2aHawaii
General Topics => General Discussion => Topic started by: ren on June 14, 2016, 08:13:06 PM
-
http://khon2.com/2016/06/14/hawaii-could-soon-create-database-listing-gun-permit-applicants/ (http://khon2.com/2016/06/14/hawaii-could-soon-create-database-listing-gun-permit-applicants/) :grrr:
-
People do not understand. If Hawaii was connected by land to the mainland then there would be more crime and murders. Period. Hawaii is an anomaly in the stats.
-
You already have to "register" and be on a list just like a pedophile (though they haven't published our addresses online yet). You have to provide you fingerprints. You also have to sign away your right to privacy regarding medical and/or (probably) any other information they want to research on you. What's one more list? :rofl:
-
The only question that should be asked remains the same: if they implement it, what are you going to do about it? :popcorn:
-
My prediction: Ige signs it after hearing from the Attorney General's office: "After careful analysis there's a moderate to high probability that the law will be declared unconstitutional if appealed all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States (after, obviously, being upheld by all Hawaii state courts and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals), AND Trump is elected to appoint the next justice(s), but don't worry because you'll be long out of office after all those years of litigation, and besides, if Hillary wins she'll do far worse than a mere national registry.
-
Are they talking about rap back ?
Cuz rap back is messed up.
-
Are they talking about rap back ?
affirmative
-
If anyone gets put on some watch list because of rapback, hope they sue the state big. Also hope NRA will bring some good lawyers into the state for the lawsuit.
-
Applying for a NFA item automatically puts yourself on the list.
-
I am less worried about rapback than some of the other crap they are trying to pull.
We are already on an accessible list. This one will just better connect information so that if someone commits a serious crime in another state they don't slip through the cracks in this state.
The constitutionality of such a list is an interesting issue though.
-
I am less worried about rapback than some of the other crap they are trying to pull.
We are already on an accessible list. This one will just better connect information so that if someone commits a serious crime in another state they don't slip through the cracks in this state.
The constitutionality of such a list is an interesting issue though.
the list is illegal...
-
the list is illegal...
When has that ever stopped the government or a politician? Okay, maybe occasionally...
-
I am less worried about rapback than some of the other crap they are trying to pull.
We are already on an accessible list. This one will just better connect information so that if someone commits a serious crime in another state they don't slip through the cracks in this state.
The constitutionality of such a list is an interesting issue though.
Or if someone doesn't like you they can use this "list" for their personal agenda....
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/32180505/lawsuit-2-hpu-professors-falsely-told-police-colleague-was-planning-shooting (http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/32180505/lawsuit-2-hpu-professors-falsely-told-police-colleague-was-planning-shooting)
This list the City of Honolulu maintains is not accessible by Joe Citizen but by a privileged body of people and they want to share this list on a federal level.
Again, what have I done?
and again:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmrYVJWwBfE
-
Again, what have I done?
You have chosen to exercise your natural fundamental individual civil right (enumerated and protected by the Constitutions (U.S. and Hawaii)) to be prepared to defend yourself and your family using the best tools available (well, of those still "allowed" in Hawaii. Imagine the lists you'd be on if you were "allowed" an "assault pistol" or a handgun magazine of greater than 10 rounds capacity or, I almost hesitate to say it, a "machine gun"!).
What more reason or justification would the government need to make you jump through hoops and be on a special list of suspect citizens?
-
"Soon, there could be a database listing everyone in Hawaii who’s applied for a firearms permit. No other state has it."
So, I gotta ask, doesn't this list already exist somewhere? In other words, is it not naive to think that such a list does not already exist?
(Now if they made that list publicly accessible via a website, that would be a different issue of privacy invasion.)
-
"Soon, there could be a database listing everyone in Hawaii who’s applied for a firearms permit. No other state has it."
So, I gotta ask, doesn't this list already exist somewhere? In other words, is it not naive to think that such a list does not already exist?
(Now if they made that list publicly accessible via a website, that would be a different issue of privacy invasion.)
I recall a story of some newspaper on the mainland that did make registered gun owners addresses public. Someone quickly released the addresses and other information of all employees at that newspaper public knowledge and the news paper withdrew there list IIRC.
-
"Soon, there could be a database listing everyone in Hawaii who’s applied for a firearms permit. No other state has it."
So, I gotta ask, doesn't this list already exist somewhere? In other words, is it not naive to think that such a list does not already exist?
(Now if they made that list publicly accessible via a website, that would be a different issue of privacy invasion.)
What makes you think that just because the NSA (and who knows what other alphabet agencies we don't even know about) is recording and storing every email and every phone call and maybe even every keystroke on every keyboard ((http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/images/smilies/seeya.gif)) and the "secret" FISA court does whatever the government wants them to do without any true "due process" or any accountability at all, that the government would illegally create a database of all firearms owners or permit/license applicants? Oh, ye of little faith. :shake:
-
"Soon, there could be a database listing everyone in Hawaii who’s applied for a firearms permit. No other state has it."
So, I gotta ask, doesn't this list already exist somewhere? In other words, is it not naive to think that such a list does not already exist?
(Now if they made that list publicly accessible via a website, that would be a different issue of privacy invasion.)
Yes the list already exists, If you have purchased and registered a gun in Hawaii then you are on that list, It will be interesting to see if they only add you to the list as you register a new gun OR if they use the information they already have to add you to the list and then send you a bill for the privilege.
Also why else do you think they changed the system to digital ? it makes it easier/compatible to transfer the data.
-
Yes the list already exists, If you have purchased and registered a gun in Hawaii then you are on that list, It will be interesting to see if they only add you to the list as you register a new gun OR if they use the information they already have to add you to the list and then send you a bill for the privilege.
Also why else do you think they changed the system to digital ? it makes it easier/compatible to transfer the data.
Maybe there's a shortage of carbon paper and IBM Selectric typewriter ribbons? :rofl:
-
There is an advantage of the rap back system that does make sense though. Say you commit a serious crime and are convicted in another state but you already have a gun registered in Hawaii. There is a good chance that Hawaii will never learn o the conviction in the other state and a gun may not be taken away that should be taken away. With this new system it will notify Hawaii that the individual had the conviction so it will close gaps that people slip though. From an efficient law enforcement standpoint it makes good sense. But it does still carry all the risks of a firearm registry.
That is why I seriously hope that in a Red Dawn type scenario, someone has the wherewithal to go and delete the registry.
-
There is an advantage of the rap back system that does make sense though. Say you commit a serious crime and are convicted in another state but you already have a gun registered in Hawaii. There is a good chance that Hawaii will never learn o the conviction in the other state and a gun may not be taken away that should be taken away. With this new system it will notify Hawaii that the individual had the conviction so it will close gaps that people slip though. From an efficient law enforcement standpoint it makes good sense. But it does still carry all the risks of a firearm registry.
That is why I seriously hope that in a Red Dawn type scenario, someone has the wherewithal to go and delete the registry.
You seem to like "what if" scenarios so here's one.
What if you own guns in Hawaii. You travel to Maine to go camping and hunting. Maine has relaxed gun laws, so you take a nice .44 revolver as your sling pistol along with a couple of different caliber hunting rifles.
On that same trip, you planned to visit family in Maryland. As you're driving south, your rental car has problems. It's late, and the rental car company says you have to wait until morning to get another car.
The car just happened to break down in New York. NY is nowhere near as gun friendly as Maine! While helping with your luggage, the hotel bellman notices the gun cases and other signs you are traveling with hunting gear. He also knows you showed a Hawaii driver license at checkin.
An hour later you answer a knock at the door. No, it's not the rental car company showing up earlier than expected. It's the local police. The bellman reported your guns and now you are being subjected to a search.
You have now been arrested for having unregistered firearms in NY without permits. Had you not stopped in the state, you'd be fine. Now, your life will be changed for the worse.
The RAP-BACK system doesn't need a conviction. "Innocent until proven guilty" doesn't benefit "safety". You will be added to the system just for having a "run-in" with the law.
So, while you are spending all your vacation money and life savings to fight the New York gun charges, you will also have HPD showing up at home to remove all of your guns there, too! They won't need to wait for the New York case to settle. They can use the RAP-BACK report as evidence you broke a law in New York.
So, yeah, this is a great idea! Continuous background checks that report you at the beginning of your encounter with law enforcement rather than waiting for a conviction that should be entered into NICS.
-
You seem to like "what if" scenarios so here's one.
What if you own guns in Hawaii. You travel to Maine to go camping and hunting. Maine has relaxed gun laws, so you take a nice .44 revolver as your sling pistol along with a couple of different caliber hunting rifles.
On that same trip, you planned to visit family in Maryland. As you're driving south, your rental car has problems. It's late, and the rental car company says you have to wait until morning to get another car.
The car just happened to break down in New York. NY is nowhere near as gun friendly as Maine! While helping with your luggage, the hotel bellman notices the gun cases and other signs you are traveling with hunting gear. He also knows you showed a Hawaii driver license at checkin.
An hour later you answer a knock at the door. No, it's not the rental car company showing up earlier than expected. It's the local police. The bellman reported your guns and now you are being subjected to a search.
You have now been arrested for having unregistered firearms in NY without permits. Had you not stopped in the state, you'd be fine. Now, your life will be changed for the worse.
The RAP-BACK system doesn't need a conviction. "Innocent until proven guilty" doesn't benefit "safety". You will be added to the system just for having a "run-in" with the law.
So, while you are spending all your vacation money and life savings to fight the New York gun charges, you will also have HPD showing up at home to remove all of your guns there, too! They won't need to wait for the New York case to settle. They can use the RAP-BACK report as evidence you broke a law in New York.
So, yeah, this is a great idea! Continuous background checks that report you at the beginning of your encounter with law enforcement rather than waiting for a conviction that should be entered into NICS.
Excellent scenario of what can and will go wrong with rap back.
-
Excellent scenario of what can and will go wrong with rap back.
Accused of breaking a law vs. Convicted of breaking a law. Criminal Shmininal. No guns for you!
-
Accused of breaking a law vs. Convicted of breaking a law. Criminal Shmininal. No guns for you!
The FBI RAP-BACK system is part of their new biometrics identification system. As soon as you are fingerprinted while being booked, the RAP-BACK system creates an ID record and the reason for the ID. Then, anyone subscribing to the RAP-BACK notification system (Hawaii LE) gets a notice of the new or updated record. It's up to the subscriber to decide what to do with that information.
Subscribers can be LE, school supervisors, employers, or anyone else with a desire to monitor the interactions of others. So, no conviction -- just a notice that Citizen X was arrested and booked on felony gun possession in the state of New York. You tell me how that's going to be used by HPD!
The RAP-BACK database handles civil as well as criminal monitoring, so just because LE is not involved doesn't mean you won't be IDed and reported.
-
Another aspect (not sure if it was discussed above or in other threads) is protection of personal information, particularly risks for identity theft. I was notified that I am included as potential for my personal/personnel data being at risk in the OPM data breach. If the Rapback data is breached, what insurance or assurances do we have against a system putting our information at risk?
-
RAP-BACK is messed up !
I still think it's HPDs way of trying to discourage us from applying for permits in the future.
Glad LIFE and hopefully HRA are already alluding to legal action if it's signed by the Gov.
Hopefully they can't afford to put all us previously registered folks into the system.
-
You seem to like "what if" scenarios so here's one.
What if you own guns in Hawaii. You travel to Maine to go camping and hunting. Maine has relaxed gun laws, so you take a nice .44 revolver as your sling pistol along with a couple of different caliber hunting rifles.
On that same trip, you planned to visit family in Maryland. As you're driving south, your rental car has problems. It's late, and the rental car company says you have to wait until morning to get another car.
The car just happened to break down in New York. NY is nowhere near as gun friendly as Maine! While helping with your luggage, the hotel bellman notices the gun cases and other signs you are traveling with hunting gear. He also knows you showed a Hawaii driver license at checkin.
An hour later you answer a knock at the door. No, it's not the rental car company showing up earlier than expected. It's the local police. The bellman reported your guns and now you are being subjected to a search.
You have now been arrested for having unregistered firearms in NY without permits. Had you not stopped in the state, you'd be fine. Now, your life will be changed for the worse.
The RAP-BACK system doesn't need a conviction. "Innocent until proven guilty" doesn't benefit "safety". You will be added to the system just for having a "run-in" with the law.
So, while you are spending all your vacation money and life savings to fight the New York gun charges, you will also have HPD showing up at home to remove all of your guns there, too! They won't need to wait for the New York case to settle. They can use the RAP-BACK report as evidence you broke a law in New York.
So, yeah, this is a great idea! Continuous background checks that report you at the beginning of your encounter with law enforcement rather than waiting for a conviction that should be entered into NICS.
In your hypothetical situation, the system will notify HPD of the arrest. But why do you say HPD will come and take your guns? Where does it say police can take your guns just because you were arrested for a crime?
I could concoct a plausible scenario where you would very much want to know of a crime committed in another state that would warrant police to take away an individuals firearm. The system is a double edged sword.
-
There is an advantage of the rap back system that does make sense though. Say you commit a serious crime and are convicted in another state but you already have a gun registered in Hawaii. There is a good chance that Hawaii will never learn o the conviction in the other state and a gun may not be taken away that should be taken away. With this new system it will notify Hawaii that the individual had the conviction so it will close gaps that people slip though. From an efficient law enforcement standpoint it makes good sense. But it does still carry all the risks of a firearm registry.
That is why I seriously hope that in a Red Dawn type scenario, someone has the wherewithal to go and delete the registry.
Law enforcement efficiency could be increased by doing away with the need for a search warrant too. And since you wouldn't have anything to hide, I'm sure that you are good with that as well. Oh, and while we're at it, we could greatly improve court efficiency if we just swapped around that whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing and when folks showed up for court they had to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that they were innocent. Oh, and let's not forget how efficient elections and voting would be if we just made folks take a test to make sure they were informed enough to vote...that should help, right?
The fact that you recognize the issue (your "I hope some one can delete the registry..." ) yet continue to advocate for it is a little disturbing....
-
In your hypothetical situation, the system will notify HPD of the arrest. But why do you say HPD will come and take your guns? Where does it say police can take your guns just because you were arrested for a crime?
I could concoct a plausible scenario where you would very much want to know of a crime committed in another state that would warrant police to take away an individuals firearm. The system is a double edged sword.
This new bill would permit HPD to take away your firearms.
All these bills that are being proposed in the name of "common sense" does away with our country's fundamental principle of being innocent till proven guilty. Its a witch hunt directed towards the armed populace. We are losing. We used to have a cake. Now we have a mini candy bar -the kind you get when you go to the barbershop.
-
Law enforcement efficiency could be increased by doing away with the need for a search warrant too. And since you wouldn't have anything to hide, I'm sure that you are good with that as well. Oh, and while we're at it, we could greatly improve court efficiency if we just swapped around that whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing and when folks showed up for court they had to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that they were innocent. Oh, and let's not forget how efficient elections and voting would be if we just made folks take a test to make sure they were informed enough to vote...that should help, right?
The fact that you recognize the issue (your "I hope some one can delete the registry..." ) yet continue to advocate for it is a little disturbing....
I never advocated for it, I am recognizing the pros and the cons. I am currently on the fence on this topic.
You cannot do away with a search warrant, it is a constitutional right. This is a little different, this is just information sharing.
-
This new bill would permit HPD to take away your firearms.
All these bills that are being proposed in the name of "common sense" does away with our country's fundamental principle of being innocent till proven guilty. Its a witch hunt directed towards the armed populace. We are losing. We used to have a cake. Now we have a mini candy bar -the kind you get when you go to the barbershop.
Maybe I missed it but where in the bill does it allow police to take away firearms just because they learn of an arrest in another state? If the bill allowed cops to take guns just because a person is arrested then I am absolutely against it.
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=2954
-
In your hypothetical situation, the system will notify HPD of the arrest. But why do you say HPD will come and take your guns? Where does it say police can take your guns just because you were arrested for a crime?
I could concoct a plausible scenario where you would very much want to know of a crime committed in another state that would warrant police to take away an individuals firearm. The system is a double edged sword.
Do you ever use logic, or is that just a nice word you like to toss about?
HPD already is denying people their rights with no crime committed. Read the threads here about Kaiser Medical and HPD. People not only can't buy something new, they also had to turn in a gun they already had a permit ti buy.
You ask "Where does it say?" Have you read the gun laws? Just like being arrested for domestic abuse can have your guns confiscated, and maybe returned when you successfully beat the charges, they would be just as empowered taking your guns pending the results of your New York case.
Doesn't take a genius to figure out, they are all about separating you from your guns. Suspicion and arrest are enough today if the charges are serious.
No, the system is a one-way sword. It is against your rights under the Constitution, and in favor of the State.
-
I never advocated for it, I am recognizing the pros and the cons. I am currently on the fence on this topic.
You cannot do away with a search warrant, it is a constitutional right. This is a little different, this is just information sharing.
Ummm, the 1986 FOPA seems pretty clear that a federal database of gun owners is illegal....it is NOT just about "information sharing" and the fact that you entirely dismiss the very legitimate concerns others and myself have expressed, is disturbing....
-
Ummm, the 1986 FOPA seems pretty clear that a federal database of gun owners is illegal....it is NOT just about "information sharing" and the fact that you entirely dismiss the very legitimate concerns others and myself have expressed, is disturbing....
Just information sharing. The Privacy Act was created because of "information sharing." Except for 12 specific exclusions, no government agency can share your personal information with other agencies (or any 3rd party) without the owner's express consent. That information can then only be used for the purposes that you consented to, and can't be stored beyond the need for that use.
When you sign all those forms at HPD, you give them consent to gather and use your personal information for one purpose, and that's to approve or reject your permit application. The RAP-BACK system goes well beyond that, allowing them to monitor you and make subsequent determinations using any new information you gave them permission to monitor. There doesn't have to be a set of rules on how they use that information. You just gave them your permission to continually monitor you with no expiration, and any AND ALL information, whether it affects your permit application or not, is now going to be in their hands. They can then make their own policies on whether, and how, they use that information.
RAP-BACK is the modern day Big Brother. Information is power. It should be limited to the specific need and not available ad infinitum.
-
"The county police departments will then be able to utilize the notifications to examine whether an individual's criminal conduct disqualifies them from continued ownership or possession of firearms under federal and state laws." - KARL RHOADS, Chair
-
"The county police departments will then be able to utilize the notifications to examine whether an individual's criminal conduct disqualifies them from continued ownership or possession of firearms under federal and state laws." - KARL RHOADS, Chair
Hey, speaking of Karl Rhoads, here's another one from him: "What? You want me to schedule a hearing so that citizens can testify about why they'd like to have the right to bear arms recognized by the state and counties of Hawaii? Just because no one has a CCW license doesn't mean they can't technically apply for one. "Shall issue"? I think not! No hearing for you! BWAAAHAHAHAHAHA!"
No, I made that up. He didn't really say that. That was a completely fabricated and fictionalized account written under my First Amendment right to political satire. But I'm pretty sure that's what he thinks. :stopjack:
-
Folks, you can't make this shit up. It's coming in hot and heavy right now. Here's Senator Joe Manchin (once "A rated" by the NRA):
US Senator: Get rid of due process — it’s “killing us”
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/06/16/us-senator-get-rid-of-due-process-its-killing-us/
Excerpt:
MANCHIN: "Really, the firewall we have right now is due process. It’s all due process. So we can all say we want the same thing, but how do we get there? If a person is on a terrorist watch list, like the gentleman, the shooter in Orlando? He was twice by the FBI — we were briefed yesterday about what happened — but that young man was brought in twice. They did everything they could. The FBI did everything they were supposed to do. But there was no way to keep him on the nix list or keep him off the gun-buy list, there was no way to do that.
So can’t we say that if a person’s under suspicion there should be a five-year period of time that we have to see if good behavior, if this person continues the same traits? Maybe we can come to that type of an agreement, but due process is what’s killing us right now."
What interesting times in which we live! Who would have guessed that we’d hear demands to demolish due process from liberals — and on national television? (Hint: Everyone, eventually.) Manchin doesn’t just want a watch-list ban — he wants law enforcement to decide who gets to exercise civil rights, and when.
If Manchin’s so keen on suspending explicit constitutional rights on the basis of suspicion, can we also eliminate the Fourth Amendment and conduct warrantless raids on people whom police suspect of being criminals? How about suspending the Fifth Amendment for people suspected of taking part in criminal conspiracies, or bypassing the Sixth Amendment rights to confront witnesses and defend one’s self in a court?
Joe Manchin let the mask slip today. Let’s hope that wakes up the rest of the country, before they find themselves the target of “suspicion” and spend five years — or the rest of their lives — dealing with the consequences of a government unmoored from due process.
-
we forget
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge)
-
we forget
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge)
I watch these films once a year to help me not forget. Not good for my blood pressure, but worth it. :shaka:
The Siege at Ruby Ridge (1996)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0117523/?ref_=fn_al_tt_2
Waco: The Rules of Engagement (1997)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120472/
United 93 (2006)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0475276/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1
-
Do you ever use logic, or is that just a nice word you like to toss about?
HPD already is denying people their rights with no crime committed. Read the threads here about Kaiser Medical and HPD. People not only can't buy something new, they also had to turn in a gun they already had a permit ti buy.
You ask "Where does it say?" Have you read the gun laws? Just like being arrested for domestic abuse can have your guns confiscated, and maybe returned when you successfully beat the charges, they would be just as empowered taking your guns pending the results of your New York case.
Doesn't take a genius to figure out, they are all about separating you from your guns. Suspicion and arrest are enough today if the charges are serious.
No, the system is a one-way sword. It is against your rights under the Constitution, and in favor of the State.
Being arrested for domestic violence does not give HPD the ability to take away your guns.
You are claiming that rap back will give HPD the ability to take away your guns just for having an arrest so prove it. Not my job to disprove your unsupported claim. If you know Hawaii gun laws so well then feel free to point it out.
Like I said earlier, if the new law would give HPD the ability to take guns for an arrest alone then I would be against it, but I haven't seen it anywhere in the law that this is the case.
-
Ummm, the 1986 FOPA seems pretty clear that a federal database of gun owners is illegal....it is NOT just about "information sharing" and the fact that you entirely dismiss the very legitimate concerns others and myself have expressed, is disturbing....
I am not dismissing any concerns. I share the concerns as evidence by my comments about one danger of gun registration lists.
-
Being arrested for domestic violence does not give HPD the ability to take away your guns.
You are claiming that rap back will give HPD the ability to take away your guns just for having an arrest so prove it. Not my job to disprove your unsupported claim. If you know Hawaii gun laws so well then feel free to point it out.
Like I said earlier, if the new law would give HPD the ability to take guns for an arrest alone then I would be against it, but I haven't seen it anywhere in the law that this is the case.
You know, one way I spot Liberals is they always try to make the person that disagrees with them go find supporting information and facts to disprove the Libtard rather than do the work themselves. Their hope is the other side is too busy or disinterested, and the Progressive-loving dimwits win the debate by default!
Even so, here's the info. Try and find opposing info, if you can.
1. No charges or judgment required. HPD just needs "reasonable grounds to believe." RAP-BACK can provide those grounds if someone in another state files a DV complaint.
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol03_Ch0121-0200D/HRS0134/HRS_0134-0007_0005.htm
2. This section says you just have to be bound over for trial for a felony (which we all know the majority of gun possession charges may be). At that point, the HPD can seize (their word) you firearms if you fail to transfer them -- tough to do if you are bound over in NY!!
Any person disqualified from ownership, possession, control, or the right to transfer ownership of firearms and ammunition under this section shall surrender or dispose of all firearms and ammunition in compliance with section 134-7.3.
§134-7 Ownership or possession prohibited, when; penalty. (a) No person who is a fugitive from justice or is a person prohibited from possessing firearms or ammunition under federal law shall own, possess, or control any firearm or ammunition therefor.
(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.
That's how it reads TODAY. Once we are all identified as RAP-BACK persons of interest, the state can mess around with the "if-then-else" clauses all they want!
-
You know, one way I spot Liberals is they always try to make the person that disagrees with them go find supporting information and facts to disprove the Libtard rather than do the work themselves. Their hope is the other side is too busy or disinterested, and the Progressive-loving dimwits win the debate by default!
So instead of you being required to provide proof that something you claim to exist does, you expect me to provide proof that it doesn't? You might as well claim to be god and make me prove you aren't. Maybe I shouldn't use that example, don't want to stroke your ego.
Even so, here's the info. Try and find opposing info, if you can.
1. No charges or judgment required. HPD just needs "reasonable grounds to believe." RAP-BACK can provide those grounds if someone in another state files a DV complaint.
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol03_Ch0121-0200D/HRS0134/HRS_0134-0007_0005.htm
Do you read the information you link? Sigh... Let me post where your own link disproves what you claimed.
(a) Any police officer who has reasonable grounds to believe that a person has recently assaulted or threatened to assault a family or household member may seize all firearms and ammunition that the police officer has reasonable grounds to believe were used or threatened to be used in the commission of the offense.
They can seize the firearm IF they have reason to believe the firearms were used in the assault or threatening. Notice that it also only mentions the firearms that are used in the incident, not a blanket removal of all firearms.
2. This section says you just have to be bound over for trial for a felony (which we all know the majority of gun possession charges may be). At that point, the HPD can seize (their word) you firearms if you fail to transfer them -- tough to do if you are bound over in NY!!
That's how it reads TODAY. Once we are all identified as RAP-BACK persons of interest, the state can mess around with the "if-then-else" clauses all they want!
Being arrested for a felony does not mean you are bound over so again, merely being arrested does not mean HPD can take all your guns.
http://www.sheltonlegal.com/Information/Ask-a-Lawyer/What-Does--Bound-Over--Mean-/what-does--bound-over--mean-.html
You do bring up a valid concern at the end of your reply though. What happens if we are in rapback and then they try to change laws on when they can take back guns. Hard to predict what would happen in this state but I am sure a legal battle would ensue and it would definitely address a serious constitutional question.