2aHawaii
General Topics => Legal and Activism => Topic started by: macsak on February 17, 2017, 12:31:43 PM
-
On Thursday February 23, at 9:15am the Senate Committee on Judiciary and Labor will hear Senate Bill 898. SB 898 is a misguided gun control bill that would permanently strip an individual of their Second Amendment rights, not based on a criminal conviction or mental adjudication, but based on a quasi-criminal proceeding.
The committee will NOT be taking oral testimony at this hearing. It is imperative that you submit written testimony to the committee through the Hawaii Legislature website voicing opposition to this dangerous and misguided legislation. In order to submit testimony, you will need to create an account. For help creating an account and submitting testimony, click here. To email committee members, click the “Take Action” button below.
SB 898 allows for firearms to be seized based on an ex-parte warrant application based on the low evidentiary standard of probable cause. An individual is entitled to a hearing, however that hearing may not take place for up to 30 days. At the hearing, the seized firearms can be retained and a permanent firearm prohibition can be put in place, not because of a disqualifying offense but merely the risk of one. No one wants dangerous individuals to have access to firearms, however this is not about dangerous people. This bill sets to ignore the normal rules of criminal procedure in order to promote the anti-gun agenda of the political elites and others.
Last Friday, February 10, the House Water and Land Committee heard and unanimously passed House Bill 1589 with amendments. HB 1589, sponsored by Representative Ryan Yamane (D-37), would allow the use of sound suppressors while hunting in the state of Hawaii. Currently, 40 states allow the use of suppressors while hunting. Sound suppressors attached to firearms (less accurately called "silencers") are an additional tool available to help protect hearing, increase accuracy and safety, and reduce noise complaints by surrounding residents. While suppressors do not eliminate the sound of a firearm, they do reduce the muzzle report of a firearm, reducing the risk hearing damage. Additionally, suppressors help increase accuracy by reducing felt recoil and shot “flinch.” Suppressors also help reduce noise complaints from neighbors, which are frequently used as an excuse to close hunting lands throughout the country. HB 1589 is now awaiting a hearing in the House Committee on Judiciary.
Please continue to check your email and www.nraila.org for updates.
Hawaii Senate Committee on Judiciary and Labor:
Chairman Gilbert S.C. Keith-Agaran
(808) 586-7344
Vice Chair Karl Rhoads
(808) 586-6130
Senator Mike Gabbard
(808) 586-6830
Senator Donna Mercado Kim
(808) 587-7200
Senator Laura Theilen
(808) 587-8388
NRA-ILA: Institute for Legislative Action
FOLLOW NRA-ILA
Facebook Twitter YouTube Instagram
© 2017 National Rifle Association of America, Institute For Legislative Action. To contact NRA-ILA call 800-392-8683. Address: 11250 Waples Mill Road Fairfax, Virginia 22030.
-
https://act.nraila.org/takeaction.aspx?AlertID=1500
-
when you use the state website, make sure you put "oppose" or "support" in the check box- the default setting is "comments only"
-
Testimony submitted. Thanks for the update. Macsak.
-
FYI per NRA-ILA, the "Take Action" alert is not archived or used as official testimony at the hearings. It tells your representative that you support/oppose the bill.
It's preferable to do the "Take Action" AND submit official testimony(at least check the support/oppose box) through the HI legislature website. For this one the link is: http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=898
-
In the prior committee the submitted testimony, including the late testimony, was five (5) FOR, thirty (30) OPPOSED.
The committee vote was unanimous FOR.
And we wonder why people don't get interested, much less enthused, about participating in "the process"?
One of the recent Hawaii County Council meetings, which allows for two-minute-limited testimony per item from the public at the beginning of the meeting re any items on the agenda featured a gentleman who sat alone in the entire auditorium in Hilo via video conferencing for the meeting in Kona who noted (paraphrase) that "This entire room behind me is empty because people know that no matter they say, you are going to do what you want to do anyway and ignore them". He made quite a few other good points, and was ruled out of order for doing so a number of times. I wanted to contact him and thank him for taking the time to go there and speak for probably the majority of people who have given up... but he refused to give his name prior to testimony so I never found out who he was. But I understand.
-
Submitted. Thanks for the heads-up. :shaka:
-
Direct link to the bill
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=898&year=2017
-
Done and done. Thank you for the directions.
-
Didn't know what to say but I submitted my opposition.
-
Opposition testimony submitted!
-
Wow, the JDL committee did not even bother to schedule a public hearing on this.. just straight to decision making.
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=898&year=2017
2/15/2017 S The committee(s) on JDL will hold a public decision making on 02-23-17 9:15AM in conference room 016.
Testimony in strong opposition submitted.
-
Wow, the JDL committee did not even bother to schedule a public hearing on this.. just straight to decision making.
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=898&year=2017
2/15/2017 S The committee(s) on JDL will hold a public decision making on 02-23-17 9:15AM in conference room 016.
Testimony in strong opposition submitted.
Thanks for the heads up.
Strong opposition also submitted.
-
Wow, the JDL committee did not even bother to schedule a public hearing on this.. just straight to decision making.
Strong opposition also submitted.
Thanks for the heads up.
Testimony in strong opposition submitted.
As I posted above, the public testimony in the earlier committee hearing had a ratio of 6 to 1 OPPOSED, and it PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
I'm pretty sure if most (any?) of the state legislators were really concerned about upholding their oath to uphold and defend the constitutions, including our civil rights protected by the Second Amendment and Article I, section 17, that we'd have had evidence of it by now in this hellhole of treasonous traitors (yeah, I said it.). Maybe I'm wrong and the committee chair and members have decided to abide by their oath of office and summarily dismiss this bill which denies due process. Sure they will. :wtf:
-
As I posted above, the public testimony in the earlier committee hearing had a ratio of 6 to 1 OPPOSED, and it PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
I'm pretty sure if most (any?) of the state legislators were really concerned about upholding their oath to uphold and defend the constitutions, including our civil rights protected by the Second Amendment and Article I, section 17, that we'd have had evidence of it by now in this hellhole of treasonous traitors (yeah, I said it.). Maybe I'm wrong and the committee chair and members have decided to abide by their oath of office and summarily dismiss this bill which denies due process. Sure they will. :wtf:
Yeah, I saw your previous post. As always, thank you for your always thoughtful posts that convey a positive attitude that encourages others to support the 2A cause. :thumbsup:
-
Here's what I submitted. I took most of it from a news article.
"I oppose this because it violates the Constitution. The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides, "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Furthermore, SB 898 allows for firearms to be seized based on an ex-parte warrant application based on the low evidentiary standard of probable cause. An individual is entitled to a hearing, however that hearing may not take place for up to 30 days. At the hearing, the seized firearms can be retained and a permanent firearm prohibition can be put in place, not because of a disqualifying offense but merely the risk of one. No one wants dangerous individuals to have access to firearms, however this is not about dangerous people. This bill sets to ignore the normal rules of criminal procedure in order to promote the anti-gun agenda of the political elites and others."
-
done!
-
I think the intent of this law is good but it fails to have a number of important protections of individual's rights. With some modifications I think this could be the start of a decent gun control law but as of now it is very problematic.
-
Submitted opposition testimony too for all the good it will do.
Hate to say it but I am losing my fight.
Aloha
-
I think the intent of this law is good but it fails to have a number of important protections of individual's rights. With some modifications I think this could be the start of a decent gun control law but as of now it is very problematic.
This is why you are identified by many as an anti-gun sympathizer.
What, specifically, would you change to make it "a decent gun control law?"
-
I don't agree with this bill but let me put this scenario and see if we can come up with a better solution. I try to look at this from the other (HPD and the AG's) point of view.
(The example below is purely hypothetical.)
1. Someone overhears or sees a social media post on Facebook about an impending crime, terrorist attack or murder.
2. The police receives a tip off.
3. At this point, what can HPD or the AG do? What should they be able to do?
Put yourself in their shoes and imagine you were LEO and this was your job. What would be an acceptable course of action that LEO be allowed to take?
In my mind, it should be.... nothing? There's that thing called bill of rights and innocent until proven guilty.
I'm not trying to convince anyone that this is wrong... Just wondering what is an acceptable course of action for LEO to take to stop something imminent.
-
I don't agree with this bill but let me put this scenario and see if we can come up with a better solution. I try to look at this from the other (HPD and the AG's) point of view.
(The example below is purely hypothetical.)
1. Someone overhears or sees a social media post on Facebook about an impending crime, terrorist attack or murder.
2. The police receives a tip off.
3. At this point, what can HPD or the AG do? What should they be able to do?
Put yourself in their shoes and imagine you were LEO and this was your job. What would be an acceptable course of action that LEO be allowed to take?
In my mind, it should be.... nothing? There's that thing called bill of rights and innocent until proven guilty.
I'm not trying to convince anyone that this is wrong... Just wondering what is an acceptable course of action for LEO to take to stop something imminent.
Wow, that is a steep slippery slope of greased ice topped with Teflon....
-
I totally agree with you, Heavies. HPD and the AG are totally wrong about the way they are approaching this issue.
I'm just trying to point out where LEO and AG may be coming from.
There has to be a better way to address this than the approach taken by this bill.
-
I totally agree with you, Heavies. HPD and the AG are totally wrong about the way they are approaching this issue.
I'm just trying to point out where LEO and AG may be coming from.
There has to be a better way to address this than the approach taken by this bill.
next step:
"Minority Report"
-
Pre-crime unit -- the movie is worth watching again.
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/chicago-police-pre-crime-algorithm-target-innocent-citizens/
https://www.technocracy.news/index.php/2016/08/03/chicago-police-using-pre-crime-ai-arrest-people-commit-crime/
-
Countdown: 2 hours until the committee convenes at 9:15AM.
I'm hoping someone (zippz?) can explain this situation:
"The following measures were previously heard in their respective standing committees:" [includes SB 898]
"Decision making meeting only, no oral testimony will be accepted.
Persons wishing to submit written testimony may do so up to 24 hours prior to the hearing."
Is this really a "decision making meeting" or really a "decision announcement meeting"? Why would they be making a decision without allowing oral testimony? Why would they not allow oral testimony prior to making a decision, but accept written testimony? Are they claiming that written testimony could be influential in their "decision making", but oral testimony would not be? Why? Huh? What!? Is the whole "hearing" a sham/pretense that is merely a pro forma public display conforming to the "rules" but in fact is irrelevant as a decision has already been made? And if it has, and no oral testimony will be allowed, why not just have the chair send out an email with the result? Maybe they can't vote without holding a formal meeting. Any clarification of this process appreciated.
-
The people of Hawaii have spoken.
Testimony is up for SB 898. Here is my (may not be perfectly accurate) tally:
FAVOR: 8 (4 organizations, 4 individuals)
OPPOSE: 91 (1 organization, 90 individuals (includes 1 auto-submitted testimony that had clicked "favor", but comments are clearly opposed, and 3 that had "comments only" but were also clearly opposed by the comments they left)).
Ratio Opposed to Favor: 11.4 to 1
Now let's see how the committee respects the will of the people.
-
2/23/2017 The committee(s) on JDL recommend(s) that the measure be PASSED, WITH AMENDMENTS. The votes in JDL were as follows: 4 Aye(s): Senator(s) Keith-Agaran, K. Rhoads, L. Thielen; Aye(s) with reservations: Senator(s) Gabbard ; 0 No(es): none; and 1 Excused: Senator(s) Kim.
The "amendment(s)" aren't available yet. Unanimous vote FOR, with Senator Gabbard at least expressing "reservations". I don't know what to say...
-
As I posted above, the public testimony in the earlier committee hearing had a ratio of 6 to 1 OPPOSED, and it PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
I'm pretty sure if most (any?) of the state legislators were really concerned about upholding their oath to uphold and defend the constitutions, including our civil rights protected by the Second Amendment and Article I, section 17, that we'd have had evidence of it by now in this hellhole of treasonous traitors (yeah, I said it.). Maybe I'm wrong and the committee chair and members have decided to abide by their oath of office and summarily dismiss this bill which denies due process. Sure they will. :wtf:
Yeah, I saw your previous post. As always, thank you for your always thoughtful posts that convey a positive attitude that encourages others to support the 2A cause. :thumbsup:
How's your "positive attitude" workin' out for ya now?
-
How's your "positive attitude" workin' out for ya now?
DELETED
Nevermind. . .
Carry on :thumbsup:
-
https://act.nraila.org/takeaction.aspx?AlertID=1517
-
This is why you are identified by many as an anti-gun sympathizer.
What, specifically, would you change to make it "a decent gun control law?"
Funny how being objective labels you as being on the other side. The difference between you and me is I acknowledge facts even when I don't like them.
-
I don't agree with this bill but let me put this scenario and see if we can come up with a better solution. I try to look at this from the other (HPD and the AG's) point of view.
(The example below is purely hypothetical.)
1. Someone overhears or sees a social media post on Facebook about an impending crime, terrorist attack or murder.
2. The police receives a tip off.
3. At this point, what can HPD or the AG do? What should they be able to do?
Put yourself in their shoes and imagine you were LEO and this was your job. What would be an acceptable course of action that LEO be allowed to take?
In my mind, it should be.... nothing? There's that thing called bill of rights and innocent until proven guilty.
I'm not trying to convince anyone that this is wrong... Just wondering what is an acceptable course of action for LEO to take to stop something imminent.
When I have discussed this issue with other gun rights advocates and how to go about revoking rights of people who really should not have guns. The answer was always to go through courts. Well this is a step in that direction, having a hearing and a judge make a decision instead of a police officer or administrative official. Police do currently have a system for taking individuals with dangerous mental health issues in for assessment and that could be a basis for deciding on when and how to take away firearms.
Here is a system I might come up with an alternative, feel free to add requirements you would like to see. I do realize that there is never going to be a foolproof system however that is not a good reason to do nothing.
-A threat may be imminent so I do think that there needs to be a means to immediately secure a dangerous individual's firearms. However a hearing needs to be scheduled much sooner, say within 5 days (or 48 hours like charging time limits).
-If the state cannot prepare enough evidence then the firearms will be returned with the option of refiling later if more evidence comes to light.
-If the case is pending a mental health assessment then the hearing time limit can be extended because realistically it can sometimes take a while to do a proper diagnosis.
-If it is a mental health issue then a mental health expert must testify as to the danger of the individual.
-A "terrorist watch list" listing in and of itself is not enough to deny someone their firearms. The state must petition the federal government for the evidence that put the person on the list and use it in the decision.
-The state must provide a public defender for the individual
-If an individuals rights are taken away with just cause then the individual has the right to petition the court for another hearing to reconsider. This is to allow for the fact that people may recover from a mental condition or they may have their name cleared from a criminal list.
But you are totally right about the problem. A police department has a very difficult task. Get it wrong one way and you take away rights unjustly, get it wrong the other way and dozens could die. If you err on the side of protecting individual rights and the individual in question goes on a shooting spree now the weight rests on you for all those deaths. Maybe you didn't do anything wrong but the world will still play monday morning quarter back and slander you or even sue you.
-
I think the intent of this law is good but it fails to have a number of important protections of individual's rights. With some modifications I think this could be the start of a decent gun control law but as of now it is very problematic.
Funny how being objective labels you as being on the other side. The difference between you and me is I acknowledge facts even when I don't like them.
Please provide the "objective" definitions of "gun control", "gun control law", and "decent gun control law" (compared, I suppose, to an "indecent gun control law"). Perhaps include your "objective" evaluation of various Hawaii laws regarding the keeping and bearing of arms, such as full registration, permits to acquire, RapBack mandatory enrollment, handgun magazine limit of 10, "assault pistol" ban, ban on Mossberg 590 or similarly configured firearms, ban on "stun guns", ban on expandable baton outside the home, ban on suppressors, etc.
-
Please provide the "objective" definitions of "gun control", "gun control law", and "decent gun control law" (compared, I suppose, to an "indecent gun control law"). Perhaps include your "objective" evaluation of various Hawaii laws regarding the keeping and bearing of arms, such as full registration, permits to acquire, RapBack mandatory enrollment, handgun magazine limit of 10, "assault pistol" ban, ban on Mossberg 590 or similarly configured firearms, ban on "stun guns", ban on expandable baton outside the home, ban on suppressors, etc.
Are we debating the definition of what is and isn't gun control? I don't see objectivity being an issue there as word/term definitions inherently deal with something subjective.
When I say decent I am adding my own judgement.
-
Are we debating the definition of what is and isn't gun control? I don't see objectivity being an issue there as word/term definitions inherently deal with something subjective.
When I say decent I am adding my own judgement.
In other words, "No, I'm not willing to answer those questions about the meaning of terms I used."
-
Funny how being objective labels you as being on the other side. The difference between you and me is I acknowledge facts even when I don't like them.
You didn't answer the question. You just tried to insult and deflect.
Typical.
-
Just called Judiciary chair Keith-Agaran's office asking when the amended version of SB898 will be available: not until mid next week.
Will crossover to the House on March 3, after which the House will decide where the bill will go when.
Update of Judiciary committee testimony tally now including "late testimony":
FAVOR: 10
OPPOSE: 102
Ratio OPPOSED: 10 to 1
Committee vote: Unanimous in FAVOR
[I guess "public servant" means "Voting against the stated preference of "the people" because they are too stupid to know what's good for them (we're much smarter, so we have to do what's best for the ignorant sheeple)." And yes, I understand the concept of protecting against a "tyranny of the majority", but this is a case where the minority (legislators) is taking away rights from the majority (all residents of the state), NOT the majority taking away rights from a minority.]
If it goes to the House Judiciary committee maybe we'll get one vote against it from McDermott. Would that be considered a "victory" around here? (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/images/smilies/facepalm.gif)
-
The JDL doesn't even bother to have a hearing on these bills.
The JDL is basically just giving HPD and the AG whatever they ask for. It's like kabuki theatre, except in this case, they're not even bothering to pretend to be interested in what we have to say.
-
The JDL doesn't even bother to have a hearing on these bills.
The JDL is basically just giving HPD and the AG whatever they ask for. It's like kabuki theatre, except in this case, they're not even bothering to pretend to be interested in what we have to say.
Man, are you cynical or what? I think you're being very unfair. I watched the video of the PSM hearing on SB898 on 2/2/17 (only one available so far on this bill) and I'd have to say, just in my personal opinion, of course, that one or two of the politicians did pretend to be a little bit interested in what we have to say. Though, again, to be honest, those performances likely won't be nominated for a Golden Globe nor an Oscar (TM).
-
The JDL doesn't even bother to have a hearing on these bills.
The JDL is basically just giving HPD and the AG whatever they ask for. It's like kabuki theatre, except in this case, they're not even bothering to pretend to be interested in what we have to say.
That about sums it up. Captured electorate and no accountability. It's part of their preparation for civil unrest in a state where most people always vote D no matter what and are too lazy to keep 3 days of water on hand.
-
You didn't answer the question. You just tried to insult and deflect.
Typical.
I answered it in my other post.
-
In other words, "No, I'm not willing to answer those questions about the meaning of terms I used."
You were asking me to objectively define something that is inherently subjective, I explained that.
-
I answered it in my other post.
No, you did not.
Quote from: Flapp_Jackson on February 22, 2017, 06:00:02 PM
This is why you are identified by many as an anti-gun sympathizer.
What, specifically, would you change to make it "a decent gun control law?"
--------------------
Your "answer" ==> Funny how being objective labels you as being on the other side. The difference between you and me is I acknowledge facts even when I don't like them.
-
Get a room you two.
-
Get a room you two.
That joke's so old, last time I heard it, I fell off my dinosaur! :rofl:
-
The police and AG should do everything in their power, AND WITHIN THE CONSTITUTION, to prevent and curb attacks of violence or terrorism to the public or individuals. A new law that strips RIGHTS and FREEDOM of the citizen is not the answer to the problem.
Being free isn't the easiest or best way to be safe and having little protective bubble being provided by the government. It is the complete antithesis of the whole concept.
I'd rather be free, and able to defend myself and loved ones, in the free society, than be dependent and enslaved by an overreaching and PROVEN incompetent government (IE Hawaii government especially) .
In the end and big picture, they may be able to protect their little 'utopia' of socialism, however, the single individual and their family does not fall into that niche of protection. I cannot accept that vision they have for me or my family.
-
The irony/stupidity of this law is that a cop can hear something secondhand from a third party and decide that information is "reliable", then go to a (left-leaning "better to be safe than sorry"?) judge and get an ex parte (the accused is neither present nor even notified of the proceeding and thus has no legal representation at all, aka "due process") order for the "informally" accused person's firearms to be confiscated, and while the "hearing" to determine whether or not that person is truly a "person who pose(s) a serious risk of violence or harm to public safety" is supposedly to be held within 30 days, in the meantime that person who has had his/her rights rendered meaningless because someone claims they "pose a serious risk of violence or harm to public safety" can get behind the wheel of any motor vehicle and do whatever they want (See: Nice, Berlin, Ohio State University, Isla Vista, Melbourne, Las Vegas, etc.)! They can also do whatever they want with any hammer, knife, chainsaw, pipe, machete, poison, gasoline, dangerous chemicals, etc., etc., etc. :crazy: JFC!! If a person actually is a " serious risk of violence or harm to public safety" the only serious and obvious answer is to arrest and incarcerate that person, thus removing them from the possibility of using any tools or their hands and feet to enact "violence or harm to public safety". In that scenario, however, the protections of individual rights remain in place and that person is entitled to an immediate hearing, with legal representation, to defend themselves against the charges in an open courtroom.
You gotta wonder why the exclusive focus on "firearms" as the only tools confiscated while the dangerous person roams the streets of the community free to enact violence by any other of myriad means.
-
I hope everyone here sends an email to their senator urging them to oppose this bill. You can "Take Action" through the NRA-ILA website.
I contacted Sen Mike Gabbard.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
No, you did not.
Refer to reply #32 for a three paragraph explanation where I did answer what you asked.
Here is a link for you.
https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=26639.msg234913#msg234913
-
The irony/stupidity of this law is that a cop can hear something secondhand from a third party and decide that information is "reliable", then go to a (left-leaning "better to be safe than sorry"?) judge and get an ex parte (the accused is neither present nor even notified of the proceeding and thus has no legal representation at all, aka "due process") order for the "informally" accused person's firearms to be confiscated, and while the "hearing" to determine whether or not that person is truly a "person who pose(s) a serious risk of violence or harm to public safety" is supposedly to be held within 30 days, in the meantime that person who has had his/her rights rendered meaningless because someone claims they "pose a serious risk of violence or harm to public safety" can get behind the wheel of any motor vehicle and do whatever they want (See: Nice, Berlin, Ohio State University, Isla Vista, Melbourne, Las Vegas, etc.)! They can also do whatever they want with any hammer, knife, chainsaw, pipe, machete, poison, gasoline, dangerous chemicals, etc., etc., etc. :crazy: JFC!! If a person actually is a " serious risk of violence or harm to public safety" the only serious and obvious answer is to arrest and incarcerate that person, thus removing them from the possibility of using any tools or their hands and feet to enact "violence or harm to public safety". In that scenario, however, the protections of individual rights remain in place and that person is entitled to an immediate hearing, with legal representation, to defend themselves against the charges in an open courtroom.
You gotta wonder why the exclusive focus on "firearms" as the only tools confiscated while the dangerous person roams the streets of the community free to enact violence by any other of myriad means.
Where are you getting that information? I read the bill and you are making statements about certain standards used to judge that seem to go beyond what the bill itself says.
-
The police and AG should do everything in their power, AND WITHIN THE CONSTITUTION, to prevent and curb attacks of violence or terrorism to the public or individuals. A new law that strips RIGHTS and FREEDOM of the citizen is not the answer to the problem.
Being free isn't the easiest or best way to be safe and having little protective bubble being provided by the government. It is the complete antithesis of the whole concept.
I'd rather be free, and able to defend myself and loved ones, in the free society, than be dependent and enslaved by an overreaching and PROVEN incompetent government (IE Hawaii government especially) .
In the end and big picture, they may be able to protect their little 'utopia' of socialism, however, the single individual and their family does not fall into that niche of protection. I cannot accept that vision they have for me or my family.
How would you go about it? What system would you put in place to restrict firearm ownership to those who you think should not be allowed to own firearms? Some place other than the courts? If the courts, what requirements need to be met?
-
Refer to reply #32 for a three paragraph explanation where I did answer what you asked.
Here is a link for you.
https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=26639.msg234913#msg234913
No, you did not answer.
You pontificated and rambled on about what you think.
I asked what you would change in the existing bill to make it "a decent gun control law."
If you can't answer, you can't answer. Either way, I don't care. But you need to be able to answer a question directly and not offer general, philosophical results versus real, OBJECTIVE alterations to the bill in question.
-
Some suggesting watchlisting.
That's a slippery slope.
Not much to do in regards to a person's rights to put a subject on a watchlist. No trial. No courts. Boom. You are on a watchlist.
-
No, you did not answer.
You pontificated and rambled on about what you think.
I asked what you would change in the existing bill to make it "a decent gun control law."
If you can't answer, you can't answer. Either way, I don't care. But you need to be able to answer a question directly and not offer general, philosophical results versus real, OBJECTIVE alterations to the bill in question.
I did answer, I said specifically certain requirements I would change or add. Go read it again, I gave multiple specific changes I would make.
For example, a hearing within 48 hours instead of 30 days. I am not going to retype my whole post for you. Refer to my answer or drop it.
https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=26639.msg234913#msg234913
-
Some suggesting watchlisting.
That's a slippery slope.
Not much to do in regards to a person's rights to put a subject on a watchlist. No trial. No courts. Boom. You are on a watchlist.
Agreed, the watchlist itself needs to be overhauled as it can affect many things beyond just gun rights.
-
I did answer, I said specifically certain requirements I would change or add. Go read it again, I gave multiple specific changes I would make.
For example, a hearing within 48 hours instead of 30 days. I am not going to retype my whole post for you. Refer to my answer or drop it.
https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=26639.msg234913#msg234913
So, you can't answer.
I guess you concede the point.
:geekdanc:
-
So, you can't answer.
I guess you concede the point.
:geekdanc:
I answered. Apparently you have reading comprehension problems because it is there for everyone to see. Once again here is the link.
https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=26639.msg234913#msg234913
-
I don't care what EEF says. Its not worth anything of value. This bill had so much public opposition but yet the committee UNANIMOUSLY passed it. It was a big FUCK YOU to the people in the spirit of "Ainokea I do wut I like"
These politicians cater to their self-righteous opinions and not the people.
Same kind of attitude that will bring us high taxes and an expensive rail system.
These politicians shouldn't be in office at all. :grrr:
-
Where are you getting that information? I read the bill and you are making statements about certain standards used to judge that seem to go beyond what the bill itself says.
Yeah, I read the bill too. Several times in fact. What specifically are you referring to? Or am I supposed to be able to read your mind? If you ask a question, and want a specific answer, you have to ask a specific question. Especially as you imply that I am misrepresenting or misunderstanding some specific part of the bill, which you neglect/refuse to state. Otherwise, the answer to the actual question you DID ask: "Where are you getting that information?", is: The bill. Read it again, this time make an effort to understand the clear meaning and implications of the actual language in front of you. Do you know what an "ex parte" hearing is? Look it up. Maybe you're thinking I got the standard of proof wrong for the initial (ex parte) warrant to be issued to confiscate the weapons... Read this: the officer "Describes any other individual's observations of or interactions with the person, if the law enforcement officer believes that information obtained from that individual is credible and reliable". I.e. "Hearsay". What are the "objective criteria" a street cop uses to determine whether a third party claim is "credible and reliable". Guess what... there isn't any criteria, they're just guessing or surmising based upon nothing at all but their "hunch". Etc. Etc. Etc.
You can read my submitted testimony where I detail some of the obvious faults of the bill. And I use quotes from the bill to preface my criticisms. If you can't be specific when you question my veracity or understanding you should just shut the fuck up until you can comprehend what it is you're criticizing while failing to understand plain English.
Now, tell me, EXACTLY what did I get wrong? And I mean EXACTLY. I know, you think this would be a "decent gun control law" (terms you refuse to define because you laughably argue that those terms are "subjective") if only what wording was changed exactly how? Go ahead, prove you're not full of shit.
-
There's something about gathering intelligence people don't seem to realize. Too much is worse than not enough. Right now the government approach to finding needles is piling more hay on the stack, and it's causing more problems than it solves.
-
Where are you getting that information? I read the bill and you are making statements about certain standards used to judge that seem to go beyond what the bill itself says.
Okay, moron, I went back and read the first couple of sentences of your linked comment, and all that does is prove that you're too stupid to understand English, and are prone to serious errors of understanding and shouldn't be relied upon, ever, to convey any accurate information.
To wit, you claim this proposed law is a "step in that [judge making decision] direction" because "having a hearing and a judge make a decision instead of a police officer or administrative official". To me that is clear proof that either 1. you didn't read the bill, or 2. you cannot comprehend the English language, or 3. you're an idiot. As I quoted above, the law proposes EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU SEE AS ITS REDEEMING QUALITY, in fact at the ex parte hearing, relying possibly solely on testimony of an officer's recounting of third party testimony that he "believes" is "reliable and credible", a person, absent from and uninformed of the very existence of the hearing, can have his firearms, but only his firearms, confiscated to keep him from endangering "public safety". A judge in that circumstance is totally reliant on the officer's testimony, so now the judge has to determine whether the officer is "reliable and credible" about the testimony that the officer claims is "reliable and credible". Learn to read dumbass. I couldn't read any more of your gibberish, because well, too stupid.
-
Yeah, I read the bill too. Several times in fact. What specifically are you referring to? Or am I supposed to be able to read your mind? If you ask a question, and want a specific answer, you have to ask a specific question. Especially as you imply that I am misrepresenting or misunderstanding some specific part of the bill, which you neglect/refuse to state. Otherwise, the answer to the actual question you DID ask: "Where are you getting that information?", is: The bill. Read it again, this time make an effort to understand the clear meaning and implications of the actual language in front of you. Do you know what an "ex parte" hearing is? Look it up. Maybe you're thinking I got the standard of proof wrong for the initial (ex parte) warrant to be issued to confiscate the weapons... Read this: the officer "Describes any other individual's observations of or interactions with the person, if the law enforcement officer believes that information obtained from that individual is credible and reliable". I.e. "Hearsay". What are the "objective criteria" a street cop uses to determine whether a third party claim is "credible and reliable". Guess what... there isn't any criteria, they're just guessing or surmising based upon nothing at all but their "hunch". Etc. Etc. Etc.
You can read my submitted testimony where I detail some of the obvious faults of the bill. And I use quotes from the bill to preface my criticisms. If you can't be specific when you question my veracity or understanding you should just shut the fuck up until you can comprehend what it is you're criticizing while failing to understand plain English.
Now, tell me, EXACTLY what did I get wrong? And I mean EXACTLY. I know, you think this would be a "decent gun control law" (terms you refuse to define because you laughably argue that those terms are "subjective") if only what wording was changed exactly how? Go ahead, prove you're not full of shit.
You seem to think that nothing has to be proven in court, that an officer can simply decide what is reliable and that it does not face scrutiny as would evidence in a criminal case. In all cases an officer has to make observations or hear reports from a 2nd or 3rd party and make a judgement call on whether to arrest or not but when it comes to court it still gets to be cross examined and has to be determined by the judge or jury to be reliable.
As for the hearing to be scheduled within 30 days I don't see why you think the accused has no options for due process.
And I don't know why you take issue with not being able to objectively define decent which is inherently subjective. And I did already provide some modifications I would suggest. It is in reply #32.
I don't know why you are getting offended at this, I am just asking for the reasoning behind your comments as I don't see how you arrived at the statements to made. I am not even disagreeing with you per se.
-
Okay, moron, I went back and read the first couple of sentences of your linked comment, and all that does is prove that you're too stupid to understand English, and are prone to serious errors of understanding and shouldn't be relied upon, ever, to convey any accurate information.
To wit, you claim this proposed law is a "step in that [judge making decision] direction" because "having a hearing and a judge make a decision instead of a police officer or administrative official". To me that is clear proof that either 1. you didn't read the bill, or 2. you cannot comprehend the English language, or 3. you're an idiot. As I quoted above, the law proposes EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU SEE AS ITS REDEEMING QUALITY, in fact at the ex parte hearing, relying possibly solely on testimony of an officer's recounting of third party testimony that he "believes" is "reliable and credible", a person, absent from and uninformed of the very existence of the hearing, can have his firearms, but only his firearms, confiscated to keep him from endangering "public safety". A judge in that circumstance is totally reliant on the officer's testimony, so now the judge has to determine whether the officer is "reliable and credible" about the testimony that the officer claims is "reliable and credible". Learn to read dumbass. I couldn't read any more of your gibberish, because well, too stupid.
Non sequitur, ad hominem attack.
-
There's something about gathering intelligence people don't seem to realize. Too much is worse than not enough. Right now the government approach to finding needles is piling more hay on the stack, and it's causing more problems than it solves.
Good analogy. The gov't collecting more information on you only helps the gov't. It won't keep anyone safer except people with political agendas.
Look at the times the FBI had information on suspected terrorists and dropped the ball because they were being "sensitive" to the political aspects of watching Muslim refugees. People died even though they had all the information they needed. No one was safer.
-
Non sequitur, ad hominem attack.
You give an opinion without spelling out why you think that. Just more deflection.
Typical.
-
You seem to think that nothing has to be proven in court, that an officer can simply decide what is reliable and that it does not face scrutiny as would evidence in a criminal case. In all cases an officer has to make observations or hear reports from a 2nd or 3rd party and make a judgement call on whether to arrest or not but when it comes to court it still gets to be cross examined and has to be determined by the judge or jury to be reliable.
As for the hearing to be scheduled within 30 days I don't see why you think the accused has no options for due process.
And I don't know why you take issue with not being able to objectively define decent which is inherently subjective. And I did already provide some modifications I would suggest. It is in reply #32.
I don't know why you are getting offended at this, I am just asking for the reasoning behind your comments as I don't see how you arrived at the statements to made. I am not even disagreeing with you per se.
Goddamn you're dense (and that's not ad hominem because it isn't being used as a premise in an argument). There is no "reasoning" involved, it's just reading the words of the bill and understanding plain English. I clearly stated that I was talking about the ex parte hearing, which is the hearing where an officer can present hearsay evidence, where the accused is neither present, with or without counsel, nor even informed of the hearing. There is, and cannot be, any "cross examination", because there is neither the defendant present nor counsel for that defendant. The only person present to "examine" the officer is the judge who is tasked with issuing the confiscation order. That ex parte ("one part only") hearing is where the decision is made to confiscate a person's firearms. I clearly presented the quotes from the bill, and then you still don't get it! How many times would I have to repeat myself, and repeat the quotes from the bill for you to understand? Don't answer with a question or divert, that was a rhetorical question. You need to take this conversation to your Phil 101 prof and have him review it for you, maybe he can straighten you out, but I doubt it. It's almost like you're making a deliberate attempt to be obtuse, make absurd claims, intentionally ignore what was just written, as well as your usual "tactic" of not answering questions after you've made inaccurate accusations against other people. Thus, I now bow to my (unfortunately ignored) original intuition and sentiment and evidence-based reasoned conclusion, and refrain from attempting to get you to make any straight clear unambiguous non-waffling statements. I'm pretty sure almost everyone else can see what's going on.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/3HYQr8J.jpg)
-
Good analogy. The gov't collecting more information on you only helps the gov't. It won't keep anyone safer except people with political agendas.
Look at the times the FBI had information on suspected terrorists and dropped the ball because they were being "sensitive" to the political aspects of watching Muslim refugees. People died even though they had all the information they needed. No one was safer.
Exactly
-
Update on total testimony submitted (first time I've ever seen "LATE LATE"):
FAVOR: 11
OPPOSED: 106
Committee vote: UNANIMOUS in FAVOR (Senator Gabbard voting "Aye with reservations").
No amended version posted yet (expected "midweek").
-
The latest version of SB898, SD2, was posted today (March 2, 2017). All the "bad" parts of the bill are still there, including that the "standard of proof" is "clear and convincing evidence" (not "beyond a reasonable doubt") and that evidence may consist solely of testimony by a cop who has not witnessed the accused at all, but solely testifies that he believes that information given to him by a third party is "credible and reliable". This testimony where the decision is made to confiscate a person's guns, is an ex parte hearing, meaning that neither the person accused nor his legal counsel is not only not present, but cannot even be informed that such a hearing is taking place! So they (cop, prosecutor, and judge... that sounds "fair"!) "prove" a person is a "serious risk of violence or harm to public safety", confiscate his weapons, and then allow him to drive a car around and have all the gasoline, machetes, knives, hammers, bows and arrows, herbicides, pesticides, acids, etc. he may want to possess (and could no doubt use to inflict some damage to "public safety") .
There is one solution to stopping a person who is a "serious risk of violence or harm to public safety" from harming the public: remove him/her from public until such time as they are no longer a "serious risk". Anything else is merely a charade of thinly disguised violation of due process re civil rights protected by the Second Amendment.
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2017/bills/SB898_SD2_.HTM
-
If I'm understanding this post correctly, it appears that the senate will vote on SB898 SD2 next Tuesday, March 7.
3/3/2017 S Reported from JDL (Stand. Com. Rep. No. 672) with recommendation of passage on Third Reading, as amended (SD 2).
3/3/2017 S 48 Hrs. Notice 03-07-17.
Might as well send another email to all the senators asking them to vote against this. Just for "fun", of course.
senbaker@Capitol.hawaii.gov,
senchang@Capitol.hawaii.gov,
sendelacruz@Capitol.hawaii.gov,
senenglish@Capitol.hawaii.gov,
senespero@Capitol.hawaii.gov,
sengabbard@Capitol.hawaii.gov,
sengaluteria@Capitol.hawaii.gov,
sengreen@Capitol.hawaii.gov,
senharimoto@Capitol.hawaii.gov,
senihara@Capitol.hawaii.gov,
seninouye@Capitol.hawaii.gov,
senkahele@Capitol.hawaii.gov,
senkeithagaran@Capitol.hawaii.gov,
senkidani@Capitol.hawaii.gov,
senkim@Capitol.hawaii.gov,
senkouchi@Capitol.hawaii.gov,
sennishihara@Capitol.hawaii.gov,
senrhoads@Capitol.hawaii.gov,
senriviere@Capitol.hawaii.gov,
senruderman@Capitol.hawaii.gov,
senshimabukuro@Capitol.hawaii.gov,
sentaniguchi@Capitol.hawaii.gov,
senthielen@Capitol.hawaii.gov,
sentokuda@Capitol.hawaii.gov,
senwakai@Capitol.hawaii.gov
-
Thanks for putting that list of e-mails together Punaperson, I'll definitely copy/paste and share my concerns.
I'm not too good at following instructions and apparently a LOT of other people aren't as well. I was skimming through some testimonies for/against a few bills and the HUGE majority oppose these bills but were followed by:
"Please note that testimony submitted less than 24 hours prior to the hearing, improperly identified, or directed to the incorrect office, may not be posted online or distributed to the committee prior to the convening of the public hearing."
I'm going to assume that means they "don't count" (not sure they do even if they are properly submitted :grrr:) If you have the time could you post the dates/times for when to submit testimonies of approaching measures to "count" and I'll gladly add 2-4 from this household.
-
Check out the sticky/permanent thread above:
2017 Hawaii Legislature Firearms Related Bills (Google Spreadsheet)
Started by Jl808
https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=26322.0
That will usually have the updates when they are published by the legislature. I watched the first committee hearing on SB898 and the chair did read the names of all those who submitted testimony and whether it was for or against. For that meeting the testimony ran, I think, 30 against to 6 for... but some people used the .gov website to submit and failed to select "for" or "against" and thus when the chair read their name and position he said "comments only", even though if you read the comments they were clearly against the bill. For this particular bill go here: http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=898. You can sign up to receive updates on particular bills, but they only require 48 hours notice of a committee hearing, and the deadline for "on time" testimony is 24 hours prior to the meeting, so you really only have 24 hours. Go hiking one day and you may miss it.
-
Goddamn you're dense (and that's not ad hominem because it isn't being used as a premise in an argument). There is no "reasoning" involved, it's just reading the words of the bill and understanding plain English. I clearly stated that I was talking about the ex parte hearing, which is the hearing where an officer can present hearsay evidence, where the accused is neither present, with or without counsel, nor even informed of the hearing. There is, and cannot be, any "cross examination", because there is neither the defendant present nor counsel for that defendant. The only person present to "examine" the officer is the judge who is tasked with issuing the confiscation order. That ex parte ("one part only") hearing is where the decision is made to confiscate a person's firearms. I clearly presented the quotes from the bill, and then you still don't get it! How many times would I have to repeat myself, and repeat the quotes from the bill for you to understand? Don't answer with a question or divert, that was a rhetorical question. You need to take this conversation to your Phil 101 prof and have him review it for you, maybe he can straighten you out, but I doubt it. It's almost like you're making a deliberate attempt to be obtuse, make absurd claims, intentionally ignore what was just written, as well as your usual "tactic" of not answering questions after you've made inaccurate accusations against other people. Thus, I now bow to my (unfortunately ignored) original intuition and sentiment and evidence-based reasoned conclusion, and refrain from attempting to get you to make any straight clear unambiguous non-waffling statements. I'm pretty sure almost everyone else can see what's going on.
Legal language is not standard plain English. It is not as easy to understand as plain english. Maybe you are a lawyer so it seems so obvious to you but to others it is not.
You are mistaking the two hearings. The first hearing is indeed an ex parte and everything you say is true. However the second hearing, 30 days later, does not state that it is an ex parte, it only states a "hearing" will be held. That is where I am pointing out that your conclusions seem to make assumptions.
Having said that, I obviously would have problems with the vague wording that simply states a "hearing" must be held because it doesn't offer strong enough protections. This is one of the things I would change to make it into a decent law.
-
Legal language is not standard plain English. It is not as easy to understand as plain english. Maybe you are a lawyer so it seems so obvious to you but to others it is not.
You are mistaking the two hearings. The first hearing is indeed an ex parte and everything you say is true. However the second hearing, 30 days later, does not state that it is an ex parte, it only states a "hearing" will be held. That is where I am pointing out that your conclusions seem to make assumptions.
Having said that, I obviously would have problems with the vague wording that simply states a "hearing" must be held because it doesn't offer strong enough protections. This is one of the things I would change to make it into a decent law.
No, YOU were mistaking the two hearings by not ever acknowledging the first (ex parte) hearing where a person's right to keep arms can be totally negated without anything resembling traditional due process, wherein the accused is confronted in open court by his accusers, has the option of having legal representation, and can present arguments and evidence against the charges leveled against him. And you STILL seem to be fine with that. That's okay, you are entitled to your opinion. I have to wonder what other rights you believe can be obliterated (until at some later hearing the accused "passes a test" created by the state). Free speech? Right to be free from warrantless searches? Right to legal representation? Right to practice a religion? Of course, we all know, that can't happen here.
-
No, YOU were mistaking the two hearings by not ever acknowledging the first (ex parte) hearing where a person's right to keep arms can be totally negated without anything resembling traditional due process, wherein the accused is confronted in open court by his accusers, has the option of having legal representation, and can present arguments and evidence against the charges leveled against him. And you STILL seem to be fine with that. That's okay, you are entitled to your opinion. I have to wonder what other rights you believe can be obliterated (until at some later hearing the accused "passes a test" created by the state). Free speech? Right to be free from warrantless searches? Right to legal representation? Right to practice a religion? Of course, we all know, that can't happen here.
I was aware of the initial hearing and I was not addressing it. I am sorry if I didn't make that clear.
I am fine with the initial hearing provided that other things are changed, such as the requirement to have the second hearing within 48 hours. This is consistent with the time limits police have to charge an individual with a crime if they are arrested. It is also consistent when a judge issues an warrant or search warrant, defendants aren't present at those court decisions either. People arrested for a crime don't get to hold a hearing before they are arrested, and I think if we use general arrest and charging methods we would be within the legal norm when it comes to denying someone's civil rights. I do realize that we are comparing a crime to a potential for harm so they are not directly translatable.
But lets imagine a hypothetical situation where this issue might come into play. You have an individual you have reason to believe will commit harm with a firearm. Now imagine if we have to go by a hearing system in a different manner. First you have to serve the individual, then you have to give him adequate time to prepare a defense, then schedule a court date, then reschedule the court date because the individual calls in sick or reschedule because the officer/doctor/witness is off island on vacation, etc. etc. etc. Do you see how that can create problems for a situation where time is of the essence?
I do believe there needs to be a strong system set in place for the protection of rights, but where do you draw the line? What system would you design that would address this issue?
-
Authoritarians love those excuses. We've had 8 centuries of practice since the magna carta was published. The general consensus is that giving too much power to the state resolves minor inconveniences with horrifying consequences.
-
I was aware of the initial hearing and I was not addressing it. I am sorry if I didn't make that clear.
I am fine with the initial hearing provided that other things are changed, such as the requirement to have the second hearing within 48 hours. This is consistent with the time limits police have to charge an individual with a crime if they are arrested. It is also consistent when a judge issues an warrant or search warrant, defendants aren't present at those court decisions either. People arrested for a crime don't get to hold a hearing before they are arrested, and I think if we use general arrest and charging methods we would be within the legal norm when it comes to denying someone's civil rights. I do realize that we are comparing a crime to a potential for harm so they are not directly translatable.
But lets imagine a hypothetical situation where this issue might come into play. You have an individual you have reason to believe will commit harm with a firearm. Now imagine if we have to go by a hearing system in a different manner. First you have to serve the individual, then you have to give him adequate time to prepare a defense, then schedule a court date, then reschedule the court date because the individual calls in sick or reschedule because the officer/doctor/witness is off island on vacation, etc. etc. etc. Do you see how that can create problems for a situation where time is of the essence?
I do believe there needs to be a strong system set in place for the protection of rights, but where do you draw the line? What system would you design that would address this issue?
How about flipping the script and empowering the victim? Arm the victim.
Anyways, the point is that the issue is not the firearm the issue is that violent criminal. Take away the firearm and you still have a criminal.
-
I was aware of the initial hearing and I was not addressing it. I am sorry if I didn't make that clear.
The initial ex parte hearing is the most important hearing because a person's constitutionally-guaranteed civil rights are being revoked not only without the accused, nor his legal counsel being present, nor is the accused even informed of the imminent revocation of his constitutional rights, but all this takes place WITHOUT THE PERSON HAVING COMMITTED A CRIME. In other words it's "PRE-CRIME", possibly testified to by a cop who may never have seen or heard the accused, but only heard something from a third party. If the person has committed a crime (such as "terroristic threatening") THEN arrest him, he'll be held in jail until his bail hearing and thus unable to do any harm.
I am fine with the initial hearing provided that other things are changed, such as the requirement to have the second hearing within 48 hours. This is consistent with the time limits police have to charge an individual with a crime if they are arrested. It is also consistent when a judge issues an warrant or search warrant, defendants aren't present at those court decisions either. People arrested for a crime don't get to hold a hearing before they are arrested, and I think if we use general arrest and charging methods we would be within the legal norm when it comes to denying someone's civil rights. I do realize that we are comparing a crime to a potential for harm so they are not directly translatable.
No, they are not only "not translatable" they have no common ground at all, at least as far as the typical due process rights have traditionally been understood. Where do you draw the line when deciding what people may and may not do, or what rights they may or may not exercise once one starts down the path of "prior restraint"? Since everyone has a right to free speech, the only way a theater and its patrons could be protected from someone falsely yelling "Fire!" and causing a panic during which many people could be injured or killed would be via prior restraint and installing some device on each patron that would make it impossible for them to shout "Fire!" (or anything else, including "Fire!" if there actually was a fire). By the reasoning of the police departments and the AG such prior restraint is warranted because "public safety" is in jeopardy if people are not made incapable of vocalizing in a crowded theater... and there is a LOT of evidence to demonstrate the such a threat to "public safety" warrants such commonsense safety regulations on the protected right of free speech. I wish I was kidding. Some day...
But lets imagine a hypothetical situation where this issue might come into play. You have an individual you have reason to believe will commit harm with a firearm. Now imagine if we have to go by a hearing system in a different manner. First you have to serve the individual, then you have to give him adequate time to prepare a defense, then schedule a court date, then reschedule the court date because the individual calls in sick or reschedule because the officer/doctor/witness is off island on vacation, etc. etc. etc. Do you see how that can create problems for a situation where time is of the essence?
Yeah, right. What makes anyone think, much less believe due to (non-existent) demonstrably conclusive evidence, that someone intent on harming someone will simply give up when his firearms are confiscated? There is no evidence that such measures actually deter crime (just like all the other "gun control" laws). You serve the warrant and take his guns and five minutes later he gets in his car and drives down a crowded sidewalk, or pours some flammable liquid at key locations of some building with many people inside and starts a fire, or uses a knife or machete or hammer or pipe or axe or chainsaw, etc. to harm whoever he was intent on harming, etc. As I wrote in my testimony, the only way to prevent a person from harming people is to remove that person from the public realm until they are proven to be harmless, NOT take away only one tool that can be used to harm people, leaving him with access to all the other tools to do some evil deed.
I do believe there needs to be a strong system set in place for the protection of rights, but where do you draw the line? What system would you design that would address this issue?
Create "laws" that only make criminals of and punish people if they beyond a reasonable doubt harm another person. Psychologists know and have published papers stating that they cannot predict who will and won't engage in violence based upon psychological evaluations, even including diagnoses of mental illness (a lengthy past history of violent acts, much more likely, but why would anyone with a lengthy history of violent acts be out on the street, in public? I mean other than for the fact that Hawaii has a criminal-coddling system...).
-
You CANNOT remove freedom from a person because they "might" do something bad! How hard is that to understand?
If there is enough evidence that a person will do something bad, THEN ARREST THEM AND DETAIN THEM UNTIL TRIAL!
Where are the psychics that will be doing the foreseeing for this law to work? No doubt they will work for the city/state attorney and only harass lawful gun owners, as they can't seem to keep real criminals unarmed and in jail there they belong!
-
A number of issues.
For starters, arresting the person does little if the person bails out as soon as they are processed (for a misdemeanor) of sometime within 48 hours for a felony. Now they may be subsequently jailed for their offenses but in the meantime should there be any system that temporarily takes their firearms?
Yes, taking away a dangerous individual's guns does not neuter him/her. However it takes away one of the tools that person can do harm with, to themselves or someone else. The effectiveness is of course debatable but not every harm sought to be prevented can be accomplished with just anything. You don't hijack an airplane with a car for example. Again, obviously it isn't full proof but it is a step. Firearms are particularly effective and that is why they are at issue here.
As for the notion of pre-crime, police take those steps for those who may be mentally ill. They can't schedule a full hearing to put someone away in the middle of the night so they call a psychologist who determines whether to take the individual in for a mental health examination, which is still taking away their civil rights. The individual may not have attempted suicide or homicide but they may be having suicidal or homicidal thoughts. So again, no act may have been committed but they are being taken.
Let me ask this, is there any conceivable case where you believe that someone should be denied firearms but without justifying their being locked in a mental institution?
-
A number of issues.
For starters, arresting the person does little if the person bails out as soon as they are processed (for a misdemeanor) of sometime within 48 hours for a felony. Now they may be subsequently jailed for their offenses but in the meantime should there be any system that temporarily takes their firearms?
Yes, taking away a dangerous individual's guns does not neuter him/her. However it takes away one of the tools that person can do harm with, to themselves or someone else. The effectiveness is of course debatable but not every harm sought to be prevented can be accomplished with just anything. You don't hijack an airplane with a car for example. Again, obviously it isn't full proof but it is a step. Firearms are particularly effective and that is why they are at issue here.
As for the notion of pre-crime, police take those steps for those who may be mentally ill. They can't schedule a full hearing to put someone away in the middle of the night so they call a psychologist who determines whether to take the individual in for a mental health examination, which is still taking away their civil rights. The individual may not have attempted suicide or homicide but they may be having suicidal or homicidal thoughts. So again, no act may have been committed but they are being taken.
Let me ask this, is there any conceivable case where you believe that someone should be denied firearms but without justifying their being locked in a mental institution?
You don't have to lock someone up permanently in any "mental institution." Bail is not automatic if the situation warrants holding for observation or evaluation. You detain them for a minimum amount of time. You contact members of the family, friends and co-workers for insight into the person's mental health. You look at prior police intervention -- not just arrests & convictions. How many times have the police been contacted due to this person's behavior? Create a complete picture of the individual.
Your problem is you want a "one -size fits all" rule for everything. This is a perfect example, asking for a "case" where a certain action should be taken. When it comes to human behavior, it needs to be based on either acts which have already been committed, or an individual evaluation of the person's mental health and, more importantly, mental state at the time. That should be part of the due process BEFORE denying access to firearms.
If the state can't demonstrate the person is a risk to himself or others, the state should allow him to go free. Firearms should NOT be confiscated based on that encounter alone. The test should be: if the person is a danger, then DO NOT ALLOW A DANGEROUS PERON TO BE FREE. If you can's say reasonably the person is a danger, then DO NOT TAKE AWAY HIS RIGHTS.
How's that for a clear, concise rule?
-
Isn't imprisoning someone because of a crime they might commit, also taking away a right?
This option seems like a worse violation of someone's rights.
What exactly makes a person "dangerous" and when does this pre-condition deserve violation of their rights?
A martial arts black belt is a "dangerous" person.
An ex-marine is a "dangerous" person.
A buffed up male is a "dangerous" person.
A desperate homeless druggie is a "dangerous" person.
A seditious professor calling for civil disobedience is a "dangerous" person.
A person posting threats is a "dangerous" person.
A legislator writing laws violating the constitution is a "dangerous" person.
What is the threshold where their rights are taken away? Isn't it supposed to be only after someone has actually committed a crime and been convicted?
A martial arts black belt, an ex-marine and buffed up gym rat are "dangerous" people but if they haven't done anything criminal, should not be punished by the state.
Someone who has fallen on hard times (financially desperate, druggie and homeless) and may have contemplated suicide or committing robbery but not have actually done so should not be punished by the state. They may be able to turn their lives around and learn from such a life changing experience.
A seditious professor who have differing views but have not actually committed a crime should not be punished by the state. Sure, they may have critics and haters and will have consequences but not by the law.
A legislator violating the constitution ... well, they should go to maximum prison.
A person posting threats but have not actually done anything in violation of the law should not be punished by the state, (just based on that threat alone).
The three aspects considered in a criminal proceedings and in self defense OODA loops are:
- means
- motive
- opportunity
If someone has a means (car, knife, hammer, firearm, MMA skills, bomb making skills, etc), motive (expressed a threat), but not necessarily the immediate opportunity, this doesn't warrant a defensive shooting, right?
At what point does it warrant taking away their right?
-
Isn't imprisoning someone because of a crime they might commit, also taking away a right?
This option seems like a worse violation of someone's rights.
What exactly makes a person "dangerous" and does this deserve violation of their rights?
A martial arts black belt is a "dangerous" person.
An ex-marine is a "dangerous" person.
A buffed up male is a "dangerous" person.
A desperate druggie is a "dangerous" person.
A seditious professor calling for civil disobedience is a "dangerous" person.
A legislator writing laws violating the constitution is a "dangerous" person.
If detaining someone is "imprisonment", then the state is guilty of that in every arrest and detention. Do we need judges on the street to decide a case before someone is detained? Observation and evaluation takes some time, but it's temporary. I don't call that imprisoning someone.
A firearm sitting is a safe is not dangerous. Someone willfully or negligently using it to commit violence and cause injuries makes it dangerous.
Your implication someone is "dangerous" simply because they have the means to do violence and cause injury or death is wrong. Dangerous requires a willingness to USE those means in a way which puts the public in danger.
If you see a high voltage box with the warning "Danger!", does that mean the electricity is going to attack you if you get too close? Or does it simply mean you need to exercise caution and take steps to ensure you are not electrocuted?
That's the same with "dangerous" people. If they have the intent or lack of control to keep themselves from becoming dangerous, then someone needs to take precautions to make sure that doesn't happen for the safety of the public.
-
Of course I agree that being "dangerous" is not sufficient. I listed those examples to illustrate a few situations. (Sorry, I was in the process of adding to my previous post to explain my points further.)
I'm not saying this is an easy discussion.
What about cases of a trained militant from a hostile country who somehow managed to enter the US? Or a US convert who swears allegiance to a militant group?
What about people on a terrorist screening database?
Or those on a no fly list?
What I'm trying to say is that these are not only questions but likely actual situations that LE and the AG have to consider.
Does the general public expect this to be part of their job?
Does the general public expect them to do something about this to prevent terrorist attacks or mass murders from happening? If or when they do happen, who does the public tend to blame?
I think LE is a shitty job to be in. Personally, I often thank LE officers for their service.
IMO, the CRITERA needs to be much much CLEARER and shared with the general public. Instead this bill leaves the criteria really vague and leaves it up to the agencies to know and interpret.
-
If theyre so dangerous why is the judge releasing them? Their bail should be denied. Again another reason for anti 2a hawaii to take guns away.
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
-
I am not saying there is a right to lock someone up just because someone thinks that person is dangerous or a threat. There needs to be a charge, evidence, and a fair trial.
If there is not enough evidence to detain or imprison a subject, then there is not enough evidence to remove their firearms rights, their right to vote, right to go to the church they wish to attend, or any other right for that matter.
These kinds of dangerous laws and bills being considered are the reason this country was founded with the idea of personal liberty. This kind of law trashes that idea.
Yes I agree that LE have a shitty job because of liberty. Liberty is difficult because it requires persons to have some type of responsibility and moral character.
Not all have that, therefore we have the 2nd Amendment, for those that do have that grit, to defend against those that do not.
-
A legislator violating the constitution ... well, they should go to maximum prison.
Smartest thing I've heard in awhile. Well played sir, well played!
-
A legislator violating the constitution ... well, they should go to maximum prison.
That would be a very expensive proposition, as the current prison capacity would have to be at least doubled or tripled (if you include all those in the "chain of command" who enforce the unconstitutional laws). But I see it as my civic duty to incarcerate those traitors so I'd chip in for the "traitor imprisonment tax".
-
Isn't imprisoning someone because of a crime they might commit, also taking away a right?
This option seems like a worse violation of someone's rights.
What exactly makes a person "dangerous" and when does this pre-condition deserve violation of their rights?
A martial arts black belt is a "dangerous" person.
An ex-marine is a "dangerous" person.
A buffed up male is a "dangerous" person.
A desperate homeless druggie is a "dangerous" person.
A seditious professor calling for civil disobedience is a "dangerous" person.
A person posting threats is a "dangerous" person.
A legislator writing laws violating the constitution is a "dangerous" person.
What is the threshold where their rights are taken away? Isn't it supposed to be only after someone has actually committed a crime and been convicted?
A martial arts black belt, an ex-marine and buffed up gym rat are "dangerous" people but if they haven't done anything criminal, should not be punished by the state.
Someone who has fallen on hard times (financially desperate, druggie and homeless) and may have contemplated suicide or committing robbery but not have actually done so should not be punished by the state. They may be able to turn their lives around and learn from such a life changing experience.
A seditious professor who have differing views but have not actually committed a crime should not be punished by the state. Sure, they may have critics and haters and will have consequences but not by the law.
A legislator violating the constitution ... well, they should go to maximum prison.
A person posting threats but have not actually done anything in violation of the law should not be punished by the state, (just based on that threat alone).
The three aspects considered in a criminal proceedings and in self defense OODA loops are:
- means
- motive
- opportunity
If someone has a means (car, knife, hammer, firearm, MMA skills, bomb making skills, etc), motive (expressed a threat), but not necessarily the immediate opportunity, this doesn't warrant a defensive shooting, right?
At what point does it warrant taking away their right?
I don't disagree with you at all, but what course of action would you propose be allowed by law to address this issue? Since time may be of the essence it would need to be a quick system of course but what would you envision? Who investigates the individual, what system has the final say, is there ever a time to temporarily take away someone's guns, etc etc? The person may be mental ill or may have a bunch of red flags of being a terrorist.
All of your concerns are more than valid and it is a very difficult question, but I think we should have at least some attempt at an answer as to how legal action can be taken against such individuals.
-
Throughout history, governments have proposed similar laws based on suspicion. The French Revolution Reign of Terror; Nazi Germany; Stalinist Russia to name the most widely known. Going on suspicion without a fair trial is going down the proverbial slippery slope .
Following is from a Wikipedia article on the Reign of Terror:
The second point, the passing of the Law of Suspects, stepped political terror up to a much higher level of cruelty. Anyone who ‘by their conduct, relations, words or writings show themselves to be supporters of tyranny and federalism and enemies of freedom’ was targeted and suspected of treason. This created a mass overflow in the prison systems. As a result, the prison population of Paris increased from 1,417 to 4,525 people over a course of 3 months. This overpopulation problem caused the execution rates to rise enormously.[citation needed] From March to September 1789 sixty-six people had been guillotined. By the end of the year, that number had risen to 177.[23]
Sad how this state government seems so willing to accept immigrants who may not have any official identification and say suspicion is racism, but yet be so willing to rob it's citizens of individual undeniable rights based on suspicion.
Also:
The execution of Olympe de Gouges, feminist writer close to the Girondins
The Revolutionary Tribunal summarily condemned thousands of people to death by the guillotine, while mobs beat other victims to death. Sometimes people died for their political opinions or actions, but many for little reason beyond mere suspicion, or because some others had a stake in getting rid of them. The historian Peter Jones recalls the case of Claude-François Bertrand de Boucheporn, the last intendant of Béarn, whose “two sons had emigrated. [He] attracted mounting suspicion. Eventually, he was tried on a charge of sending money abroad and, in 1794, executed.” [24
-
Throughout history, governments have proposed similar laws based on suspicion. The French Revolution Reign of Terror; Nazi Germany; Stalinist Russia to name the most widely known. Going on suspicion without a fair trial is going down the proverbial slippery slope .
.....
It can't happen here.
Especially given that Hawaii residents are so much better educated, better informed, and generally far more intelligent than, say, for example, the ignorant, uneducated, uninformed Jews of Nazi Germany. [/sarc]
-
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20170303/hawaii-anti-gun-legislation-eligible-for-senate-floor-vote-next-week
-
3/3/2017 S 48 Hrs. Notice 03-07-17.
3/7/2017 S Report Adopted; Passed Third Reading, as amended (SD 2). Ayes, 25; Aye(s) with reservations: Senator(s) Gabbard, Harimoto, Riviere. Noes, 0 (none). Excused, 0 (none). Transmitted to House.
RIP
-
Good article on this from NRA rep printed in the star-advertiser this morning.
-
email sent
not that it will make a difference...
-
I made the mistake (bad for my health) of watching the legislature live this morning on channel 55, as the .gov website re streaming video, video-audio archives, etc. stated that the senate was to be broadcast live (hoping to see any comments on SB898), but instead it was the house live (that was the first time I ever remember the government getting something wrong (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/images/smilies/facepalm.gif)). I was rather shocked to see that virtually all of the committee reports on the various bills were adopted almost always unanimously, even all six Republicans joining the Democrats. There was occasionally (rarely) one rep that would express "reservations", but still vote to accept the reports. I think I recall two or three voting against various bill reports. It's like a steamroller in there... they're just going through the motions of saying yes to everything that made it that far (through committee(s)). And from watching the committee hearings, it's clear that all the "business" of the legislature (writing the bills, amending language, lobbying for votes, etc.) is all taking place somewhere out of public view. I knew that, but seeing the superficiality of the public spectacle is still extremely disheartening. It's almost enough to make me think "This is so corrupt and so "fixed" that there is really no point at all in communicating with any of these legislators, as they have already determined how they are going to vote independent of any citizen input, or perhaps even their own claimed "beliefs"".
I'll be curious to see if even one house member stands up to the egregious violations in SB898 and either submits serious amending language or votes no.
:( >:( :crazy:
-
We have NO REPRESENTATION.
-
I don't get it. Why no immediate calls ("Never let a crisis go to waste".) for new commonsense axe safety regulations and adding axes to the firearms confiscation requirement of SB898? It is absolutely completely illogical for the confiscation of potentially harmful tools to be limited to firearms as they are in SB898. Not that I would expect Hawaii's politicians to unanimously pass (the senate) a bill that was actually rational and evidence-based... (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/images/smilies/facepalm.gif)
Germany axe attack: Duesseldorf train station sealed off
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39225847
-
I don't get it. Why no immediate calls ("Never let a crisis go to waste".) for new commonsense axe safety regulations and adding axes to the firearms confiscation requirement of SB898? It is absolutely completely illogical for the confiscation of potentially harmful tools to be limited to firearms as they are in SB898. Not that I would expect Hawaii's politicians to unanimously pass (the senate) a bill that was actually rational and evidence-based... (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/images/smilies/facepalm.gif)
Germany axe attack: Duesseldorf train station sealed off
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39225847
They should also take away any pointy or sharp objects, internet connection (can google how to make a weapon), and only allow spoons.
-
I want to ask a basic question that gets to the root of the issue.
Is there ever a time where you think it may be appropriate to limit a constitutional right to an individual without them having been convicted of a crime or incarcerated (including a mental health facility)? Doesn't have to be limited to 2nd amendment rights.
-
I want to ask a basic question that gets to the root of the issue.
Is there ever a time where you think it may be appropriate to limit a constitutional right to an individual without them having been convicted of a crime or incarcerated (including a mental health facility)? Doesn't have to be limited to 2nd amendment rights.
No.
-
I want to ask a basic question that gets to the root of the issue.
Is there ever a time where you think it may be appropriate to limit a constitutional right to an individual without them having been convicted of a crime or incarcerated (including a mental health facility)? Doesn't have to be limited to 2nd amendment rights.
I would also say no.
That is not how the bill of rights was intended, and not how liberty works. People often forget these rights are not "given" by the government, they are inherent.
common (not so common these days) sense and morality dictates how these rights are applied/exercised.
-
I want to ask a basic question that gets to the root of the issue.
Is there ever a time where you think it may be appropriate to limit a constitutional right to an individual without them having been convicted of a crime or incarcerated (including a mental health facility)? Doesn't have to be limited to 2nd amendment rights.
No
-
I want to ask a basic question that gets to the root of the issue.
Is there ever a time where you think it may be appropriate to limit a constitutional right to an individual without them having been convicted of a crime or incarcerated (including a mental health facility)? Doesn't have to be limited to 2nd amendment rights.
Absolutely no.
Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
-
I want to ask a basic question that gets to the root of the issue.
Is there ever a time where you think it may be appropriate to limit a constitutional right to an individual without them having been convicted of a crime or incarcerated (including a mental health facility)? Doesn't have to be limited to 2nd amendment rights.
Of course. Any time a poll or vote indicates that people approve of limiting or outright denying natural, fundamental, individual, inalienable, enumerated Constitutionally-protected civil rights for any reason then it must be so. I would also include the legislature, executive branch, and judges as well may deny the exercise of such rights for any reason at all, or no reason at all in the case of SB898. [Do I really need to do this? Okay: /sardonic]
-
I want to ask a basic question that gets to the root of the issue.
Is there ever a time where you think it may be appropriate to limit a constitutional right to an individual without them having been convicted of a crime or incarcerated (including a mental health facility)? Doesn't have to be limited to 2nd amendment rights.
loaded question...
-
My friend just got a letter saying he has 30 days to get a mental health waiver signed or HPD will come to his home and take his guns away. He got this letter AFTER renewing his long rifle permit. He's had a permit for years. He is also in the military so the feds trust him.
So about 20 years ago, he was a minor and went to a family therapist because he wasn't getting along with his moms new bf. Now HPD saying he needs a waiver for that visit.
Kaiser won't sign waivers anymore so he has to spend money on a private psychologist to evaluate him. VA has more than a 30 day waiting list.
So if this bill passes, could any prior visit to a psychologist prompt a ban of the 2a even with a waiver from a health care provider?
-
So if this bill passes, could any prior visit to a psychologist prompt a ban of the 2a even with a waiver from a health care provider?
The "low bar" in the bill is if a cop believes a third party claim that a person may be dangerous, that would trigger the ex parte hearing (the accused is not only not present, but the accused is not informed that hearing is taking place) where the confiscation order could be issued. The accused could have a stack of letters from dozens of mental health professionals attesting to this mental health and they wouldn't mean a thing.
-
The "low bar" in the bill is if a cop believes a third party claim that a person may be dangerous, that would trigger the ex parte hearing (the accused is not only not present, but the accused is not informed that hearing is taking place) where the confiscation order could be issued. The accused could have a stack of letters from dozens of mental health professionals attesting to this mental health and they wouldn't mean a thing.
Got it,so a 3rd party has to make a complaint.
-
All part of Democrat thinking such as braddah Joe Souki saying: When asked why the decision seemed shrouded in secrecy, Souki said, “We are always secretive. It’s part of being a legislator.”
-
I want to ask a basic question that gets to the root of the issue.
Is there ever a time where you think it may be appropriate to limit a constitutional right to an individual without them having been convicted of a crime or incarcerated (including a mental health facility)? Doesn't have to be limited to 2nd amendment rights.
absolutely not.
I don't like liberals but they still have the 2A right
-
loaded question...
I don't think so. This is the fundamental basis for any situation where the government may want to restrict rights, whether they be 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, etc etc etc.
People who have been convicted of crimes do lose some of the freedoms recognized in the bill of rights. Additionally, people under parole or probation status may lose additional rights as part of their conditions of release. That is of course a different situation than a law abiding individual.
The question people are trying to answer is what to do about a dangerous individual who doesn't quite meet the criteria of actually being put in a secure facility. Someone who appears to be a terrorist, someone who has a mental condition associated with violence, a pedophile, etc.
I do get having the standard be the same as having a person locked up but the downside of that is we will miss some individuals. Not saying which one is right here but just pointing out that there is no perfect system.
-
Got it,so a 3rd party has to make a complaint.
It depends. Basically it has to be brought to a cop's attention somehow, and unless the cop witnesses the incident or behavior in question then it ends up being reported to them by another party who is a witness. Like a criminal complaint, you need a witness or a complainant to have viewed the crime.
I don't think this proposed law would have any effect on the situation you raise.
The question I have for the whole issue is how did they find out a juvenile treatment incident just now? This seems to be overstepping their duties here.
-
I don't think so. This is the fundamental basis for any situation where the government may want to restrict rights, whether they be 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, etc etc etc.
People who have been convicted of crimes do lose some of the freedoms recognized in the bill of rights. Additionally, people under parole or probation status may lose additional rights as part of their conditions of release. That is of course a different situation than a law abiding individual.
The question people are trying to answer is what to do about a dangerous individual who doesn't quite meet the criteria of actually being put in a secure facility. Someone who appears to be a terrorist, someone who has a mental condition associated with violence, a pedophile, etc.
I do get having the standard be the same as having a person locked up but the downside of that is we will miss some individuals. Not saying which one is right here but just pointing out that there is no perfect system.
Yes, it is a loaded question.
A loaded question or complex question fallacy is a question that contains a controversial or unjustified assumption (e.g., a presumption of guilt).
Your question is based on the unjustified assumption that the individual is dangerous. If he is an active threat, that's one thing. But to try and predict the future behavior of the individual without enough evidence to satisfy due process is wrong. The trial (and conviction) provides due process and validates the state's actions (limiting rights) to ensure public safety.
-
Yes, it is a loaded question.
Your question is based on the unjustified assumption that the individual is dangerous. If he is an active threat, that's one thing. But to try and predict the future behavior of the individual without enough evidence to satisfy due process is wrong. The trial (and conviction) provides due process and validates the state's actions (limiting rights) to ensure public safety.
Exactly.
Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
-
I don't think so. This is the fundamental basis for any situation where the government may want to restrict rights, whether they be 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, etc etc etc.
People who have been convicted of crimes do lose some of the freedoms recognized in the bill of rights. Additionally, people under parole or probation status may lose additional rights as part of their conditions of release. That is of course a different situation than a law abiding individual.
The question people are trying to answer is what to do about a dangerous individual who doesn't quite meet the criteria of actually being put in a secure facility. Someone who appears to be a terrorist, someone who has a mental condition associated with violence, a pedophile, etc.
I do get having the standard be the same as having a person locked up but the downside of that is we will miss some individuals. Not saying which one is right here but just pointing out that there is no perfect system.
What does a terrorist look like?
Your last sentence contradicts itself. Yes, there is no perfect system, hence, there will always be some individuals that we will miss.
-
With the logic of this bill, the DOJ and DHS can label HI leaders who propose to defy Fed immigration laws as potential lawbreakers based on the accusation of a HI resident and restrict their travel and driving privileges interstate.
SB898 and it's supporters reminds me of this clip from Invasion of the Body Snatchers, LOL.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7YntoZAOpE
-
I don't think so. This is the fundamental basis for any situation where the government may want to restrict rights, whether they be 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, etc etc etc.
People who have been convicted of crimes do lose some of the freedoms recognized in the bill of rights. Additionally, people under parole or probation status may lose additional rights as part of their conditions of release. That is of course a different situation than a law abiding individual.
The question people are trying to answer is what to do about a dangerous individual who doesn't quite meet the criteria of actually being put in a secure facility. Someone who appears to be a terrorist, someone who has a mental condition associated with violence, a pedophile, etc.
I do get having the standard be the same as having a person locked up but the downside of that is we will miss some individuals. Not saying which one is right here but just pointing out that there is no perfect system.
Basis?
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."
Where is this basis where the government can restrict and remove rights from hearsay and in secret? Which constitution are you getting your assertions from?
This proposed law is wholly unconstitutional and dangerous to liberty.
-
This is basically a set up for martial law. They know the economy can't run forever on military pork-barrel welfare, tourism, and real estate flipping. When it goes tits up they want to be the only ones with the guns.
It's like when Obama signed those emergency powers that allow the feds to grab all land/food/water/transpo/etc in case of a loosely defined emergency. Basically what it means is that the government owns everything, but for now they'll let us use our stuff as long as we play nice.
Such is the life of a debt slave.
-
Got it,so a 3rd party has to make a complaint.
As EEF explained, a third party complaint is not necessary, but it is sufficient if the cop "believes" it to be "reliable" (and we all know that cops' "judgment" on such matters is infallible, especially in cases of, say, "domestic disputes" where humans have time and again shown the highest levels of honesty and integrity and never fabricated "evidence"). I was commenting on the "low bar" criteria that would result in the revocation of one's Constitutionally-guaranteed rights. Hearsay, in this case, is considered sufficient. I'm with David Codrea on this one: If you can't trust a person with a gun, you can't trust that person without a custodian.
-
Basis?
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."
Where is this basis where the government can restrict and remove rights from hearsay and in secret? Which constitution are you getting your assertions from?
This proposed law is wholly unconstitutional and dangerous to liberty.
I am not suggesting we remove due process and I am not in agreement with the law as it is currently proposed.
-
I am not suggesting we remove due process and I am not in agreement with the law as it is currently proposed.
But you have stated, in several rather muddled versions, that you believe that under some undefined conditions that at least a partial temporary suspension of full due process may be justified. You then ask other people to define those conditions for you, rather than laying out your own parameters. Neither do you state clearly and precisely what wording changes to the current proposed law would meet with your new standard. Why don't you just tell us?
-
But you have stated, in several rather muddled versions, that you believe that under some undefined conditions that at least a partial temporary suspension of full due process may be justified. You then ask other people to define those conditions for you, rather than laying out your own parameters. Neither do you state clearly and precisely what wording changes to the current proposed law would meet with your new standard. Why don't you just tell us?
I did lay out my parameters, I stated that a hearing must be held within 48 hours, the same as an arrestee must be either charged or released. This would both allow the government to step in in serious instances but would also minimize the revocation of an individual's rights until a hearing can be held. I listed a number of proposed changes I had in mind. I didn't list specific wording but I didn't think people wanted me to put it in legal language. I don't have a concrete idea in my head though, my post was really the initial brainstorming on how I would modify the proposed law to be acceptable.
-
in principle, it sounds like SB898 is an infringement of the 6th amendment. going back to the intent of The Founding Fathers. a notion completely lost on Hawaii's lost-cause politicians. they only want to be USA for some things, and not others.
banana republic?
-
It is the typical liberal mentality. "We only support freedoms when it supports our agenda of total control". That and federal funding. They need that federal funding to maintain control.
-
I think the motive behind this bill is more to attack those conservatives like us, who are likely Republicans and Trump supporters.
-
No movement at all on this bill since "crossover"... no announcement of a scheduled hearing in the assigned Judiciary committee.
Wondering if they are going to do a "last minute" hearing/vote/floor vote... as the legislative session ends May 5.
No one will tell me who asked for this bill to be introduced, as it was "Introduced by request of another party". The senate and house members who sponsored the bill for the "third party" will not reveal who that is. I wonder why?
A bill with extremely similar language exists in the Nevada legislature this session, with strong support from the "Nevada Gun Safety Coalition", which I suspect is an astroturf organization likely funded by some billionaire somewhere, but I could be completely wrong about that. It just seems highly suspicious that these Hawaii legislators would also put for a bill with such near identical language.
https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/politics-and-government/nevada/gun-seizure-bill-reminds-nevada-legislator-of-tom-cruise-movie/
Gun seizure bill reminds Nevada legislator of Tom Cruise movie
Excerpts:
It may be easier to keep firearms out of the hands of people in Nevada who are considered to be a risk to themselves or their family members.
Senate Bill 387 would allow a law enforcement officer or an immediate family member to seek a civil court order that would keep the person from having firearms in their possession. The measure would not require the person to be arrested before taking their firearms, but they would have to show a pattern of either threats, or violent acts.
Sen. Julia Ratti, D-Sparks, a sponsor of the bill, said the intent is to be a tool for law enforcement and be used only “when there is a clear and present danger that needs to be addressed.” [I have to ask, again and again, why would you leave a "clear and present danger" "on the street" with access to all weapons and means of violence EXCEPT guns?]
* * * * *
Senate Minority Leader Michael Roberson, R-Henderson, said he was concerned the bill was overly broad and may infringe on Second Amendment and due process rights.
He compared the bill to “Minority Report,” a futuristic 2002 Tom Cruise film with law enforcement officers who arrested people before they commit murders because their crimes were predicted.
Second Amendment and gun rights advocates, including the National Rifle Association, criticized the bill because it takes away firearms from people without an arrest.
-
No movement on the bill... hopefully it's dead... but I didn't post that a week or so ago I called (after getting no response to emails sent a month ago) both Souki's and Kouchi's office to ask who was the "another party" for whom the bill was introduced by each of them in their respective chambers. After some delays I finally got call backs, both of whom confirmed that the bill was introduced by request of the governor. I then emailed the governor's office (they have no phone number on their .gov site... imagine that!) asking them for the source of the bill, and (can you guess?) never heard anything back. Since a number of states have nearly identical bills this year, I'm sure there is some
leftie "commonsense gun violence prevention" organization behind it (Bloomberg?) but doubt I'll ever find out.
-
so, is it dead? or do we have to wait till close-of-business May 4th, "adjournment sine die" whatever the heck that means...?
-
so, is it dead? or do we have to wait till close-of-business May 4th, "adjournment sine die" whatever the heck that means...?
I just called Judiciary chairman Rep. Nishimoto's office and asked about SB898, since it's current status is assigned to his committee for a hearing. "Technically" it is held over for the 2018 session. When I said I know that, but what about "actually"... is he, at this point, planning on holding a hearing for the bill in 2018? Answer: You'll have to wait until next year to find out.
In the meantime I wrote the governor asking him, again, where he got the bill from. Since I asked two weeks ago, I guess there's been a delay/SNAFU in getting an email to me with the answer. [How hard is it to type "Bloomberg" or "Grabby Giffords"?]
-
thanks for the update.
chrissake, so we have to fight this fight again, next year? i guess it never ends, the gun grabbers never give up, they're like zombies.
well, at least, since we know it's coming around again, maybe we'll be more ready next time, with a running start, and can maybe double or triple the voice of opposition.
-
thanks for the update.
chrissake, so we have to fight this fight again, next year? i guess it never ends, the gun grabbers never give up, they're like zombies.
well, at least, since we know it's coming around again, maybe we'll be more ready next time, with a running start, and can maybe double or triple the voice of opposition.
Last time the testimony was something like 111 to 7 AGAINST and they passed it unanimously... I don't think they're phased by numbers. They have an agenda. Maybe they'll skip this one next year in favor of some new equally or even more egregiously unconstitutional "public safety" enhancement. I wouldn't be all that surprised. But I'd still hate it. :shaka:
-
You don't have any "gun rights"
in Hawaii.
You are idiots if you think
you do.
-
You don't have any "gun rights"
in Hawaii.
You are idiots if you think
you do.
You're wrong.
I have safes full of "gun rights," limited though they may be.
If you don't have anything more productive to share, I for one am tired of your non-stop diatribe calling for the deaths of democrats and how infringed our gun rights are.
Repetition doesn't add emphasis.
:stopjack:
-
Just to follow up on some of the "research" similar to that presented by proponents of SB898 (still alive for next session in 2018).
I wrote to all the proponents (the police departments, attorney general's office, and organizations that cited "research" re domestic violence and "guns") of SB898 and asked a lengthy list of detailed questions about the factual basis for the frequency, rate, and total number of cases that would be effected/potentially avoided by SB898. I had worded the questions in such a (detailed) way that it left little "wiggle room" were an actual honest answer given to the questions. Not only did I not receive an answer from any of the recipients, but I did not even receive one single acknowledgement of them having received my inquiry. You'd think if they had the clear and convincing evidence to further elucidate their claims that they'd gladly provide it. But they chose not to even respond at all. I have to wonder why.
Here is a recent article that sheds some light on why they didn't answer (using the vernacular: because they are full of shit) published by Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership (DRGO). It's worth a read, and includes a link to the "research" being critiqued (http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/jwh.2016.5832#http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/jwh.2016.5832). I read a bunch of this stuff ("domestic violence"/"Intimate Partner Violence" [IPV] research), and though the research is constructed to give a certain "appearance", if you actually take the hours necessary to delve into the non-cherry-picked details, they often contain the data needed to largely, or at least partially, disprove their own hypothesis.
Guns and Domestic Violence—Surprising Findings
https://drgo.us/?p=5400
Excerpt:
[Ed: Sorensen’s study has been trumpeted by anti-gun media for implying greater incidence of PTSD in domestic violence involving guns. But there is far more (and less) to these findings than that.]
Guns are almost never involved in incidents of Intimate Partner Violence [IPV] (or “domestic violence” as more commonly termed). This is according to a new report, “Guns in Intimate Partner Violence: Comparing Incidents by Type of Weapon” by Susan Sorensen, PhD of the University of Pennsylvania. Using Philadelphia police filings during 2103 she found that of 35,413 incidents in only 1% was a gun observed [NOT "fired" necessarily] at the scene.
The main finding to her was that when a gun was “involved” in IPV, the victim felt more fear. But two much more significant findings that she did not emphasize were that “Aggressive offender behavior—pushing and shoving, grabbing, pulling hair, slapping, punching, kicking, biting, stabbing, and strangling—generally was more common when hands, fists, or feet or a nongun weapon rather than a gun was used, and, “victims against whom a gun was used were less likely to have visible physical injuries.” Both of these, of course, argue against the importance of guns in domestic violence incidents.
-
I posted to the "Political Discussion" a further comment on the shortcomings of SB898 in light of the automobile murders and attempted murders in Times Square yesterday.
https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=27718.msg245027#msg245027