2aHawaii
General Topics => Legal and Activism => Topic started by: Tom on April 30, 2013, 09:35:20 AM
-
Well, it seems that the conference committee did not do a gut and replace on SB69. The NRA has put out a legislative alert about it:
http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2013/4/hawaii-conference-committee-sends-bill-requiring-background-checks-on-legally-possessed-firearms-back-to-house-and-senate-for-final-approval.aspx (http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2013/4/hawaii-conference-committee-sends-bill-requiring-background-checks-on-legally-possessed-firearms-back-to-house-and-senate-for-final-approval.aspx)
-
Hmmm, NRA opposes. HRA supports.
-
Hmmm, NRA opposes. HRA supports.
That has never added up to me. I think most oppose on the forum too. I think because HRA supported this is why it has moved forward. Most of our legislators reference HRA's written testimony in their replies to opposing testimony/letters as why they support or in part why they support SB69. Weird that NRA opposes and HRA doesn't appear to listen to their members voice.
-
it passed final reading and vote today. I just wanted to note the Slom and McDermott continued to vote Nay....as did Cabanilla and Fale. I'll remember Slom and McDermott following through w/ their commitments to 2A!!! They continue to be a bright spot, even if this passed and goes on to Gov for sig.
4/30/2013 S Passed Final Reading, as amended (CD 1). 23 Aye(s); Aye(s) with reservations: none . 1 No(es): Senator(s) Slom. 1 Excused: Senator(s) Kidani.
4/30/2013 H Passed Final Reading as amended in CD 1 with Representative(s) Fukumoto voting aye with reservations; Representative(s) Cabanilla, Fale, McDermott voting no (3) and none excused (0).
-
I wrote everyone of them. Sen. and Reps. and told them NO VOTE.
-
or vote NO
-
I wrote everyone of them. Sen. and Reps. and told them NO VOTE.
I did too but the basic consensus I got was that because the HRA supported it, they were going to vote YES for it.
-
I did too but the basic consensus I got was that because the HRA supported it, they were going to vote YES for it.
I believe that's the answer they gave to NRA members, HRA members and other 2A supporters- "HRA supports this..." but I'm betting they would have passed it anyway- because this is an answer to placate us without them mentioning another underlying issue. In it's current (pre HB69CD1) form- it also presents a liability to the state. Not in public safety necessarily, but in the way the existing statute for "bringing in a gun legally acquired out of state" is written. With results being a possible class action suit against the State. I don't remember the number 134-7 maybe (or 134-3 maybe??) does not include the requirement for fingerprinting or the registrant having to pay for fingerprinting. Plain and simple. So I believe if someone-anyone- moved here with a long gun they legally acquired before moving here, they legally didn't have to do fingerprinting or pay for it. This is "legally" speaking. I'm also betting the de facto process that the police dept went through for someone bringing in one of these guns was to tell folks they had to do and pay for fingerprinting to get it registered- AND the dept would NOT register the gun unless the registrant did/ paid for fingerprinting. So while it was not in the statute, PD would not register unless folks fingerprinted and paid. I'm also betting someone would rather just "do it", even if it was not legally required, vs not getting their guns registered, and being in violation of that part of statute.
I "think" anyone who brought in a gun (aquired) this way AND had to do fingerprinting and pay for it has a good chance to enter into a law suit against the state for them "de facto" forcing the fingerprinting and payment since it's not "legally required". Knowing the State, any possible financial liability for not following statuate could be the hidden "loophole" that they just didn't discuss outside their private committee discussions.
So are there any 2AHawaii members who moved here and brough in a gun (aquired) legally out of state who also had to do and pay for the fingerprinting to get registered? If there are, I would suggest you contact me or someone (funtimes? I don't know who else) about the possibility of a class action suit against the state for forcing this when it wasn't a requirement. I don't think it matters that SB69 will go through at some future date- I'm talking about the dates after existing statuate was enacted up to when ever SB 69 gets signed into law.
I am not a lawyer. I am not a gun owner, but I am an activist in support of 2A rights and like the idea of the State having to follow existing laws or face the consequences. The only reason I say "contact me" is because I have time to take the names and info of anyone who may have been abused via this de facto registration process AND pass it on to Chris or someone who would know what - if anything- can be done. I'm willing to help in what ever way I can- even if that is simply collecting info for the right party/lawyer??? to look at the possibility.
I could be way wrong on this, but I don't think so. I don't know if a class action suit based on this would help "us", but I can't imagine it would "hurt us"- but I've been wrong before. Also hoping Funtimes or someone w/ legal knowledge steps in now and says something. Something like "that's a bad idea and won't work" or "maybe that's not a bad idea". I'm just the messenger with a questionable message.
-
Contact the Gov and tell him to veto SB69.
808-586-0034
http://governor.hawaii.gov/forms/contact/ (http://governor.hawaii.gov/forms/contact/)
-
SB69 has passed....
SB 69, SD2, HD1, CD1 passed in the form supported by HRA, and opposed by NRA. HRA worked hard through five different committees to remove all references to gun buybacks, special mental health checks by the PD’s, and gun safety taught by the PD’s. The bill affects only individuals already required to register guns they bring in from out of state. Effective July 1, 2013, the county Police Departments will be required to use the National Instant Check System (NICS) on these registrants, a simple phone call to BATFE, plus fingerprint and photograph the registrant and collect the floating FBI fee for fingerprints, currently $16.50, one time only. The window for registering is increased to 3 days from 5. No appropriations are authorized.
For the full bill language, go to: http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2013/bills/SB69_CD1_.htm (http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2013/bills/SB69_CD1_.htm)
from HRA email
-
The way this is written is pretty non-specific I think. It states you must be fingerprinted.. and charged the $16.50 or whatever it is for the FBI to run a fingerprint background check. But it does not state if you can just go there, register and take the gun home with you if you pass the NICS check, or if you must go there and get the NICS check, take pics and prints and wait for the FBI check to come back before they give you back your firearm.
Since they are collecting monies it does not suggest they are fingerprinting just to have you in the system for future use. Or perhaps they are and just do not want to come out and say it.
Either way, this effort was an utter waste of time by law makers and also by people with common sense trying to shoot it down. It will do absolutely nothing to make us safer, prevent crimes... etc.
If I have obtained a firearm illegally on the mainland and brought it over here, am I going to the PD to have them fingerprint me and register it? I think not!
-
The way this is written is pretty non-specific I think. It states you must be fingerprinted.. and charged the $16.50 or whatever it is for the FBI to run a fingerprint background check. But it does not state if you can just go there, register and take the gun home with you if you pass the NICS check, or if you must go there and get the NICS check, take pics and prints and wait for the FBI check to come back before they give you back your firearm.
Since they are collecting monies it does not suggest they are fingerprinting just to have you in the system for future use. Or perhaps they are and just do not want to come out and say it.
Either way, this effort was an utter waste of time by law makers and also by people with common sense trying to shoot it down. It will do absolutely nothing to make us safer, prevent crimes... etc.
If I have obtained a firearm illegally on the mainland and brought it over here, am I going to the PD to have them fingerprint me and register it? I think not!
This. frustrating that the HRA supported this. Get ready for longer lines and more hassles. less business for the hunting. more problems for our service members moving in. and no effect on crime. argh......
-
Can someone please explain to me again why this bill was supported by the HRA? The logic escapes me. ???
As a collector, I have brought several firearms in on my license fron the mainland, each dutifully registerd as required.
On each occasion I have had a valid long gun permit, with its associated background check and fingerprints, and my 03 FFL with it's associated background check.
Should I bring $16.50 in exact change to the station for new prints each time I bring a new addition to the collection, or do you suppose that my prints will be on file?
Seems like we are just creating more red tapeand longer waits.
Inquiring minds want to know.
-
This. frustrating that the HRA supported this. Get ready for longer lines and more hassles. less business for the hunting. more problems for our service members moving in. and no effect on crime. argh......
+1 Zero effect on crime.
-
I don't understand this bill. I've ordered rifles from the CMP which were shipped to me and held a valid rifle permit to acquire and each time I registered it, they did another background check despite having a still valid permit to acquire. I filled out the paperwork as if I applied for another permit to acquire...i.e. medical info, etc
-
This bill targets those who come in from out of state, like moving here, and bring firearms with them. Currently you just fly in with your guns and have 3 days to register them. I am not sure if they do any background check when you do this. When I went through this process however they did take fingerprints and photograph at the time when I imported the guns. You do not however need to wait 14 days or obtain a permit to acquire or have any safety classes and that will stay the same with this bill. Looks like the only difference is that you must pass a background check.
If you are already here and already have a permit to acquire you don't need to go through this whole process again. It will be just like buying a gun at the LGS
-
OUR LEGISLATURE IS STEPPING ALL OVER THEIR PETER AGAIN.
-
This bill targets those who come in from out of state, like moving here, and bring firearms with them. Currently you just fly in with your guns and have 3 days to register them. I am not sure if they do any background check when you do this. When I went through this process however they did take fingerprints and photograph at the time when I imported the guns. You do not however need to wait 14 days or obtain a permit to acquire or have any safety classes and that will stay the same with this bill. Looks like the only difference is that you must pass a background check.
If you are already here and already have a permit to acquire you don't need to go through this whole process again. It will be just like buying a gun at the LGS
Haoleb- you said "when I went through this process, however they did take fingerprints and photographs at the time I imported the guns" If you don't mind answering, were you already a resident of Hawaii who had acquired guns in Hawaii through 134-2, or were you moving here or visiting here, and these were your first guns you registered and owned in Hawaii? I'm still curious if someone who moved here, or visited here and brought guns in AND went through the registration process had to do the fingerprinting. The way I read the existing statute, under this scenario the fingerprinting is not required, and I'm looking for someone who registered via this scenario and also was either asked to do fingerprinting or told they had to do fingerprinting to register. You can PM me if you like, and I would not mind talking on the phone. Thanks
-
I had previously been a Hawaii resident but moved out of state for a couple of years. When I came back I brought with me on the plane a few guns that I had purchased on the mainland. When I went to register them I had to fill out a form or two. I do not recall what exactly was on there but they did want to know where I brought the guns from, and when.. etc
I was then photographed and they had taken fingerprints via ink pad and paper (now they have a digital machine, not sure if they did when I was there the first time) then given my registration papers and left.
-
This. frustrating that the HRA supported this. Get ready for longer lines and more hassles. less business for the hunting. more problems for our service members moving in. and no effect on crime. argh......
HRA supported it after all the onerous language about buybacks etc. was removed.
The bill as passed only does one "new" thing: extends the time period you have to register a firearm brought into the state from 3 to 5 days. Any one bringing a firearm into the state prior to the passage had to register it within 72 hours. They already had to submit to the NICS background check and have their fingerprints taken if they had not previously had them taken. The bill clarifies that the fingerprints can only be taken (and charged for) once.
So how is this going to increase the lines at HPD? You were already required to register those firearms you already owned from out of state? How is this going to affect hunters who bring their firearms into the state to hunt? They too were already required to register their guns within 72 hours of arrival. Now they have an additional 2 days. How is it going to adversely affect the service men and women deployed here who bring their guns with them, besides giving them 2 extra days to register?
As for the wording of the current statues not allowing for fingerprinting, or for charging for the cost of them, you are correct. But the statues do say you need to register the firearms, and HPD interpreted that registration process to be substantially similar to obtaining a PTA, hence the similar process, including the fingerprinting and associated fee. I suspect any legal challenge to this practice would have been fought by HPD and those refusing would not have been able to complete the required registration. Would HPD have been successful in defending its position? I don't know.....
§134-3 Registration, mandatory, exceptions. (a) Every person arriving in the State who brings or by any other manner causes to be brought into the State a firearm of any description, whether usable or unusable, serviceable or unserviceable, modern or antique, shall register the firearm within three days after arrival of the person or of the firearm, whichever arrives later, with the chief of police of the county of the person's place of business or, if there is no place of business, the person's residence or, if there is neither a place of business nor residence, the person's place of sojourn....
And HPD reports that there are a handful of individuals every year that try to register their out of state firearms and are found to be prohibited persons....
-
When I moved I had to do the photo + fingerprint process. I brought handguns and a shotgun with me. I don't recall if they even cared about my CA firearms permit at the time (which is now useless along with the tear gas cert from the 80s! ;) ). What would a class action accomplish at this point?
-
When I moved I had to do the photo + fingerprint process. I brought handguns and a shotgun with me. I don't recall if they even cared about my CA firearms permit at the time (which is now useless along with the tear gas cert from the 80s! ;) ). What would a class action accomplish at this point?
I'll get back to ya since I started the idea....just on my hellphone now, so can't type or see that well. Others may know my idea too. It was basically to try to demonstrate that HPD was doing things that were not specifically required in the statuate (but are addressed/corrected in SB69). It was more a way to show the registration office was doing things which were not required than anything else. I thought if someone could file suit for them making out off state registrant (moving here) do fingerprints (and charge for them) it would simply demonstrate they were not following statute. No one else seemed to like the idea, but Dr Cooper was also aware of the possibility at one of the hearings....possibility for suit. No mention if it would do anything for our cause. That was my idea, or if others had it too, coincidence
-
...and my idea was that somehow demonstrating the registration office didn't follow the existing rules may somehow be useful for CCW suits. ....or even if someone filed suit and it was never follow through (or won) it may be useful to say "heck, they made folks get fingerprints (and pay) when it wasn't required" and somehow this may reinforce the argument that Chief has too much latitude (and no "written rules") for the arbitrary part of his denial for CCW based on "a person of good mental standing" or what ever that part of CCW background checks was. I was influenced by Dr Cooper and Kerry's talk show thing where Dr Cooper said they have too much discretion on approving permits as someone with a bed wetting problem at early teen age was denied permit to aquire many years later. I simply thought it may be useful to show they have too much latitude/arbitrary and how it could help CCW- not to recover $16.50 in fees, etc.
-
OIC - man you guys must be good at "chess not checkers" game :) Glad we're on the same side!
Happy Mother's Day