: May 03, 2017, 04:19:15 PM »
You don't have any "gun rights"
in Hawaii.
You are idiots if you think
you do.

You're wrong.

I have safes full of "gun rights," limited though they may be.

If you don't have anything more productive to share, I for one am tired of your non-stop diatribe calling for the deaths of democrats and how infringed our gun rights are.

Repetition doesn't add emphasis.

 :stopjack:
« Last Edit: May 17, 2017, 04:09:38 PM by Flapp_Jackson »
I'm not saying I'm Batman, but I am saying the two of us have never been seen together!

punaperson

Re: SB 898 -lose your gun rights without a hearing
« Reply #136 on: May 17, 2017, 02:12:36 PM »
Just to follow up on some of the "research" similar to that presented by proponents of SB898 (still alive for next session in 2018).

I wrote to all the proponents (the police departments, attorney general's office, and organizations that cited "research" re domestic violence and "guns") of SB898 and asked a lengthy list of detailed questions about the factual basis for the frequency, rate, and total number of cases that would be effected/potentially avoided by SB898. I had worded the questions in such a (detailed) way that it left little "wiggle room" were an actual honest answer given to the questions. Not only did I not receive an answer from any of the recipients, but I did not even receive one single acknowledgement  of them having received my inquiry. You'd think if they had the clear and convincing evidence to further elucidate their claims that they'd gladly provide it. But they chose not to even respond at all. I have to wonder why.

Here is a recent article that sheds some light on why they didn't answer (using the vernacular: because they are full of shit) published by Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership (DRGO). It's worth a read, and includes a link to the "research" being critiqued (http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/jwh.2016.5832#http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/jwh.2016.5832). I read a bunch of this stuff ("domestic violence"/"Intimate Partner Violence" [IPV] research), and though the research is constructed to give a certain "appearance", if you actually take the hours necessary to delve into the non-cherry-picked details, they often contain the data needed to largely, or at least partially, disprove their own hypothesis.

Guns and Domestic Violence—Surprising Findings

https://drgo.us/?p=5400

Excerpt:

[Ed: Sorensen’s study has been trumpeted by anti-gun media for implying greater incidence of PTSD in domestic violence involving guns. But there is far more (and less) to these findings than that.]

Guns are almost never involved in incidents of Intimate Partner Violence [IPV] (or “domestic violence” as more commonly termed). This is according to a new report, “Guns in Intimate Partner Violence: Comparing Incidents by Type of Weapon” by Susan Sorensen, PhD of the University of Pennsylvania. Using Philadelphia police filings during 2103 she found that of 35,413 incidents in only 1% was a gun observed [NOT "fired" necessarily] at the scene.

The main finding to her was that when a gun was “involved” in IPV, the victim felt more fear. But two much more significant findings that she did not emphasize were that “Aggressive offender behavior—pushing and shoving, grabbing, pulling hair, slapping, punching, kicking, biting, stabbing, and strangling—generally was more common when hands, fists, or feet or a nongun weapon rather than a gun was used, and, “victims against whom a gun was used were less likely to have visible physical injuries.” Both of these, of course, argue against the importance of guns in domestic violence incidents.

punaperson

Re: SB 898 -lose your gun rights without a hearing
« Reply #137 on: May 19, 2017, 07:14:39 AM »
I posted to the "Political Discussion" a further comment on the shortcomings of SB898 in light of the automobile murders and attempted murders in Times Square yesterday.

https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=27718.msg245027#msg245027