Does The State Of Hawaii Take Your Guns Upon Arrest Without Conviction ? (Read 24331 times)

T342

The answer is yes, they do.


The cops will not be looking for your guns when they arrest you, but at your arraignment, the Judge will order you to turn in any weapons, and body armor that you have in your possession. Body armor may seem like a defensive device, but the cops want to make sure they can kill you without too much effort.

Also, you will have to show proof that your bogus arrest case was dismissed before getting another permit. Even if your bogus arrest was expunged, it will still show up in the federal system, and HPD will deny you the permit based on that.

TROs. Someone files a TRO against you, and you will have to turn in your guns. A spouse only needs their testimony that they are afraid of you, to get the TRO. No other witnesses or physical evidence is needed.

Probable Cause. All the cops need to arrest you for a Felony is one witness who will testify against you. E.g. Somebody says that you pointed your finger at them in the shape of a gun = Felony Terroristic Threatening.

Also, in a Felony Terroristic Threatening Case, your gun registrations will be brought in to Court as evidence against you.

Of course the goal here, and around the country is to deny EVERYONE gun rights by making everyone a convicted Felon. Do a search on the number of convicted Felons in the US, and the number of convictions per year before you laugh.

Getting your guns back. If you happen to turn your guns into the HPD for some arrest, or TRO, don't assume that they will ever give them back to you. You may think that a court order from a judge will force the HPD to return your guns, but you could be wrong.

Also, the State AG has ruled that the HPD can give out your gun registration information to whoever they want, for whatever purpose.

I don't need any links for this info, because this is all from experience.

On a side note, cops lie in court all the time. They call it "testilying".  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_perjury

The moral to my story - don't be naïve, and think you have rights.

And let's keep the discussions civil.






London808

HPD can also revoke your permit at any time, With the revocation of your permit they can seize your firearms, If you are not eligible to buy new firearms you are not eligible to own the ones you have.

   §134-13  Revocation of permits.  All permits and licenses provided for under this part may be revoked, for good cause, by the issuing authority or by the judge of any court.

§134-7.3  Seizure of firearms upon disqualification.  (a)  If any applicant is denied a permit, the chiefs of police of the respective counties shall send, by certified mail, a notice setting forth the reasons for the denial and may require that the applicant voluntarily surrender all firearms and ammunition to the chief of police where the applicant resides or dispose of all firearms and ammunition.  If an applicant fails to voluntarily surrender or dispose of all firearms and ammunition within thirty days from the date notice was mailed, the chief of police may seize all firearms and ammunition.

I can verify this as its what they did to me. I had to sue them to get them back, That being said they gave them back (settled) with no admitting of guilt or a court order meaning they can do the same thing over and over and your only option would be to sue them to get them back. This takes time and money.



"Mr. Roberts is a bit of a fanatic, he has previously sued HPD about gun registration issues." : Major Richard Robinson 2016

London808

Also, You do not need to have been found guilty of a crime in Hawaii, You just need to have been charged  (under indictment)

§134-7  Ownership or possession prohibited, when; penalty.
(b)  No person who is under indictment for, or has waived indictment for, or has been bound over to the circuit court for, or has been convicted in this State or elsewhere of having committed a felony, or any crime of violence, or an illegal sale of any drug shall own, possess, or control any firearm or ammunition therefor.



"Mr. Roberts is a bit of a fanatic, he has previously sued HPD about gun registration issues." : Major Richard Robinson 2016

HiCarry

Also, You do not need to have been found guilty of a crime in Hawaii, You just need to have been charged  (under indictment)

§134-7  Ownership or possession prohibited, when; penalty.
(b)  No person who is under indictment for, or has waived indictment for, or has been bound over to the circuit court for, or has been convicted in this State or elsewhere of having committed a felony, or any crime of violence, or an illegal sale of any drug shall own, possess, or control any firearm or ammunition therefor.


Unless you are a police officer....



230RN

"Of course the goal here, and around the country is to deny EVERYONE gun rights by making everyone a convicted Felon. Do a search on the number of convicted Felons in the US, and the number of convictions per year before you laugh,"

You mean somebody else noticed that besides me and Ayn Rand?

Another firearms "choke point" technique is the practice of declaring vast areas of land as "monuments" and "parks" and "primitive areas"  and the like. 
I do believe that the radical and crazy notion that the Founders meant what they said, is gradually soaking through the judicial system.

T342

Also, You do not need to have been found guilty of a crime in Hawaii, You just need to have been charged  (under indictment)

§134-7  Ownership or possession prohibited, when; penalty.
(b)  No person who is under indictment for, or has waived indictment for, or has been bound over to the circuit court for, or has been convicted in this State or elsewhere of having committed a felony, or any crime of violence, or an illegal sale of any drug shall own, possess, or control any firearm or ammunition therefor.


And of course, recently passed Bills would lower the threshold for prohibited ownership.

Per the NRA

Quote
"HB 625 would expand prohibited possessors to include certain misdemeanor crimes.  Under this bill, sending unwanted text messages and emails could qualify someone for misdemeanor stalking and possibly result in an individual being denied a constitutional right.  Constitutional rights are generally restricted only upon conviction of a felony.  The reasons for this are two-fold.  It limits restrictions on constitutional rights to only the most serious offenses, and, perhaps more importantly, felony convictions provide greater procedural protections to the accused, which results in more reliable convictions.  The right to keep and bear arms should not be treated as a second-class right and should be restricted only upon conviction of a felony.

Further, by including a new category of prohibited possessors for certain misdemeanor crimes some citizens who may have taken a plea deal years ago will also become prohibited overnight and not have been apprised of this additional penalty when taking their deal or fighting their case.  Gun owners may not even know they are prohibited under this new statute until they renew their permit and discover that they are now in violation of the law due to a misdemeanor crime that occurred many years ago.

HB 2632 would expand the list of possible prohibited possessors to include anyone who has undergone or is undergoing emergency hospitalization.  This expansion for emergency hospitalization is vague and could entrap a person who has suffered something as common as diabetic shock to suddenly lose their Second Amendment rights, without due process of the law, simply for receiving care.  Additionally under this bill, individuals are required to surrender firearms immediately, or else law enforcement will seize firearms, all without due process.

Both HB 2629 and SB 2954 would expand the existing registration requirement and input law-abiding Hawaii gun owners into a federal biometric database, managed by the FBI, for continuous monitoring, and could be in violation of your Fourth Amendment rights.  Positive hits in this system have not necessarily been adjudicated and could cause issues with an individual’s ability to exercise their constitutional rights.  Additionally, this could result in a potential fee increase and cost gun owners more than what is already required in Hawaii due to the cost associated with adding individuals into this biometric database.

And I can tell you, you will not get a fair hearing in Hawaii's District Courts with no jury. The judges there are more prosecutorial than the prosecutors. This is effectively a tool for banning gun ownership administratively.


whynow?

Through out history places and times like the French Revolution Reign of Terror, Stalinist Russia, Nazi Germany, Pol Pot's Cambodia and more recently Isis held territory also used the "accusation"  to take people's freedom and lives.
The HI government  following the same steps although they would deny.   HI is like any other place on this planet in terms of this kind of abuse.   Aloha no mean kaka now, we not speshall.

eyeeatingfish

The answer is yes, they do.


The cops will not be looking for your guns when they arrest you, but at your arraignment, the Judge will order you to turn in any weapons, and body armor that you have in your possession. Body armor may seem like a defensive device, but the cops want to make sure they can kill you without too much effort.

Also, you will have to show proof that your bogus arrest case was dismissed before getting another permit. Even if your bogus arrest was expunged, it will still show up in the federal system, and HPD will deny you the permit based on that.

TROs. Someone files a TRO against you, and you will have to turn in your guns. A spouse only needs their testimony that they are afraid of you, to get the TRO. No other witnesses or physical evidence is needed.

Probable Cause. All the cops need to arrest you for a Felony is one witness who will testify against you. E.g. Somebody says that you pointed your finger at them in the shape of a gun = Felony Terroristic Threatening.

Also, in a Felony Terroristic Threatening Case, your gun registrations will be brought in to Court as evidence against you.

Of course the goal here, and around the country is to deny EVERYONE gun rights by making everyone a convicted Felon. Do a search on the number of convicted Felons in the US, and the number of convictions per year before you laugh.

Getting your guns back. If you happen to turn your guns into the HPD for some arrest, or TRO, don't assume that they will ever give them back to you. You may think that a court order from a judge will force the HPD to return your guns, but you could be wrong.

Also, the State AG has ruled that the HPD can give out your gun registration information to whoever they want, for whatever purpose.

I don't need any links for this info, because this is all from experience.

On a side note, cops lie in court all the time. They call it "testilying".  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_perjury

The moral to my story - don't be naïve, and think you have rights.

And let's keep the discussions civil.

Any sources for any of your statements? I ask because I see multiple inaccuracies.

Flapp_Jackson

Any sources for any of your statements? I ask because I see multiple inaccuracies.

Quote
I don't need any links for this info, because this is all from experience.
Trust those who seek the truth but doubt those who say they have found it.

z06psi

Any sources for any of your statements? I ask because I see multiple inaccuracies.

Point them out there barracks lawyer.

eyeeatingfish

Point them out there barracks lawyer.

In case I am wrong, please point it out to me.

#1 There is no law banning body armor in Hawaii.

#2 I have yet to see anything in writing that actually says an arrest alone will result in firearms being taken away. Being charged with the crime might but I at what level the court process firearms can be legally taken away.

#3 Pointing a finger in the shape of a gun does not amount to Terroristic Threatening in the 1st degree (felony). It arguably doesn't even meet the definition of misdemeanor TT, at least not without some other factors involved.

#4 If a TRO causes you to lose your guns then once it is over you do get your guns back. (unless something else keeps you from getting your guns back)

I am curious to hear of any actual case of an expunged conviction preventing someone from buying a firearm. I have heard that getting an expungement is especially difficult here though.

To clarify, I am going by what the law says. There may be cases where government officials didn't follow the law but that doesn't make it legal so I am not talking about those types of incidents.

Flapp_Jackson

In case I am wrong, please point it out to me.

#1 There is no law banning body armor in Hawaii.


You can not legally purchase body armor in Hawaii if you have been convicted of a felony. 

Felonies can be for Fraud (e.g. writing bad checks) or DUI (4th offense).

So, in effect, felons are "banned" from owing/buying armor, and the felony doesn't have to be for domestic violence or gun crimes.
Trust those who seek the truth but doubt those who say they have found it.

punaperson

To clarify, I am going by what the law says. There may be cases where government officials didn't follow the law but that doesn't make it legal so I am not talking about those types of incidents.
So you're not talking about nor concerned with what actually happens, that is, reality, you are only concerned with your fantasy world wherein the only events that take place are all in accord with "the law" and not with the realities of life including the corruption of cops and judges. That is no surprise. But it's still absurd.

I'd write more, but I gotta go feed my unicorn.

eyeeatingfish

You can not legally purchase body armor in Hawaii if you have been convicted of a felony. 

Felonies can be for Fraud (e.g. writing bad checks) or DUI (4th offense).

So, in effect, felons are "banned" from owing/buying armor, and the felony doesn't have to be for domestic violence or gun crimes.

I was surprised to learn that a felon couldn't own body armor, but that is indeed a federal law.

When I checked into it further, it says that the prohibition is only for people convicted of felonies involving violence though.
"(a) In General.—Except as provided in subsection (b), it shall be unlawful for a person to purchase, own, or possess body armor, if that person has been convicted of a felony that is—
(1)   a crime of violence (as defined in section 16); or

(2)   an offense under State law that would constitute a crime of violence under paragraph (1) if it occurred within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States. "
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/931

eyeeatingfish

So you're not talking about nor concerned with what actually happens, that is, reality, you are only concerned with your fantasy world wherein the only events that take place are all in accord with "the law" and not with the realities of life including the corruption of cops and judges. That is no surprise. But it's still absurd.

I'd write more, but I gotta go feed my unicorn.

The law between lawful government actions and unlawful ones need to be drawn. If the law says one thing but a government agent or government office does not follow it then would you still consider it a legal action by the government?

punaperson

The law [sic] between lawful government actions and unlawful ones need to be drawn. If the law says one thing but a government agent or government office does not follow it then would you still consider it a legal action by the government?
As usual (or at least "frequently") you refuse to respond to the question raised and instead ask another question. Typical avoidance of justifying or even explaining why you made some assertion that makes no sense.

You wrote: "To clarify, I am going by what the law says. There may be cases where government officials didn't follow the law but that doesn't make it legal so I am not talking about those types of incidents."

Why would you ignore all the cases where the government "didn't follow the law"? Those cases should count MORE than the cases where they follow the law (even a "bad" law) if one is concerned at all about "justice" or even just transparency in government. For example "Fast and Furious" (and a multitude of other BATFE illegal and/or unethical operations). You're going to ignore that case (those cases) because what, they didn't follow the law, therefore they're not worthy of discussion?  :crazy:

The Kauai Police Department (KPD) issued two of the four CCW licenses issued in Hawaii since 2000. They issued those licenses for six months (2006) and nine DAYS (2013). When I inquired as to the statutory authority that granted the police chief discretion to issue a license for a term other than the clearly stated "one year" in HRS, I got stonewalled for over 4 months as they conducted "research". I was then told ("assured") that KPD follows the law. It's clear that they didn't follow the law, by their own admission in earlier communications stating the terms for the two licenses they issued (or they were "mistaken"/lied about that). They are liars who committed illegal acts and are unwilling to publicly admit that they acted illegally and so are covering their asses by avoiding answering specific question and instead issuing vague nebulous non-answers (sound familiar?). Not that there would be any repercussions even if they came out publicly and admitted it. Yet you would ignore this case because it was an illegal act committed by the government. That makes no sense at all. It's people like you, with your attitude of ignoring and/or making excuses for corruption, that don't help at all in bringing about an (slightly more) ethical government.

T342

The law between lawful government actions and unlawful ones need to be drawn. If the law says one thing but a government agent or government office does not follow it then would you still consider it a legal action by the government?

Whether it is a legal action or not, is not relevant. Because with police, prosecutors, and judges, there is very little oversight. They basically do whatever they want. E.g. Kaneshiro refusing to comply with a Federal subpoena.

http://khon2.com/2016/06/16/court-showdown-as-kaneshiro-fights-federal-attempt-to-compel-testimony/

And does anyone really think that the game room assault by an HPD Officer, and false reporting by his peers,  would have been prosecuted if there were no surveillance video ?

No thinking person would want to hand these people more power.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/01/prosecutorial-misconduct-new-orleans-louisiana_n_3529891.html


 

T342

In case I am wrong, please point it out to me.

#1 There is no law banning body armor in Hawaii.

#2 I have yet to see anything in writing that actually says an arrest alone will result in firearms being taken away. Being charged with the crime might but I at what level the court process firearms can be legally taken away.

#3 Pointing a finger in the shape of a gun does not amount to Terroristic Threatening in the 1st degree (felony). It arguably doesn't even meet the definition of misdemeanor TT, at least not without some other factors involved.

#4 If a TRO causes you to lose your guns then once it is over you do get your guns back. (unless something else keeps you from getting your guns back)

I am curious to hear of any actual case of an expunged conviction preventing someone from buying a firearm. I have heard that getting an expungement is especially difficult here though.

To clarify, I am going by what the law says. There may be cases where government officials didn't follow the law but that doesn't make it legal so I am not talking about those types of incidents.


In Hawaii, if you're banned from owning guns, you're also banned from owning body armor.

HPD rarely arrests someone without charging. They would be opening themselves up to a false arrest suit.  HPD can charge directly, so can the prosecutor, or they can go to a Grand Jury for indictment.

Expungement is actually pretty simple. But doesn't affect arrest information in the Federal NICS system.

 http://ag.hawaii.gov/hcjdc/expungement-frequently-asked-questions/

eyeeatingfish

As usual (or at least "frequently") you refuse to respond to the question raised and instead ask another question. Typical avoidance of justifying or even explaining why you made some assertion that makes no sense.

You wrote: "To clarify, I am going by what the law says. There may be cases where government officials didn't follow the law but that doesn't make it legal so I am not talking about those types of incidents."

Why would you ignore all the cases where the government "didn't follow the law"? Those cases should count MORE than the cases where they follow the law (even a "bad" law) if one is concerned at all about "justice" or even just transparency in government. For example "Fast and Furious" (and a multitude of other BATFE illegal and/or unethical operations). You're going to ignore that case (those cases) because what, they didn't follow the law, therefore they're not worthy of discussion?  :crazy:

The Kauai Police Department (KPD) issued two of the four CCW licenses issued in Hawaii since 2000. They issued those licenses for six months (2006) and nine DAYS (2013). When I inquired as to the statutory authority that granted the police chief discretion to issue a license for a term other than the clearly stated "one year" in HRS, I got stonewalled for over 4 months as they conducted "research". I was then told ("assured") that KPD follows the law. It's clear that they didn't follow the law, by their own admission in earlier communications stating the terms for the two licenses they issued (or they were "mistaken"/lied about that). They are liars who committed illegal acts and are unwilling to publicly admit that they acted illegally and so are covering their asses by avoiding answering specific question and instead issuing vague nebulous non-answers (sound familiar?). Not that there would be any repercussions even if they came out publicly and admitted it. Yet you would ignore this case because it was an illegal act committed by the government. That makes no sense at all. It's people like you, with your attitude of ignoring and/or making excuses for corruption, that don't help at all in bringing about an (slightly more) ethical government.

You didn't ask me a question so of course I didn't answer it. Feel free to ask me one though and I will do my best to answer it.

I am not making excuses for government. I am making the distinction between what law allows government to do and what government sometimes gets away with.

eyeeatingfish


In Hawaii, if you're banned from owning guns, you're also banned from owning body armor.

HPD rarely arrests someone without charging. They would be opening themselves up to a false arrest suit.  HPD can charge directly, so can the prosecutor, or they can go to a Grand Jury for indictment.

Expungement is actually pretty simple. But doesn't affect arrest information in the Federal NICS system.

 http://ag.hawaii.gov/hcjdc/expungement-frequently-asked-questions/

Can you please reference the law in Hawaii that bans owning body armor when firearm ownership is banned? Not saying you are a liar or anything but I have never come across it in my criminal law studies.

Also, still haven't found anything to prove that the arrest record in and of itself would give HPD enough to decline a permit to have a firearm.

And people are often arrested and not charged. This can happen for a number of reasons including someone's decision to not prosecute, the prosecutors declining the case, and a few other reasons.

Someone told a horror story about getting their record expunged so I was going off of that. Not that the process is complex but that getting it through can be difficult. No personal experience with that though.