2aHawaii
General Topics => Legal and Activism => Topic started by: T342 on June 21, 2016, 12:23:24 PM
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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....
-
"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.
-
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
"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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Any sources for any of your statements? I ask because I see multiple inaccuracies.
I don't need any links for this info, because this is all from experience.
-
Any sources for any of your statements? I ask because I see multiple inaccuracies.
Point them out there barracks lawyer.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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?
-
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.
-
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
-
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/
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
A good explanation of how an arrest can still show up in NICS, even after expunged State records. https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/fingerprints_biometrics/arrest-disposition-submission
With regards to the State prohibiting body armor, there doesn't seem to be any underlying Statute, but I know they do. This will be an interesting question for my attorney.
-
A good explanation of how an arrest can still show up in NICS, even after expunged State records. https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/fingerprints_biometrics/arrest-disposition-submission
With regards to the State prohibiting body armor, there doesn't seem to be any underlying Statute, but I know they do. This will be an interesting question for my attorney.
I await your attorney's reply then.
As for the NICS, I a don't doubt that arrests stay on your record even after expungement, what I am questioning is where it says that an arrest alone is enough to deny a firearm permit.
-
Cost big money proving yourself innocent more like guilty until proven innocent , that's politicians they want you to jump through Hula hoops if you want your guns back, in the end cost you money cost taxpayers money cost everyone money, that's why they don't have money building the rail hahahahaha
-
I await your attorney's reply then.
As for the NICS, I a don't doubt that arrests stay on your record even after expungement, what I am questioning is where it says that an arrest alone is enough to deny a firearm permit.
Like I said, I know from experience. And as the webpage states, an arrest will get you into the Federal NICS system. There's also a phone number listed if you want to call them and ask yourself.
-
Like I said, I know from experience. And as the webpage states, an arrest will get you into the Federal NICS system. There's also a phone number listed if you want to call them and ask yourself.
This might be an opportunity to split your legal fees with Fish Guy! He sounds like he won't rest until someone else feeds him the information he wants!
-
Like I said, I know from experience. And as the webpage states, an arrest will get you into the Federal NICS system. There's also a phone number listed if you want to call them and ask yourself.
If an arrest, I am assuming anywhere in the US, gets you on the Federal NICS system why the hell did they pass rapback? Never mind, I know, they want to keep current tabs on you as a gun owner, like a parolee, with a ankle beeper.... :(
-
If an arrest, I am assuming anywhere in the US, gets you on the Federal NICS system why the hell did they pass rapback? Never mind, I know, they want to keep current tabs on you as a gun owner, like a parolee, with a ankle beeper.... :(
Exactly. NICS doesn't report anything negative unless you try to buy a gun. RAP-BACK notifies the subscriber (HPD) immediately of any LE encounters you have in any state. If you get ID'ed for any reason, RAP-BACK notifies everyone monitoring you.
for "safety"! :wacko:
-
I was talking to some fellow shooters this past weekend and a few of them mentioned wanting to buy things sooner rather than later in order to avoid RAPBACK, assuming it gets signed by the Gov. Any of you doing that or thinking that way?
I have a couple of guns on order and didn't consider RAPBACK into that equation. I'm not saying that it should or shouldn't be a consideration, but I just never thought about it and was surprised to hear that people were trying to secure things before it took effect. I had assumed that RAPBACK would impact registered gun owners, regardless of when the gun was purchased. I should read the language closer.
-
I was talking to some fellow shooters this past weekend and a few of them mentioned wanting to buy things sooner rather than later in order to avoid RAPBACK, assuming it gets signed by the Gov. Any of you doing that or thinking that way?
I have a couple of guns on order and didn't consider RAPBACK into that equation. I'm not saying that it should or shouldn't be a consideration, but I just never thought about it and was surprised to hear that people were trying to secure things before it took effect. I had assumed that RAPBACK would impact registered gun owners, regardless of when the gun was purchased. I should read the language closer.
According to this previously posted article, everyone who has ever applied for a permit would go into the system. So there might not be anyway to avoid it.
http://khon2.com/2016/06/14/hawaii-could-soon-create-database-listing-gun-permit-applicants/
However, if some new gun ban went into effect, it would most likely affect sales. So it's probably not a bad idea to stock up now, rather than wait for Hillary's executive orders.
-
1) According to this previously posted article, everyone who has ever applied for a permit would go into the system. So there might not be anyway to avoid it.
http://khon2.com/2016/06/14/hawaii-could-soon-create-database-listing-gun-permit-applicants/
2) However, if some new gun ban went into effect, it would most likely affect sales. So it's probably not a bad idea to stock up now, rather than wait for Hillary's executive orders.
1) Ok. That's pretty much what I was thinking. Though I should still go back and review the latest version of the legislation.
2) I think just the threat of new legislation is enough to affect sales, and it's already started. I personally moved up a purchase that I had been planning on waiting until later this fall. Concur that it is a good idea to procure things before too long and luckily I've been buying things here and there as prices were getting better in the past year or so. There are many that believe that things won't be as bad as back in 2012-2013 time frame as the industry is more aware, better equipped to handle, etc. I wouldn't count on it, but I hope that things won't be like that again. It got to the point where I stopped shooting very much for a while and was just getting back into it from earlier this year.
-
I pretty much finished off my collection before Rap-Back goes into effect.
I don't think they have the funding to enter all previous registrants into the system.
They'll pass the cost onto new permitees.
(pure speculation on my part though)
I think the cost is like $13 per applicant.
That's 1.3 million for a hundred thousand of us.
Somebody post a link to the 2/23/16 Staradvertiser article.
All the articles I've read say the additional fees are to be paid by the applicant.
I think it's a deterrent more than public safety.
P.S. Dammit, but there is always just one more.....
-
This might be an opportunity to split your legal fees with Fish Guy! He sounds like he won't rest until someone else feeds him the information he wants!
It is called burden of proof, look it up.
-
It is called burden of proof, look it up.
Another homework assignment? LOL!
Proves my point. Can't post the facts, so challenge others to do your work for you!
Common Liberal debate tactic.....
-
It is called burden of proof, look it up.
Here's a link to the new bill passed. Clearly the trigger to impound a permit is an arrest.
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2016/bills/SB2954_HD1_.pdf
-
It is called burden of proof, look it up.
NICS - "disqualifying arrest"
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/nics-process-in-motion-for-the-gun-buyer-video-transcript
-
It is called burden of proof, look it up.
Seizure of firearms upon disqualification.
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol03_Ch0121-0200D/HRS0134/HRS_0134-0007_0003.htm
I agree with you that the law should be only upon conviction - innocent until proven guilty. But that's not what it is.
-
Here's a link to the new bill passed. Clearly the trigger to impound a permit is an arrest.
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2016/bills/SB2954_HD1_.pdf
I read through the whole thing, I didn't see where an arrest triggers a revocation of all permits. (and thus a losing all guns)
-
Another homework assignment? LOL!
Proves my point. Can't post the facts, so challenge others to do your work for you!
Common Liberal debate tactic.....
You're the one who advocated restricting gay people from buying guns, sound a lot more liberal than me.
And burden of proof is a common term. It means if you make a claim, it is your job to provide the proof. We went over this earlier where you told me to prove your statements wrong. Hypocrite.
-
You're the one who advocated restricting gay people from buying guns, sound a lot more liberal than me.
And burden of proof is a common term. It means if you make a claim, it is your job to provide the proof. We went over this earlier where you told me to prove your statements wrong. Hypocrite.
Once again, trolling me for some reason. Are you aware stalking is not okay?
I never "advocated" anything. Work on your reading comprehension. What I posted were sources (one of them part of the LGBTQ community) stating scientifically that there are higher instances of psychological disorders in the community than among straight people.
I also disputed your claim I was for denying rights. I said FLAG the individuals if identified in higher risk groups so they can undergo more in-depth background checks.
Do you read the words in front of you, or does your mind filter out what I said, substituting what you want it to say? Either way, you should work on fixing that. Maybe you'd be less stressed -- I know the rest of us would be!!
-
I read through the whole thing, I didn't see where an arrest triggers a revocation of all permits. (and thus a losing all guns)
Page 3, first 4 lines. Arrest triggers disqualification. This new bill does not state that disqualification will result in you losing all of your guns, but that is already existing law. See Reply #35 for the link.
-
Page 3, first 4 lines. Arrest triggers disqualification. This new bill does not state that disqualification will result in you losing all of your guns, but that is already existing law. See Reply #35 for the link.
It says the permit shall be impounded, but that is just the permit to purchase. So being arrested will invalidate any existing permits to purchase. This is not as bad but still brings up due process questions.
-
It says the permit shall be impounded, but that is just the permit to purchase. So being arrested will invalidate any existing permits to purchase. This is not as bad but still brings up due process questions.
Once you're denied a permit, you have to dispose of your guns, or they will be seized.
§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.
-
Once you're denied a permit, you have to dispose of your guns, or they will be seized.
So? What's the problem? You've got a full 30 days to get a second mortgage on your home in order to fund hiring an attorney who will take on the entire deep-pocket taxpayer-funded unlimited-resources of the entire state government's full-time apparatchiks and prove that you ought to be allowed to keep your firearms. How could that be a "problem"? (Peruta 6 years so far, Nichols 5 years so far, Young 4 years so far... etc. etc. etc.). :crazy:
Edit for spelling.
-
So? What's the problem? You've got a full 30 days to get a second mortgage on your home to hire an attorney who will take on the entire deep-pocket taxparyer-funded unlimited-resources of the entire state government's full-time apparatchiks and prove that you ought to be allowed to keep your firearms. How could that be a "problem"? (Peruta 6 years so far, Nichols 5 years so far, Young 4 years so far... etc. etc. etc.). :crazy:
Immune from civil action government officials caught red handed lying, and fabricating evidence.
-
Once you're denied a permit, you have to dispose of your guns, or they will be seized.
I was thinking about that however they might be independent of each other. 134-7.3 says "denied a permit" while 134-2 says a permit is "impounded." These are not necessarily the same thing, as impounding doesn't mean the application is denied.
But all of this is already existing law, so will the rap back really change anything? The rap back will let HPD know if an arrest is made in another state. If indeed an arrest means you lose your guns then it is true regardless of whether rap back notifies HPD or not. If being arrested means you lose your guns then wouldn't a law abiding gun owner dispose of their guns anyway, with or without notification by rap back?
The reason I am on the fence about the rap backs because I haven't seen where it actually changes anything in terms of who can and cannot have a gun. It only shares information.
-
I was thinking about that however they might be independent of each other. 134-7.3 says "denied a permit" while 134-2 says a permit is "impounded." These are not necessarily the same thing, as impounding doesn't mean the application is denied.
But all of this is already existing law, so will the rap back really change anything? The rap back will let HPD know if an arrest is made in another state. If indeed an arrest means you lose your guns then it is true regardless of whether rap back notifies HPD or not. If being arrested means you lose your guns then wouldn't a law abiding gun owner dispose of their guns anyway, with or without notification by rap back?
The reason I am on the fence about the rap backs because I haven't seen where it actually changes anything in terms of who can and cannot have a gun. It only shares information.
(http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/images/smilies/facepalm.gif)
-
I was thinking about that however they might be independent of each other. 134-7.3 says "denied a permit" while 134-2 says a permit is "impounded." These are not necessarily the same thing, as impounding doesn't mean the application is denied.
But all of this is already existing law, so will the rap back really change anything? The rap back will let HPD know if an arrest is made in another state. If indeed an arrest means you lose your guns then it is true regardless of whether rap back notifies HPD or not. If being arrested means you lose your guns then wouldn't a law abiding gun owner dispose of their guns anyway, with or without notification by rap back?
The reason I am on the fence about the rap backs because I haven't seen where it actually changes anything in terms of who can and cannot have a gun. It only shares information.
If that were true, then why did they pass a bill to have Hawaii gun owners added to rap-back?
Your logic is flawed.
-
I was thinking about that however they might be independent of each other. 134-7.3 says "denied a permit" while 134-2 says a permit is "impounded." These are not necessarily the same thing, as impounding doesn't mean the application is denied.
But all of this is already existing law, so will the rap back really change anything? The rap back will let HPD know if an arrest is made in another state. If indeed an arrest means you lose your guns then it is true regardless of whether rap back notifies HPD or not. If being arrested means you lose your guns then wouldn't a law abiding gun owner dispose of their guns anyway, with or without notification by rap back?
The reason I am on the fence about the rap backs because I haven't seen where it actually changes anything in terms of who can and cannot have a gun. It only shares information.
The difference has to do with being arrested in another state. Let's say you're arrested in another state. Rap Back flags the arrest to HPD. HPD sends out your 30 day notice, but you can't respond, because you couldn't get a bail hearing in time to get out of jail, and make the trip back to Hawaii. So HPD is going to break your door down when you're not home in order to seize your guns ? Sounds like this law, in conjunction with existing laws, allows exactly that to happen.
-
If that were true, then why did they pass a bill to have Hawaii gun owners added to rap-back?
So HPD would be notified of convictions in other states that make firearm ownership illegal rather than relying on self reporting or continuously running checks on all firearm owners.
-
The difference has to do with being arrested in another state. Let's say you're arrested in another state. Rap Back flags the arrest to HPD. HPD sends out your 30 day notice, but you can't respond, because you couldn't get a bail hearing in time to get out of jail, and make the trip back to Hawaii. So HPD is going to break your door down when you're not home in order to seize your guns ? Sounds like this law, in conjunction with existing laws, allows exactly that to happen.
HPD would need to get a search warrant first but again, there is nothing in writing that anyone here has found that says an arrest alone will cause a loss of firearms.
-
So HPD would be notified of convictions in other states that make firearm ownership illegal rather than relying on self reporting or continuously running checks on all firearm owners.
Convictions? No! The system reports on INITIAL IDENTIFICATION of SUBSCRIBED INDIVIDUALS who have been arrested -- NOT CONVICTED --, individuals like sexual predators, parolees, probationers, and now, the worst criminals of all .... GUN OWNERS!!
-
So HPD would be notified of convictions in other states that make firearm ownership illegal rather than relying on self reporting or continuously running checks on all firearm owners.
I wish you could research on your own.
The system is designed to offer CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCIES monitoring on SUPERVISED INDIVIDUALS based on statute or court order (like sex offenders) and PEOPLE UNDER INVESTIGATION FOR A CRIME WITHIN THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR CHARGES ASSOCIATED WITH AN ACTIVE CASE.
The only part that covers gun owners in Hawaii is the SUPERVISED definition, because Hawaii has passed into law a statutory supervision clause.
The system is not designed for people who have committed no crimes. To select a group for simply exercising a Constitutional right and add them to a list of criminals?
What groups will be next? Christian churches in case they have a terrorist wannabe? All school teachers in case they get a DUI out of state? Anyone going to Las Vegas frequently in case they are hiring hookers or getting arrested with illegal drugs?
It's a simple equation. You must give up your 4th and 5th amendment rights in order to exercise your 2nd amendment rights. Why is that so hard to see?
But, it's for safety!
-
HPD would need to get a search warrant first but again, there is nothing in writing that anyone here has found that says an arrest alone will cause a loss of firearms.
Search warrant lol. SSD would just roll in shoot your big dog and take your firearms why would they need a search warrant they already know what you have registered according to their records.
EEF what do you do besides wood working sorry I didn't ask when we met. It seems like you might work for HPD?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I was thinking about that however they might be independent of each other. 134-7.3 says "denied a permit" while 134-2 says a permit is "impounded." These are not necessarily the same thing, as impounding doesn't mean the application is denied.
But all of this is already existing law, so will the rap back really change anything? The rap back will let HPD know if an arrest is made in another state. If indeed an arrest means you lose your guns then it is true regardless of whether rap back notifies HPD or not. If being arrested means you lose your guns then wouldn't a law abiding gun owner dispose of their guns anyway, with or without notification by rap back?
The reason I am on the fence about the rap backs because I haven't seen where it actually changes anything in terms of who can and cannot have a gun. It only shares information.
Wrong. It gathers information.
Specifically about law abiding firearms owners exercising their constitutional rights and where they are. If any sharing is being done, it's the state "sharing" this information with the federal government. If you girls want to "share" information, by all means go ahead, there's nothing preventing you from doing so. Make a phone call, send an email requesting information on the arrested person's record. I find it ludicrous that I'm expected to believe a law enforcement agency in Bumfuck Some Other State isn't going to do this if a perpetrator is identified as a Hawaii resident, without gun owners being on a criminal watch list. It defies logic. The insanity only gets deeper if I'm expected to believe that HPD is incapable of "flagging" a record that is subject to such a request without that person being entered into a federal criminal database. The entire premise is BS.
This law infringes on our constitutional rights to due process, and is illegal under the Firearms Owners Protection Act.
-
Fish Boy, maybe you can explain why people WHO ALREADY OWN GUNS should be monitored as if they are criminals as opposed to, say, HPD officers? or Big Island Mayors? or Illinois State Governors?
Will this system PREVENT crime? If I know I'm being monitored, you really think I'm going to commit a crime to have my guns taken away if I plan on committing mass murder, or just one murder? How many people in the system will be flagged and charged with murder as their only crime? What did that prevent? MAYBE it prevented me from getting caught doing smaller crimes -- not from doing them, but being more careful about not getting caught. And if the crimes occurred in Hawaii, the RAP-BACK was a waste of resources!
Gun owners are being singled out for criminal monitoring simply because we own guns. Guns are a Constitutionally protected right, not a crime. Is this the "reasonable, common sense" gun control you had in mind when you wrote how much you support these kine measures?
This is madness, using "safety of the children" to push an unconstitutional law to once again make it that much more undesirable to own guns, all the while preventing NO CRIME!
-
Search warrant lol. SSD would just roll in shoot your big dog and take your firearms why would they need a search warrant they already know what you have registered according to their records.
EEF what do you do besides wood working sorry I didn't ask when we met. It seems like you might work for HPD?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Entering someone's home, or bag or car for that matter, is a search and requires a search warrant. Even if they are just "recovering" firearms they know to be there, a search warrant is still required.
As for the second part, I respectfully decline to mention my full time profession for reasons that would be clear if you knew my profession. It doesn't involve killing people who find out my profession though :thumbsup:
-
Wrong. It gathers information.
Specifically about law abiding firearms owners exercising their constitutional rights and where they are. If any sharing is being done, it's the state "sharing" this information with the federal government. If you girls want to "share" information, by all means go ahead, there's nothing preventing you from doing so. Make a phone call, send an email requesting information on the arrested person's record. I find it ludicrous that I'm expected to believe a law enforcement agency in Bumfuck Some Other State isn't going to do this if a perpetrator is identified as a Hawaii resident, without gun owners being on a criminal watch list. It defies logic. The insanity only gets deeper if I'm expected to believe that HPD is incapable of "flagging" a record that is subject to such a request without that person being entered into a federal criminal database. The entire premise is BS.
This law infringes on our constitutional rights to due process, and is illegal under the Firearms Owners Protection Act.
True, by entering us all into the system it does end up gathering data, but the purpose of the system itself is to inform local jurisdictions of significant events in other jurisdictions. Now I am not a big fan of a federal system tracking all gun owners either and that is one of the things I consider to be a point against it. But the system as an idea, not limited to firearms alone, makes sense in terms of law enforcement efficacy and efficiency.
Imagine a different group of people, lets say teachers. Imagine a teacher from Hawaii is on a trip to the mainland and gets arrested or even convicted for a pedophilia type charge. That person may return to Hawaii and the school would be none the wiser unless the teacher informed them of his arrest or conviction. A system like rap back could provide a notification and action could be taken where otherwise no one might know to take action. That is the benefit of the system. There are other negative implications to the program but there do exist positives in the system. That is why I am on the fence because I haven't yet decided whether the negatives outweigh the positives. I am not trying to convince anyone that it is some great system, just to look at the whole picture.
As sort of an anecdote, my friend who works at the firearms window explained that there have been times where someone who genuinely should not have a firearm was able to possess firearms and that the rap back would have enabled them to catch this individual. I did not share his enthusiasm but understood where he was coming from.
-
Fish Boy, maybe you can explain why people WHO ALREADY OWN GUNS should be monitored as if they are criminals as opposed to, say, HPD officers? or Big Island Mayors? or Illinois State Governors?
Maybe all government servants of any significant power positions should be entered into the system.
-
IMO the politicians who did this rap back thing should also be entered in the database.
-
EEF what do you do besides wood working sorry I didn't ask when we met. It seems like you might work for HPD?
I am fairly certain (and I have a damn good memory) that a long time ago he admitted being a cop.
Down-thread he claims to have a friend that works the firearms window, draw your own conclusions.
-
IMO the politicians who did this rap back thing should also be entered in the database.
Absolutely. The slideshow even says "... that may affect suitability of persons serving in positions of trust."
http://www.aci-na.org/sites/default/files/credentialing_-_chasity_anderson.pdf
-
Entering someone's home, or bag or car for that matter, is a search and requires a search warrant. Even if they are just "recovering" firearms they know to be there, a search warrant is still required.
As for the second part, I respectfully decline to mention my full time profession for reasons that would be clear if you knew my profession. It doesn't involve killing people who find out my profession though :thumbsup:
Not true. The cops can confiscate firearms under a restraining order, without a search warrant.
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol14_Ch0701-0853/HRS0711/HRS_0711-1109.htm
Also, the Supreme Court just ruled that States can require a breath test without a warrant.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/23/politics/supreme-court-drunk-driving-breathalyzers-birchfield/
-
I am fairly certain (and I have a damn good memory) that a long time ago he admitted being a cop.
Down-thread he claims to have a friend that works the firearms window, draw your own conclusions.
I have a damn poor memory and I vaguely remember it being LEO for some agency like DLNR.
He also claimed to know HPD officer Harrison (who arrested two lesbians for kissing in public, I mean, for assaulting a police officer) well enough to claim that he didn't think Harrison would do that. $80,000 of taxpayer money went to the couple to settle the case as apparently someone somewhere thought maybe Harrison did illegally hassle them. Harrison conveniently retired prior to the settlement or any possible court trial at which time all evidence would have been made public.
Not that it matters. What matters is the logic of his arguments, the factuality of his evidence, and whether or not he actually addresses the specific issues or evades answering by diversion or simply failing to respond directly or other means.
The one way it does matter is that if he, by his employment, is "above" the laws we are discussing that apply to us peasants/subjects, then he really doesn't have a (big) dog in the fight if the laws will not effect him or be applied to him due to his possibly being an "only one".
-
The one way it does matter is that if he, by his employment, is "above" the laws we are discussing that apply to us peasants/subjects, then he really doesn't have a (big) dog in the fight if the laws will not effect him or be applied to him due to his possibly being an "only one".
And most tellingly, always finding some silver lining in every anti-2A law being discussed. It is obvious he likes them, enforcing the notion that they do not and would not affect him.
-
What amuses me is how people like to keep feeding the troll then get their panties in a bunch about the replies.
EEF, I'm not necessarily saying you're a troll (you pretty much are as you won't agree to disagree and keep pushing crap sideways and people keep feeding you)
But the fact that members will roll down the hill with him makes me laugh.
:crazy:
We do need a moderate opinion on this forum, IMO.
It just doesn't need to go on and on and on and on............and that's both ways.
Am I a Mod. No. Does my opinion matter. No.
Should we all get along. Hopefully yes.
2A GTG July 2nd Baby ! :shaka:
-
True, by entering us all into the system it does end up gathering data, but the purpose of the system itself is to inform local jurisdictions of significant events in other jurisdictions. Now I am not a big fan of a federal system tracking all gun owners either and that is one of the things I consider to be a point against it. But the system as an idea, not limited to firearms alone, makes sense in terms of law enforcement efficacy and efficiency.
Imagine a different group of people, lets say teachers. Imagine a teacher from Hawaii is on a trip to the mainland and gets arrested or even convicted for a pedophilia type charge. That person may return to Hawaii and the school would be none the wiser unless the teacher informed them of his arrest or conviction. A system like rap back could provide a notification and action could be taken where otherwise no one might know to take action. That is the benefit of the system. There are other negative implications to the program but there do exist positives in the system. That is why I am on the fence because I haven't yet decided whether the negatives outweigh the positives. I am not trying to convince anyone that it is some great system, just to look at the whole picture.
As sort of an anecdote, my friend who works at the firearms window explained that there have been times where someone who genuinely should not have a firearm was able to possess firearms and that the rap back would have enabled them to catch this individual. I did not share his enthusiasm but understood where he was coming from.
Imagine, if you will, a bureaucracy that's willing to get up off it's rosy ass and make a phone call or send an email to the PD or the AG in the jurisdiction that the accused/convicted person hails from. Imagine if the bureaucracy in that jurisdiction picked up the phone or answered that email and maybe, just maybe, jotted down this important information and compared it to the persons records. If that person owned firearms, whatever laws that might be applicable could be enforced. As an added "bonus" maybe that jurisdiction could send information back to the first jurisdiction to help with the case against the accused.
The REALLY amazing thing is, all this could occur without law abiding citizens that have committed no crime having to be put in a criminal database for exercising their Constitutional rights.
Maybe what we need is a federal law forcing lazy ass LE bureaucracies across the nation to perform this simple, logical act of communication that requires nothing but a small amount of effort on their part.
-
Not true. The cops can confiscate firearms under a restraining order, without a search warrant.
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol14_Ch0701-0853/HRS0711/HRS_0711-1109.htm
Also, the Supreme Court just ruled that States can require a breath test without a warrant.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/23/politics/supreme-court-drunk-driving-breathalyzers-birchfield/
You posted the wrong section, that one is cruelty to animals. A search warrant isn't needed to confiscate firearms but it is needed to enter into someone's property.
As I understand it, breath tests were ruled as not being invasive into a person's body and thus does not constitute a search. Exterior evidence on a person's body does not require a warrant search. When you start poking people with needles then you run into search issues.
-
What amuses me is how people like to keep feeding the troll then get their panties in a bunch about the replies.
EEF, I'm not necessarily saying you're a troll (you pretty much are as you won't agree to disagree and keep pushing crap sideways and people keep feeding you)
But the fact that members will roll down the hill with him makes me laugh.
:crazy:
We do need a moderate opinion on this forum, IMO.
It just doesn't need to go on and on and on and on............and that's both ways.
Am I a Mod. No. Does my opinion matter. No.
Should we all get along. Hopefully yes.
2A GTG July 2nd Baby ! :shaka:
While I must confess that I sometimes get hung up on the details and side topics too much, the motivations and intentions behind my arguments are not of a trolling nature. Having an accurate discussion is what I strive for and I suppose that ends up with me putting in lots of disclaimers and corrections. This could be a symptom of a mild case of autism, who knows?
This is why on most topics I will mention the pro and con points for a complete picture. The way this forum leans though, I don't really need to mention the pro gun points because well we all know them already and I figure doing so would just be preaching to the quire. Thus, on certain topics, you wont see me representing both sides of an issue because I figure the one side is well represented. Maybe this acknowledgement of both sides of an issue is not that important to others but in my case, that is something I want to see in a discussion. The presentation of pros and cons from both sides that lead to an opinion or stance that can be held more strongly by being able to say all facts are considered.
That is my motivation and thinking. I will leave this answer as is so as not to turn this into a discussion over my thought process.
-
Imagine, if you will, a bureaucracy that's willing to get up off it's rosy ass and make a phone call or send an email to the PD or the AG in the jurisdiction that the accused/convicted person hails from. Imagine if the bureaucracy in that jurisdiction picked up the phone or answered that email and maybe, just maybe, jotted down this important information and compared it to the persons records. If that person owned firearms, whatever laws that might be applicable could be enforced. As an added "bonus" maybe that jurisdiction could send information back to the first jurisdiction to help with the case against the accused.
The REALLY amazing thing is, all this could occur without law abiding citizens that have committed no crime having to be put in a criminal database for exercising their Constitutional rights.
Maybe what we need is a federal law forcing lazy ass LE bureaucracies across the nation to perform this simple, logical act of communication that requires nothing but a small amount of effort on their part.
Problem with that is we are talking about a huge scale where such a system is too open to abuse, mistakes, and a waste of time. Say you get arrested in another state, they might not know where you come from, even if you have an ID with your address. They aren't going to spend so much time on the phone making sure your hometown jurisdiction knows you were arrested. It is easy to say that people should just get on the phone but we both know things would fall through the crack.
Take the case of two HPD officers getting arrested in Las Vegas smoking weed and running from the cops. Had these guys never mentioned their occupation would we or HPD have ever found out about their criminal case? They might just keep on being cops. A rap back system could let HPD know if their cops are getting arrested elsewhere. The benefit of the system is knowing about things that happen elsewhere that would be important to know here.
If a teacher of your child here was arrested for a pedophilia charge in another state would you want the school to know? Arrest records are already public but realistically a school isn't going to check a teachers record thought the country multiple times a year. Can you at least see how a rap back could have some positive aspects?
-
Problem with that is we are talking about a huge scale where such a system is too open to abuse, mistakes, and a waste of time. Say you get arrested in another state, they might not know where you come from, even if you have an ID with your address. They aren't going to spend so much time on the phone making sure your hometown jurisdiction knows you were arrested. It is easy to say that people should just get on the phone but we both know things would fall through the crack.
So let me get this straight, you feel that the larger, even more inefficient federal bureaucracy is better able to abuse, make mistakes and waste time than a smaller local bureaucracy?
You think that, even with a valid ID and an address, LE across the nation is too incompetent to figure out where you're from?
Finally, you're saying that LE just doesn't want to spend the time to do their job?
This is easily the most idiotic rebuttal I've ever seen you post, and a sad indictment of law enforcement's ability to protect the public as well as confirming the need for the law I mentioned in my previous post.
Unless you want me to continue to pound you into the ground like a form stake, on a public forum, I recommend you concede.
-
I like how 2ahawaii suppress opinions wether right or wrong about the subject at hand freedom is being challenged now I know why
-
I like how 2ahawaii suppress opinions wether right or wrong about the subject at hand freedom is being challenged now I know why
I don't know where you get that idea. It's been said that 2A Hawaii is moderate the moderating.
-
You posted the wrong section, that one is cruelty to animals. A search warrant isn't needed to confiscate firearms but it is needed to enter into someone's property.
As I understand it, breath tests were ruled as not being invasive into a person's body and thus does not constitute a search. Exterior evidence on a person's body does not require a warrant search. When you start poking people with needles then you run into search issues.
Sorry about posting the wrong statute. This is the right one: http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol03_Ch0121-0200D/HRS0134/HRS_0134-0007.htm
The law says a police officer can confiscate any firearms in plain sight, and the ones surrendered under the restraining order. No search warrant needed.
Also, I can tell you that I have personally had several HPD officers in my front yard with no warrant, after I had told them to leave. They then proceeded to enter my house and conduct a search against my permission. They were sent there by an investigator for the prosecutor's office, who had given them the false information that I had been beating my girlfriend. They left without incident, but my attorney said it was perfectly legal in Hawaii for them to do that.
Also, a few years ago I was arrested at my business property (which I own), with no warrant. This time my lawyer said that was not legal, but they did it anyway. I had pressed the cop for a warrant, but he was quite certain that he didn't need one.
Did you happen to see the latest Batman movie ? I know it's fantasy, but one theme was absolutely correct. That power corrupts. It may not corrupt Superman, but it will corrupt most humans.
No offense, but you sound like a young person with very little life experience. As you get older, you will gain wisdom.
-
Problem with that is we are talking about a huge scale where such a system is too open to abuse, mistakes, and a waste of time. Say you get arrested in another state, they might not know where you come from, even if you have an ID with your address. They aren't going to spend so much time on the phone making sure your hometown jurisdiction knows you were arrested. It is easy to say that people should just get on the phone but we both know things would fall through the crack.
So let me get this straight, you feel that the larger, even more inefficient federal bureaucracy is better able to abuse, make mistakes and waste time than a smaller local bureaucracy?
You think that, even with a valid ID and an address, LE across the nation is too incompetent to figure out where you're from?
Finally, you're saying that LE just doesn't want to spend the time to do their job?
This is easily the most idiotic rebuttal I've ever seen you post, and a sad indictment of law enforcement's ability to protect the public as well as confirming the need for the law I mentioned in my previous post.
Unless you want me to continue to pound you into the ground like a form stake, on a public forum, I recommend you concede.
Failure to share information between law enforcement agencies about people of interest isn't exactly a new thing.
But speaking in terms of man hours alone, it is more efficient to have a computer do automatic notifications than to have an officer on the phone calling up various agencies. That is true even if we assume police are 100% responsible at making notifications.
-
Sorry about posting the wrong statute. This is the right one: http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol03_Ch0121-0200D/HRS0134/HRS_0134-0007.htm
The law says a police officer can confiscate any firearms in plain sight, and the ones surrendered under the restraining order. No search warrant needed.
Also, I can tell you that I have personally had several HPD officers in my front yard with no warrant, after I had told them to leave. They then proceeded to enter my house and conduct a search against my permission. They were sent there by an investigator for the prosecutor's office, who had given them the false information that I had been beating my girlfriend. They left without incident, but my attorney said it was perfectly legal in Hawaii for them to do that.
Also, a few years ago I was arrested at my business property (which I own), with no warrant. This time my lawyer said that was not legal, but they did it anyway. I had pressed the cop for a warrant, but he was quite certain that he didn't need one.
Did you happen to see the latest Batman movie ? I know it's fantasy, but one theme was absolutely correct. That power corrupts. It may not corrupt Superman, but it will corrupt most humans.
No offense, but you sound like a young person with very little life experience. As you get older, you will gain wisdom.
In plain sight means the officer is already inside the home and sees the firearms. Plain sight just means where it is basically observable to anyone present. A basic scenario would be that a domestic occurs and the police respond. The officers find a firearm lying around and recover it if they thing it had some part in the domestic violence situation.
I don't know what to say about your personal experiences as I don't know the specifics. Some situations do give officers the ability to enter without a warrant but others do not. That really depends on the specifics of the situation.
-
Failure to share information between law enforcement agencies about people of interest isn't exactly a new thing.
But speaking in terms of man hours alone, it is more efficient to have a computer do automatic notifications than to have an officer on the phone calling up various agencies. That is true even if we assume police are 100% responsible at making notifications.
Right. It's not a "new" thing, it's the same old shit. Note that I never said it had to be an "officer" making the calls or inputting the data. The LE bureaucracies are filled with lard assed underachieving paper pushers that can perform these tasks just as inefficiently as the lard assed underachievers in the federal bureaucracy. You're deflecting.
None of this shows a "need" for law abiding citizens to be put into a criminal database for exercising their constitutional rights. Quite the opposite. It shows that the LE bureaucracies need to get up off of their collective lazy asses and start doing the job they're being paid for.
-
A recent example of a failed "Sounded like a good idea at the time" gun control project...
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bs-md-bullet-casings-20151107-story.html
Millions of dollars later, Maryland has officially decided that its 15-year effort to store and catalog the "fingerprints" of thousands of handguns was a failure.
Since 2000, the state required that gun manufacturers fire every handgun to be sold here and send the spent bullet casing to authorities. The idea was to build a database of "ballistic fingerprints" to help solve future crimes.
But the system — plagued by technological problems — never solved a single case. Now the hundreds of thousands of accumulated casings could be sold for scrap.
"Obviously, I'm disappointed," said former Gov. Parris N. Glendening, a Democrat whose administration pushed for the database to fulfill a campaign promise. "It's a little unfortunate, in that logic and common sense suggest that it would be a good crime-fighting tool."
The database "was a waste," said Frank Sloane, owner of Pasadena Gun & Pawn in Anne Arundel County. "There's things that they could have done that would have made sense. This didn't make any sense."
-
A recent example of a failed "Sounded like a good idea at the time" gun control project...
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bs-md-bullet-casings-20151107-story.html
The illogic of the Dims is astonishing. This Omar guy passes a background check to buy a gun, shoots the place up, and the Dims immediately call for universal background checks. In fact many of the recent mass shooters had no prior criminal record that would have caused them to fail a background check.
The one common denominator is the gun free zone. They should be made illegal, and arguably are illegal under the 2nd amendment. We're not living in the 1950s Happy Days anymore.
-
Right. It's not a "new" thing, it's the same old shit. Note that I never said it had to be an "officer" making the calls or inputting the data. The LE bureaucracies are filled with lard assed underachieving paper pushers that can perform these tasks just as inefficiently as the lard assed underachievers in the federal bureaucracy. You're deflecting.
None of this shows a "need" for law abiding citizens to be put into a criminal database for exercising their constitutional rights. Quite the opposite. It shows that the LE bureaucracies need to get up off of their collective lazy asses and start doing the job they're being paid for.
So let me get this straight, you want a government employee to call another jurisdiction anytime a resident from that jurisdiction is arrested? A computer system would do this much quicker and more efficient even if no one was lazy.
-
So let me get this straight, you want a government employee to call another jurisdiction anytime a resident from that jurisdiction is arrested? A computer system would do this much quicker and more efficient even if no one was lazy.
Just how many out of state arrests do you really think one jurisdiction makes? You act like that's some unmanageable, massive amount!
-
Just how many out of state arrests do you really think one jurisdiction makes? You act like that's some unmanageable, massive amount!
With all the military that comes through Hawaii, we make a lot. Again, my whole point is to acknowledge that there are some benefits to the system. I am starting to lean towards being more against it than for it now but it would be nice for law enforcement to have a good national system that effectively communicates information that might be important, and not just on gun issues either.
But going back to topic, the key to this whole issue for me is whether an arrest alone would trigger losing your guns.
Whether a computer system notifies or a clerk at a police department on the mainland does the notification is irrelevant in terms of whether this would cause us to lose our firearms.
-
Just how many out of state arrests do you really think one jurisdiction makes?!
With all the military that comes through Hawaii, we make a lot
Oooopssssss
-
Just how many out of state arrests do you really think one jurisdiction makes?!
Oooopssssss
Like we had not worked it out already
-
Just how many out of state arrests do you really think one jurisdiction makes?!
Oooopssssss
We as in Hawaii. Yes I can imagine what conclusions you are wanting to draw. Draw all you want, but that is not what I meant when I made that statement.