2aHawaii
General Topics => Legal and Activism => Topic started by: Jl808 on February 08, 2016, 08:46:32 PM
-
ALERT! A couple of mental illness = seizure and confiscation bills are scheduled for hearing within the next 2 days. Please read and send in your testimonies 24 hours before the hearing!
HB2632 Seizure of Firearms; Mental Illness; Police RELATING TO FIREARMS
Requires firearms owners who have been disqualified from owning a firearm and ammunition due to mental illness to immediately surrender their firearms and ammunition to the Chief of Police.
HLT committee hearing on Wednesday 2/10/2016 10:00am at House conference room 329. Testimonies must be in by tomorrow Tuesday 10:00am!!!!
HLT: http://capitol.hawaii.gov/committeepage.aspx?comm=HLT&year=2016 (Au Bellati, F)
HB2632: http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=HB&billnumber=2632 (testify here)
SB2956 Firearms; Mental Illness; Surrender of Firearms RELATING TO FIREARMS
Requires firearm owners who have been disqualified from owning a firearm due to mental illness to immediately surrender their firearms to the chief of police upon notification and authorizes the chief of police to seize the firearms if the owner fails to comply.
PSM committee hearing on Thursday 2/11/2016 1:15pm in conference room 229. Testimonies must be in by Wednesday 1:15pm!
PSM: http://capitol.hawaii.gov/committeepage.aspx?comm=PSM&year=2016 (Nishihara, B)
SB2956: http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=2956 (testify here)
-
These are too broad and need to be opposed ASAP!
Please send in your testimonies!
-
If these bills pass, looks like ALL YOUR FIREARMS can be confiscated if you ever have a Kaiser problem again.... with no due process to boot...
-
I would like to strongly oppose this bill. It is far too overreaching and vague in it's scope. This will allow people's rights to be forcefully surrendered with no due process of law. Firearms would be confiscated at the mere arbitrary disqualification. There has been many instances this past year of many many people wrongfully disqualified for firearms permits because of a 'misunderstanding' between Kaiser healthcare and HPD. Every one of these people would have to be forced to surrender all firearms and stripped of their rights to self protection. This is unacceptable. The problem of MENTAL HEALTH needs to be addressed, NOT firearms ownership. Legislators, please work on that issue. Not 2nd Amendment RIGHTS. Thank you.
-
How do you "submit testimony"?
-
Go to the link to the bill below and click "Submit Testimony". The Capitol website will require you to create an account before you can submit testimony online.
Please note that deadlines for online testimony have to be received 24 hours prior to the actual hearing of the bill. For HB2632, these sneaky bastards basically gave us less than 24 hours to submit public testimony online!
HB2632 (online testimony due Tuesday 10am!!!)
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=HB&billnumber=2632
SB2956 (online testimony due Wednesday 1:15pm!)
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=2956
-
Ok, thanks. I will have to read the bill to understand the issues with it and try to write something in time.
-
Ok, thanks. I will have to read the bill to understand the issues with it and try to write something in time.
The issue is the ambiguity.
It is essentially a forced confiscation for individuals who are and/or were deemed mentally unfit to possess firearms.
This has the potential to effect law abiding citizens who are currently taking the steps to overcome their problems, or who are no longer adversely effected by their conditions.
Specifically, this will have extreme ramifications within the military and veteran community.
Also, it does away with the ability to transfer ones firearms to the care of another individual until they are deemed fit to control their firearms. Your have no choice but to release your firearms to the chief of police, and many know how hard it is from that point to reacquire firearms from HPD once they have been turned in and/or confiscated.
-
I am still trying to figure out how this is different from the existing system. I thought that the police chief can revoke someone's permit in the case of a discovered mental illness anyway.
-
I am still trying to figure out how this is different from the existing system. I thought that the police chief can revoke someone's permit in the case of a discovered mental illness anyway.
Yes, but he must submit an official notice that you are disqualified, and you have 30 days to either voluntarily turn firearms into HPD, or make the smarter choice and relinquish firearms legally to someone who will care for them until you are no longer adversely effected by your conditions.
This bill strips the ability to transfer your firearms to someone you trust, and forces you to give them to the chief of police.
This bill is also so ambiguous in that it basically states that if you have EVER been disqualified in the past, regardless of if you are no longer adversely effected by your conditions and are clear or have been cleared for some time, you must turn over your firearms.
-
Yes, but he must submit an official notice that you are disqualified, and you have 30 days to either voluntarily turn firearms into HPD, or make the smarter choice and relinquish firearms legally to someone who will care for them until you are no longer adversely effected by your conditions.
This bill strips the ability to transfer your firearms to someone you trust, and forces you to give them to the chief of police.
This bill is also so ambiguous in that it basically states that if you have EVER been disqualified in the past, regardless of if you are no longer adversely effected by your conditions and are clear or have been cleared for some time, you must turn over your firearms.
Gotcha.
I guess the fear is that someone might go crazy and should not have firearms but in compliance with the current law they will just give them to a spouse which in reality will mean they still have access to them. The question is then, how do we propose something as an alternative instead of just saying that we are against it, what is a good solution to the problem at hand? The argument that it is vague and can overreach is good but it would be nice to have some sort of proposal as well so we don't just look like we are fighting anything and everything.
Brainstorm time.
-
Gotcha.
I guess the fear is that someone might go crazy and should not have firearms but in compliance with the current law they will just give them to a spouse which in reality will mean they still have access to them. The question is then, how do we propose something as an alternative instead of just saying that we are against it, what is a good solution to the problem at hand? The argument that it is vague and can overreach is good but it would be nice to have some sort of proposal as well so we don't just look like we are fighting anything and everything.
Brainstorm time.
You can never completely stop someone from accessing a firearm, try as you will.
An alternative? Allow conceal carry.
Illegal people can get guns from whoever they want, whenever they want, and try and shoot as many people as they want. Conceal carry will reduce response times.
Could people still be killed? Possibly. But the benefits outweigh the risks
-
Done.
-
Gotcha.
I guess the fear is that someone might go crazy and should not have firearms but in compliance with the current law they will just give them to a spouse which in reality will mean they still have access to them. The question is then, how do we propose something as an alternative instead of just saying that we are against it, what is a good solution to the problem at hand? The argument that it is vague and can overreach is good but it would be nice to have some sort of proposal as well so we don't just look like we are fighting anything and everything.
Brainstorm time.
the system is set up to say support or oppose and why
technically, according to the rules of order, the legislators are not supposed to be considering alternatives at this point
practically, they have to keep that in the back of their mind, yes
but i have been told multiple times that the legislators themselves do not read the testimonies, they have a staffer just tally the yeas/nays
-
Testimony submitted for HB2632. I'll have to revisit the other one later, gotta get to work.
-
Testimony submitted for HB2632. I'll have to revisit the other one later, gotta get to work.
here's mine:
bill is overly broad
in december, tens of thousands of kaiser and straub patients potentially could have been caught up in this due to a procedural issue between HPD and the insurance carriers that caused many people to have their permits denied
many of these people would have potentially had their firearms/ammunition seized according to this bill as written
i just read heavies' testimony
his is better than mine
should have just copied his
:thumbsup:
-
done!
-
These are too broad and need to be opposed ASAP!
Please send in your testimonies!
guys, we need to hit these bills HARD
show that we care and are politically active
register and send in testimony, even if just to say "oppose"
-
Done and done.
-
weird thing is the second time that HPD lost my psychologist letter (yes they lost it twice), the officer told me that i need to send them another bc, "you wouldn't want to lose all your firearms bc you dont have a letter."
I found that a little concerning since they lost the letter after i gave it to them, so its not my fault its theirs, but i would still lose my firearms
but actually not, bc thats not the law, but thats what he said
another example of how they just make stuff up as they go along.
welcome to Hawaii. :shaka:
-
weird thing is the second time that HPD lost my psychologist letter (yes they lost it twice), the officer told me that i need to send them another bc, "you wouldn't want to lose all your firearms bc you dont have a letter."
I found that a little concerning since they lost the letter after i gave it to them, so its not my fault its theirs, but i would still lose my firearms
but actually not, bc thats not the law, but thats what he said
another example of how they just make stuff up as they go along.
welcome to Hawaii. :shaka:
Did they notify you in person or over the phone?
I would start recording any and all conversations that take place with HPD firearms.
-
Done. Hope it'll make a difference...many things in general across this country lead me to believe otherwise.
-
Done!
-
Thank you for the post.
Just submitted my testimony. At the end I tossed in a plug for CCW and changing to shall-issue.
-
weird thing is the second time that HPD lost my psychologist letter (yes they lost it twice), the officer told me that i need to send them another bc, "you wouldn't want to lose all your firearms bc you dont have a letter."
I found that a little concerning since they lost the letter after i gave it to them, so its not my fault its theirs, but i would still lose my firearms
but actually not, bc thats not the law, but thats what he said
another example of how they just make stuff up as they go along.
welcome to Hawaii. :shaka:
Ask for a property receipt to prove you submitted the letter. Not sure if they will do it, but worth a try.
-
Guys, HB2632 has been deferred to 2/12/2016 11:30am.
That means there is still more time to send in testimonies. Keep sending in your testimonies against this bill.
HB2632 Seizure of Firearms; Mental Illness; Police RELATING TO FIREARMS.
Requires firearms owners who have been disqualified from owning a firearm and ammunition due to mental illness to immediately surrender their firearms and ammunition to the Chief of Police.
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=HB&billnumber=2632
I believe the new deadline for testimonies is Thursday 2/11/2016 11:30am
-
Here's what I submitted:
This bill, like so many other firearm-related bills that have been introduced to this body, is far to broad in scope and ambiguous in nature. It would provide too much opportunity for abuse of authority with little recourse for the affected citizen.
If this bill becomes law, any law-abiding, firearm owning resident of Hawaii could be stripped of a fundamental human right (the right to self-defense) with only the merest nod to due process, and with essentially no avenue to get that right reinstated. Given the wording of HRS 134-7(c) (the referenced section for reasons for disqualification to possess firearms/ammunition), someone could seek a no-contact order against another individual out of vengeance or spite with no real supporting evidence, and the subject of that order would be required to IMMEDIATELY surrender all firearms and ammunition with no chance to dispute the order whatsoever, and the process to have lawfully owned firearms returned once seized is murky at best.
This legislation is yet another misguided attempt to strip law abiding citizens of fundamental rights protected by both the U.S. Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Hawaii, and it must be defeated.
Feel free to plagiarize it if you want to submit testimony but you're short on time... :shaka:
-
What if we can get an LEO officer to write a letter saying that the law is too vague so as to be difficult to enforce constitutionally. Then say that if the law is passed, they will not enforce it due to the unconstitutional nature? Maybe that will get their attention more.
-
I sure hope that most LEOs feel that way, eyeeatingfish.
-
weird thing is the second time that HPD lost my psychologist letter (yes they lost it twice), the officer told me that i need to send them another bc, "you wouldn't want to lose all your firearms bc you dont have a letter."
I found that a little concerning since they lost the letter after i gave it to them, so its not my fault its theirs, but i would still lose my firearms
but actually not, bc thats not the law, but thats what he said
another example of how they just make stuff up as they go along.
welcome to Hawaii. :shaka:
As stated previously,
record any and all conversations taking place over the phone or at the window when it involves HPD firearms.
*only those conversations in which you are directly involved or have permission to record from another individual*
They have also changed their story on me several times, and I even called an officer out to his face for what he told me on a previous visit that he claimed he didn't say during the last visit.
-
Spreadsheet updated as of 2/11/2016 4:45pm.
A big thank you to the HRA and Dr. Max Cooper for reviewing and clarifying / providing a position on the various bills!
Link to spreadsheet -> https://goo.gl/1kZGOI
Major updates as of this afternoon. Nothing good for us.
- SB2647 (Fines for Sale of Ivory) passed with amendments by JDL committee
- SB2954 (Firearm database, Hawaii Criminal JDC) passed with amendments by PSM committee
- SB2956 (Mental illness; Firearms surrender) passed unamended by PSM committee
- SB2950 (Rapback System) passed unamended by PSM committee
- HB2629 (Rapback System) passed with amendments by PBS committee
- HB2632 (Mental Illness, Firearm seizure) decision making on Friday 2/12/2016 11:30am in conference room 329.
Guys, this year is not time to sit back.
-
Sorry guys, I must admit I failed to get organized in time to submit testimony. I thought work might be slow enough but it was busy.
Thank you so much though JI808 for this type of organization, and please continue to keep us informed of when testimony as needed.
If the window opens back up on any of these bills, please let me know!
Reading further about the bill, I am trying to find out what happens to the firearms that are immediately confiscated by the police department? For people who have a TRO, the firearms are held by the police department until the TRO period is over. But if the police department were to immediately seize the firearms it does not say what happens to the seized firearms. Are they held until the person can be treated and again apply for permits or acquire? Are they held for a period of time while the individual can appeal through a court of law? The worst case scenario is if they would legally be allowed to destroy them immediately. You might win on appeal through the courts but at that point the guns are gone!
And not even the chance to sell them to an FFL either?
-
Sorry guys, I must admit I failed to get organized in time to submit testimony. I thought work might be slow enough but it was busy.
Thank you so much though JI808 for this type of organization, and please continue to keep us informed of when testimony as needed.
If the window opens back up on any of these bills, please let me know!
Even if you don't have time to give a full testimony, you could just hit the oppose or support buttons on the website. There is no need for a full testimony or reasons why you support or oppose. It will still be logged and reported to the committee.
-
Apparently the system is still taking testimony on the senate version and I submitted mine! Mine might not make it in time to be considered though it says. I did not see mine posted in the page showing all the submitted testimony. On a good note, there were a lot of testimonies that said "oppose"
I think next time we should post on the firearms section of Facebook the links and an explanation of how easy it is to submit testimony.
-
23-24 oppose to 2 or 3 support.... still passed committee? WTF is wrong with these legislators? I know...... they aren't scared because no one freaking votes them out! /rant
-
23-24 oppose to 2 or 3 support.... still passed committee? WTF is wrong with these legislators? I know...... they aren't scared because no one freaking votes them out! /rant
We have to remember, there is an agenda. Obama has said that this will be the year of gun control and he plans to "leave it all on the table".
He's a lame duck, so he's basically bullet proof, and doesn't care what people think.
We know the legislators here are his sycophants, and they too feel that they're bullet proof. Until that changes, nothing else will.
-
Are you serious?! Is there a place we can view the play by play of these bills? Something more than what's on the hawaii.gov
-
Unfortunately, the only place this would be is showing up in person at the committee hearings. Even though the senate PSM committee passed SB2956 (Mental illness; Firearms surrender), there's still a slim chance that it can be defeated in the house.
The house version of the bill HB2632 (Mental Illness, Firearm seizure) is up for decision making by HLT committee today Friday 2/12/2016 11:30am in conference room 329.
HLT Committee http://capitol.hawaii.gov/committeepage.aspx?comm=HLT&year=2016 (Au Belatti, F)
It's important that these legislators hear from you now before they vote at 11:30 am today. Please be respectful when talking with them (don't threaten them) and thank them for their vote against this bill.
Della Au Belatti, House District 24 (Rating F)
808-586-9425
repbelatti@capitol.hawaii.gov
Richard Cregan, House District 5 (Rating ?)
808-586-9605
repcreagan@capitol.hawaii.gov
Mark Hashem, House District 18 (Rating A/B)
808-586-6510
rephashem@Capitol.hawaii.gov
Jo Jordan, House District 44 (Rating A)
808-586-8460
repjordan@Capitol.hawaii.gov
Bertrand Kobayashi, House District 19 (Rating A)
808-586-6310
repkobayashi@Capitol.hawaii.gov
Dee Morikawa, House District 16 (Rating ?)
808-586-6280
repmorikawa@Capitol.hawaii.gov
Marcus Oshiro, House District 46 (Rating A/B/C)
808-586-6700
repmoshiro@Capitol.hawaii.gov
Beth Fukumoto Chang, House District 36 (Rating C)
808-586-9460
repfukumoto@Capitol.hawaii.gov
Andria Tupola, House District 43 (Rating B)
808-586-8465
reptupola@Capitol.hawaii.gov
Everyone's email address: repbelatti@capitol.hawaii.gov, repcreagan@capitol.hawaii.gov, rephashem@Capitol.hawaii.gov, repjordan@Capitol.hawaii.gov, repkobayashi@Capitol.hawaii.gov, repmorikawa@Capitol.hawaii.gov, rephashem@Capitol.hawaii.gov, repfukumoto@Capitol.hawaii.gov, reptupola@Capitol.hawaii.gov
-
Do we just have to find the one that is for our district or can we email them all?
-
Do we just have to find the one that is for our district or can we email them all?
all, but note if you are in one of their districts
-
emails to all sent!
-
Join: http://amgoa.org
american gun owners alliance: updates whats happening to hawaii gun bills daily.
-
Thanks GOLDdealer. That is a great resource.
http://amgoa.org/Proposed-Hawaii-Gun-Laws
-
What constitutes a disqualification? An M.D. order a Pscyhe Dr., Counselor who determines the mental illness, how about prior military service?
-
This is the new language that this HB Bill is adding.
(c) Any person disqualified from ownership, possession, or control of firearms and ammunition under section 134-7(c), or who underwent an emergency hospitalization under section 334-59, shall immediately surrender all firearms and ammunition to the chief of police upon written notification from the chief of police. The notification shall set forth the reasons for the disqualification and shall state the requirement that the applicant immediately surrender all firearms and ammunition to the chief of police. If any person fails to voluntarily surrender all firearms and ammunition, the chief of police may seize all firearms and ammunition.
Here is a link to 334-59:
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0334/HRS_0334-0059.htm
-
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=HB&billnumber=2632
H 2/12/2016: The committees on HLT recommend that the measure be PASSED, WITH AMENDMENTS.
The votes were as follows: 8
Ayes: Representative(s) Belatti, Creagan, Hashem, Kobayashi;
Ayes with reservations: Representative(s) Jordan, Morikawa, Oshiro, Fukumoto Chang;
Noes: none; and
1 Excused: Representative(s) Tupola.
-
This is the new language that this HB Bill is adding.
(c) Any person disqualified from ownership, possession, or control of firearms and ammunition under section 134-7(c), or who underwent an emergency hospitalization under section 334-59, shall immediately surrender all firearms and ammunition to the chief of police upon written notification from the chief of police. The notification shall set forth the reasons for the disqualification and shall state the requirement that the applicant immediately surrender all firearms and ammunition to the chief of police. If any person fails to voluntarily surrender all firearms and ammunition, the chief of police may seize all firearms and ammunition.
Here is a link to 334-59:
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0334/HRS_0334-0059.htm
It is important to note that this process is not just for mental illness. Someone can be forcefully taken to the hospital for mental evaluation for being very intoxicated if the level of intoxication is such that they are placing themselves in danger.
-
weird thing is the second time that HPD lost my psychologist letter (yes they lost it twice), the officer told me that i need to send them another bc, "you wouldn't want to lose all your firearms bc you dont have a letter."
I found that a little concerning since they lost the letter after i gave it to them, so its not my fault its theirs, but i would still lose my firearms
but actually not, bc thats not the law, but thats what he said
another example of how they just make stuff up as they go along.
welcome to Hawaii. :shaka:
since these passed,
if HPD loses the clearance letter, like they've done in the past, they can come and confiscate your firearms now. maybe that officer knew something after all.....
need to be sure my letter is up to date, and that I have it at all times in case they call and I need to fax it to them immediately.
nice to know my chain can get jerked at the drop of a dime.
-
It is important to note that this process is not just for mental illness. Someone can be forcefully taken to the hospital for mental evaluation for being very intoxicated if the level of intoxication is such that they are placing themselves in danger.
Here's an excerpt from my submitted testimony on HB2632:
Further, looking into just a few of the details of the proposed law, one discovers that a person could be denied their Constitutionally-guaranteed rights based solely upon the “oral application of... any state or county employee in the course of employment”. Haw. Rev. Stat. § 334-59 as referenced in HB2632. Really? Since when does the county employee at the transfer station telling someone they have to take their old bed frame to the metal recycling bin rather than placing it in the general trash bin have the expertise or requisite training to determine that someone is “obviously ill”? That's preposterous. You may think I am joking or being facetious, but I'm not. I witnessed such an incident at the transfer station just a few days ago, and the “discussion” between the “county employee in the course of employment” and the citizen turned into a rather high volume “argument”. Perhaps that “county employee in the course of employment” may have believed at that moment that the citizen was “obviously ill” or perhaps “dangerous to self or others”. Would that be sufficient grounds to have a law-abiding citizen's firearms confiscated by the government? With no right to legal counsel a judge could issue such a confiscation order based solely upon the county employee's oral recommendation. That would be possible if HB2632 were enacted.
-
I want to see a 2nd amendment supporting officer refuse to enforce this law.
-
H 2/19/2016: Bill scheduled to be heard by JUD on Tuesday, 02-23-16 2:00PM in House conference room 325.
HB2632 HD1 Seizure of Firearms; Mental Illness; Police
RELATING TO FIREARMS.
Requires firearms owners who have been disqualified from owning a firearm and ammunition due to mental illness to immediately surrender their firearms and ammunition to the Chief of Police.
Link to bill -> http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=HB&billnumber=2632
JUD Committee -> http://capitol.hawaii.gov/committeepage.aspx?comm=JUD&year=2016 (Rhoads, F Rating)
Legislative Guidebook -> https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=22027.0
Send in your written testimonies before Monday 2/22/2016 2:00pm!
Testimonies can be emailed to JUDtestimony@capitol.hawaii.gov.
-
H 2/19/2016: Bill scheduled to be heard by JUD on Tuesday, 02-23-16 2:00PM in House conference room 325.
HB2632 HD1 Seizure of Firearms; Mental Illness; Police
RELATING TO FIREARMS.
Requires firearms owners who have been disqualified from owning a firearm and ammunition due to mental illness to immediately surrender their firearms and ammunition to the Chief of Police.
Link to bill -> http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=HB&billnumber=2632
JUD Committee -> http://capitol.hawaii.gov/committeepage.aspx?comm=JUD&year=2016 (Rhoads, F Rating)
Legislative Guidebook -> https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=22027.0
Send in your written testimonies before Monday 2/22/2016 2:00pm!
Testimonies can be emailed to JUDtestimony@capitol.hawaii.gov
testimony submitted. I suggest everyone do the same, before they decide owning firearms is unsafe and grounds for confiscation.
-
H 2/19/2016: Bill scheduled to be heard by JUD on Tuesday, 02-23-16 2:00PM in House conference room 325.
HB2632 HD1 Seizure of Firearms; Mental Illness; Police
RELATING TO FIREARMS.
Requires firearms owners who have been disqualified from owning a firearm and ammunition due to mental illness to immediately surrender their firearms and ammunition to the Chief of Police.
Link to bill -> http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=HB&billnumber=2632
JUD Committee -> http://capitol.hawaii.gov/committeepage.aspx?comm=JUD&year=2016 (Rhoads, F Rating)
Legislative Guidebook -> https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=22027.0
Send in your written testimonies before Monday 2/22/2016 2:00pm!
Testimonies can be emailed to JUDtestimony@capitol.hawaii.gov.
Is this one different than before?
Gotta find my testimony to the last one and copy and paste if it is a second chance at essentially the same bill. Looks like it is modified to add ammunition?
I just reposted my old testimony with better spacing and indentation.
I also emailed the same testimony to the chair and vice chair.
Has anyone shared this on the firearm or stolen stuff pages of Facebook?
It is interesting to see the other bills being proposed. Some of them are redundant, like adding theft of a bicycle. Why can it not just be a normal theft as defined by the value?
-
Is this one different than before?
Essentially the same bill (as slightly amended by the previous committee), different committee.
All the arguments in opposition still apply, i.e. submitting same opposition testimony to the new committee is valid.
-
Sharing something PM'd to me by an old timer who has been doing this for a much longer time.
You may want to let people know when testifying, to keep comments to a minimum because legislators Do NOT read them. The staffer just looks at For & Against. Also some comments make the commenter to be a major "Redneck".
If legislators don't read the comments, it further makes the point that being present and providing oral testimonies will be much more effective than sending in written ones. But send in the written ones in anyway since they can at least "count".
-
If legislators don't read the comments, it further makes the point that being present and providing oral testimonies will be much more effective than sending in written ones.
If one lives on an island other than Oahu, has a weekday job, and receives, at most, 48 hours notice of a hearing, I think we can safely conclude that the system is "rigged" against full public input that would be "more effective".
But send in the written ones in anyway since they can at least "count".
The submitted written testimony on HB2632 before the Health committee was 5 in support, 39 in opposition. It passed unanimously. It what math world does that "count"?
-
I stand corrected. Yes, in what math world does that count? Maybe they can't read or count either!
-
I stand corrected. Yes, in what math world does that count? Maybe they can't read or count either!
As I mentioned in another thread, I didn't witness the hearing, so perhaps 34 or more people appeared in person to support the bill, while no one appeared in person to oppose it, so that would make the math approximately half and half, but it passed 8-0. At least we know that there is no causal relationship between submitted written testimony and committee member votes (at least in this case, or any other pro-rights bill that I can recall).
I also noted that they printed the HPD testimony twice in the online written testimony document. Did they "count" it twice? That would have made it 39 opposed to 6 in favor. There may be some "secret mathematical formula" or "oral policy" of the legislators that submissions by HPD or any other government agency are weighted at 100x, or 1000x, or more likely 1,000,000x times more per submission than the lowly redneck bumpkin subjects (I almost wrote "citizens") who elected them and erroneously believe that they are entitled to some input on the laws that infringe on their ability to legally exercise their rights. "F*cking peasants!".
-
All this does is confirm the fact that WE NEED to get people to vote in the right legislators. Legislators that will up hold their oaths to the constitution.
If the same people keep getting voted in, there will be NO CHANGE.
*It won't make a difference
*I don't agree with this or that policy
*I don't like the way the guy looks
*etc
This is the reason we are having to fight so hard to stop this!
Make it very easy on yourself, VOTE 2A as your one and only top issue. All else will fall into place!
-
H 2/19/2016: Bill scheduled to be heard by JUD on Tuesday, 02-23-16 2:00PM in House conference room 325.
HB2632 HD1 Seizure of Firearms; Mental Illness; Police
RELATING TO FIREARMS.
Requires firearms owners who have been disqualified from owning a firearm and ammunition due to mental illness to immediately surrender their firearms and ammunition to the Chief of Police.
Link to bill -> http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=HB&billnumber=2632
JUD Committee -> http://capitol.hawaii.gov/committeepage.aspx?comm=JUD&year=2016 (Rhoads, F Rating)
Legislative Guidebook -> https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=22027.0
Send in your written testimonies before Monday 2/22/2016 2:00pm!
Testimonies can be emailed to JUDtestimony@capitol.hawaii.gov.
done
-
done
testimony submitted
-
Testimony sent.
-
Submitted
-
Mentioned this on Facebook 808 guns accessories buy/sell trade page.
-
Always check before you submit your testimony people.
-
Yeah
Default setting is "support"
-
H 2/22/2016: Broadcast of hearing/briefing available. See: www.capitoltv.org
HB2632 HD1 Seizure of Firearms; Mental Illness; Police
RELATING TO FIREARMS.
Requires firearms owners who have been disqualified from owning a firearm and ammunition due to mental illness to immediately surrender their firearms and ammunition to the Chief of Police. (HB2632 HD1)
Bill -> http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=HB&billnumber=2632
==================
This bill HB2632 is scheduled to be heard today at 2:00pm.
See the live broadcast at http://www.capitoltv.org/
-
Time for testimonies are past. This is the time to contact your rep directly with an email and a phone call.
Please see this other thread if you don't know what to say or write.
https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=22027.0
Remember not to be antagonistic with your reps and that they are your "friends" / "voice" for your district. Tell them why the bill is bad and what amendments are needed to fix it.
Below is the alert from Harvey Gerwig, HRA Legislative Liaison
==============================================
Hawaii Rifle Association
State Affiliate of the National Rifle Association - Founded in 1857
February 23, 2016
PLEASE CONTACT YOUR REPRESENTATIVE IMMEDIATELY ABOUT HB2632
HPD wants to seize all firearms immediately from any person disqualified from possession due to treatment or counseling for addiction to, abuse of, or dependence upon any dangerous, harmful, or detrimental drug, intoxicating compound..., or intoxicating liquor...or has been diagnosed as having a significant behavioral, emotional, or mental disorder....or who underwent an emergency hospitalization for psychiatric reasons.
No due process, no judge involved, no more 30 day wait to prove you are not disabled to own guns, just a police officer, a police department psychologist on the phone, and an ER doctor can relieve you of your 2nd Amendment rights and your 4th Amendment rights against search and seizure.
SERIOUSLY MENTALLY ILL PATIENTS SHOULD NOT HAVE ACCESS TO FIREARMS, BUT AN AMENDMENT THAT A COURT ORDER NEEDS TO PRECEDE CONFISCATON, AND A RETURN OF FIREARMS MECHANISM FOR THOSE "NO LONGER ADVERSELY AFFECTED" BOTH NEED TO BE INSERTED INTO THE BILL.
At the hearing today in House Judiciary Committee Chair Karl Marx passed the bill with small amendments.
You can identify your Representative by opening the Hawaii State Legislature web site at: http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/
and entering your street name in the upper right hand box. Click on the name of your Representative. The e-mail and phone number for his or her office will appear next to the photo of your Rep.
Email your Rep. how you feel about this bill and ask that it be killed or seriously amended. Follow up your e-mail with a phone call during business hours. Ask if your Rep. has seen your e-mail and ask for a reply.
MAHALO,
HARVEY GERWIG, LEGISLATIVE LIAISON, HRA
-
Just did a count of the testimonies.
HLT Committee hearing
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/Session2016/Testimony/HB2632_TESTIMONY_HLT_02-10-16_.PDF
- 4 support
- 40 against
JUD Committee hearing
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/Session2016/Testimony/HB2632_HD1_TESTIMONY_JUD_02-23-16_.PDF
- 16 support
- 118 against
- 1 comment
Testimonies in support were mostly from the PDs and from some social services organizations.
-
JUD Committee hearing
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/Session2016/Testimony/HB2632_HD1_TESTIMONY_JUD_02-23-16_.PDF
- 16 support
- 118 against
- 1 comment
Thanks for the tally. I did the same for the 46 pages of the HLT hearing testimony, but couldn't muster the energy last night to go through the 143 pages of the JUD hearing testimony.
Public testimony:
Ayes 16
Noes 118
Committee vote:
Ayes 12
Noes 1
That "one comment" was from LCSW (Licensed Clinical Social Worker) Matthew Brittain representing Effective Change, LLC, who wrote: "...a better approach to gun control would be to require owners to pass a similar set of requirements as owning a car. Registration, insurance, competency testing, safety inspection...". I wonder if he intentionally left out "annual registration renewal fee for each firearm"?
Testimonies in support were mostly from the PDs and from some social services organizations.
Don't forget Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) and Progressive Democrats of Hawaii. Those two organizations can always be counted upon to squelch individual freedom (except in the arenas of abortion and gay rights... unless your a "fetus" or a baker...).
-
Thanks for the tally. I did the same for the 46 pages of the HLT hearing testimony, but couldn't muster the energy last night to go through the 143 pages of the JUD hearing testimony.
Public testimony:
Ayes 16
Noes 118
Committee vote:
Ayes 12
Noes 1
That "one comment" was from LCSW (Licensed Clinical Social Worker) Matthew Brittain representing Effective Change, LLC, who wrote: "...a better approach to gun control would be to require owners to pass a similar set of requirements as owning a car. Registration, insurance, competency testing, safety inspection...". I wonder if he intentionally left out "annual registration renewal fee for each firearm"?
Don't forget Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) and Progressive Democrats of Hawaii. Those two organizations can always be counted upon to squelch individual freedom (except in the arenas of abortion and gay rights... unless your a "fetus" or a baker...).
These LCSW should have liability insurance as well. If they misdiagnose a person with meds and/or treatment and they harm somebody these LCSWs should be held liable. Just sayin' for our keiki.
-
Slightly OT
A response to equating guns to cars is that gun owners should then have the SAME RIGHTS as car owners.
Our guns would be OK across the USA
No Limitations on capacity, just like no limitations on Horse power.
Open carry, concealed carry no limitations
If DUI people can keep their cars, so can gun owners etc.
Pull those arguments on them and see how they respond.
Remind them that automobiles are a Privilege Granted by Government and can be severely restricted by government with out due process.
Firearms are in the US Constitution, motor vehicles are not.
-
Has anyone here testified in person? I work nights so I would be able to make it time wise but I am not sure how the process works.
I am assuming I have to give my full name but wondering what else I could leave out.
-
Go down,
Check the clipboard for meeting. It will tell you what time and what room it's scheduled in.
Go to room and find a seat in the front. The legislatures will be sitting on a table panel style facing the crowd. There will be a microphone in between facing legislatures where you give testimony.
When it's your turn you go up, say your name, organization and if you support or oppose and why.
They thank you, than you take your seat.
If you never been before I highly suggest you attend. It's a really great experience sitting in the meeting, learning how the process works, meeting your representatives, and all types of folks in the crowd.
-
Has anyone here testified in person? I work nights so I would be able to make it time wise but I am not sure how the process works.
I am assuming I have to give my full name but wondering what else I could leave out.
Also if you can make it down in person to oppose a bill it is pretty much your duty to go down and oppose it.
-
Also if you can make it down in person to oppose a bill it is pretty much your duty to go down and oppose it.
Gotta figure out something that will get their attention, and not in a crazy person sort of way either.
Specifically with regards to this one I was thinking I could argue that it lacks due process for someone to fight against the taking of their firearm but I am not sure if that is true. The law in question doesn't say whether it can be appealed or how and it doesn't say what happens to the firearms after confiscation. But there may be some other law somewhere else that deals with that and does provide an avenue for appealing the decision. This of course makes a difference to whether I have a solid argument they cannot counter. I don't want them throwing some curve ball at me while testifying. I mean there is always your basic lawsuit against the department but that is not a specific course of action specified for this revocation of rights.
I did ask a guy who works at HPD firearms about what happens to the guns that are seized. He said that they are held and can be gotten back after someone is cleared of any mental issues but I don't know long they would have to keep it or if that is even really something set in stone or just the current practice.
-
Hawaii Rifle Association
State Affiliate of the National Rifle Association - Founded in 1857
February 28, 2016
Senator Keith-Agaran, Chair of the Hawaii Senate Judiciary Committee, will give decision on SB2956 Tuesday March 1, 2016.
Senate rules provide that, since the bill was already heard in its first committee, Public Safety, and public testimony was taken, no public testimony is needed to pass the bill out of the Judiciary Committee Tuesday. No testimony will be accepted.
State law provides that a person may be involuntarily committed to a mental hospital if they are a danger to self or others. A police officer, a police psychologist, and an emergency room doctor can determine if such a hospitalization is necessary. SB2956 requires the county police to immediately seize all firearms from any person so hospitalized.
Please e-mail or fax Senator Keith-Agaran something like this, fax: 808-586-7348 or
senkeithagaran@capitol.hawaii.gov before Tuesday, 9am:
Dear Senator Keith-Agaran,
Please amend SB2956 to require court action before seizing guns as required under state mental health law: §334-61 Presumption; civil rights. No presumption of insanity or legal incompetency shall exist with respect to any patient by reason of the patient’s admission to a psychiatric facility under this chapter. The fact of the admission shall not in itself modify or vary any civil right of any such person, including but not limited to civil service statutes or rights relating to the granting, forfeiture, or denial of a license, permit, privilege, or benefit pursuant to any law, or the right to dispose of property, execute instruments, make purchases, enter into contractual relationships, and to vote. If the administrator of a psychiatric facility or the deputy is of the opinion that a patient should not exercise any civil right, application for a show cause order shall be made to the court under the above proceedings after notice pursuant to section 334-60.4.
Very respectfully,
(your name)
MAHALO,
HARVEY GERWIG, LEGISLATIVE LIAISON and PRESIDENT, HRA