And you guys are surprise that  the government pull a fast one on all of us, trust me some of these bills theirs more gun afirmitive action all hidden in bills just that politicians know how to hide it under people's eyes, sneaky politicians, welcome to the Game of Arms, politicians using big words to hide their agenda under certain bills and they wash it with other bills so no one notice, it goes on in congress it goes on every where, while the Florida shootings was going on with all the commotions, politicians pull one fast one on everyone in Hawaii, it troubles me that this happen but we live in a democratic state, and we have to take it, if this was a republic control state this stuff would not fly, politicians would shoot down these bills before it get to the floor.

It's wasn't really "pulling a fast one".  We tried to get the info out there, we tried to get participation, we tried and mostly achieved a pretty good opposition to these bills.  The problem is these politicians DO NOT CARE.  Even with overwhelming opposition they went forward anyway.  What is the reason you might ask?  People DON'T VOTE THEM OUT.  Why should they care if they are doing a good job or not?  They never get fired. So they continue what they're doing.

Based on the FBI's rules and the Privacy Act, they have to notify you your fingerprints will be added to the NGI/RAP-BACK database.  Since they never did that for previous registrations, the only way they can "fix" that is try to invalidate the registrations so you have to come in and re-register the guns.  Just sending out a form to sign won't work because they already completed the registration.  Unless you no longer qualify to own guns, they can't revoke a valid registration for not signing a form that didn't exist before this month!

And there's the ex post facto rule. So you've got over 1 million guns not in the database, and a handful in it. And the Dims are lauding this as some historic gun control accomplishment. Sounds about right.

If I'm wrong ,I m wrong please correct me but suppressing opinions without anyone correcting the underlying events that I stated is no better then China controlling the media. If I'm wrong I'm wrong and in this statement I made, I'm wrong, so wrong opinions make it right to delete without having the 2ahawaii community correcting me, 2ahawaii should think about it, does 2ahawaii want to delete someones opinion right or wrong or correct it.

If I'm wrong ,I m wrong please correct me but suppressing opinions without anyone correcting the underlying events that I stated is no better then China controlling the media. If I'm wrong I'm wrong and in this statement I made, I'm wrong, so wrong opinions make it right to delete without having the 2ahawaii community correcting me, 2ahawaii should think about it, does 2ahawaii want to delete someones opinion right or wrong or correct it.

I am not seeing any of your posts that were deleted
You made a post in another thread that is still up
Perhaps you are looking in the wrong place


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How do you know so much about the privacy act?

Every government form I ever signed or had others sign required privacy act notification.  The general rule has always been, the government can't require you, outside of a criminal case or investigation, to give them personal information (SSAN, etc.), and can't share it with anyone they don't disclose, keep it on file for longer than needed, or use it for purposes other than reasons stated on the form.  By opting to not disclose requested information, however, you may not get whatever it is you are applying for.

I'm not a lawyer.  I not only had to understand the Privacy Act for my own information security practices, but also in my job working for the government. 

On the ATF 4473, this is in the instructions.  18 U.S.C. 923(g) outlines the FFL's record keeping requirements per ATF rules.  That code identifies in detail what info to collect, why it is collected, and how long it is to be retained, and in what form.



Notice the term "Solicitation", which to me implies this is a request, not a demand.  You can opt to not provide the information, but expect to have the application denied depending on what info you withheld.

On the ATF 4473, this is in the instructions.  18U.S.G. 923(g) outlines the FFL's record keeping requirements per ATF rules.



Notice the term "Solicitation", which to me implies this is a request, not a demand.  You can opt to not provide the information, but expect to have the application denied depending on what info you withheld.

The Registration form held by HPD is not a 4473, is not an ATF or federal form but a State form.  The Privacy Act of 1974 allows for sharing of data under certain circumstances (Like for Like) By providing HPD with finger prints and such  they could argue you have given consent.
I am not saying this to be a dick but rather looking at if from the point of view on how i would defend this if i were the city/state.

The Registration form held by HPD is not a 4473, is not an ATF or federal form but a State form.  The Privacy Act of 1974 allows for sharing of data under certain circumstances (Like for Like) By providing HPD with finger prints and such  they could argue you have given consent.
I am not saying this to be a dick but rather looking at if from the point of view on how i would defend this if i were the city/state.

Dude, this was an EXAMPLE of what should be on government forms requesting information:  what, why, if mandatory, and retention.

Here's the HRS statute on sharing information with other agencies. 

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol02_Ch0046-0115/HRS0092F/HRS_0092F-0019.htm

The first paragraph says:

Limitations on disclosure of government records to other agencies.  (a)  No agency may disclose or authorize disclosure of government records to any other agency unless the disclosure is:

     (1)  Necessary for the performance of the requesting agency's duties and functions and is also:

         (A)  Compatible with the purpose for which the information was collected or obtained; or

         (B)  Consistent with the conditions or reasonable expectations of use and disclosure under which the information was provided;

The PURPOSE for which the information was collected in the past was for approval or denial of an applicant's permit to ACQUIRE.  Once that permit is approved and the firearm acquired, that should be the end of it.  The purpose of the information was realized, and is no longer authorized for additional uses.  The purpose was never to use that information to continually monitor the REGISTRANT for future revocation of that permit/registration.  Once you get past the permit process, then you have to look into the purpose for the registration information.  That's a little more vague.  It's primary use is to establish a means of identifying the owner of a firearm as part of an investigation.  That's being flipped around now to determine not which person owns a specific firearm, but what firearms a person owns. 

I say it's vague because the purpose for registration isn't on the forms nor in the statutes.  The best I can deduce is you are required to register all guns because the law says you have to!

Of course, the registration process is just the process.  The real reasons have to do with control and verification.  The Cops want to verify the guns meet Hawaii "legal to own" laws. verify you are who you claim to be, check the lineage (where you got it), look for guns which were stolen, assign an owner so they know who to hold legally responsible should they find a violation, etc.  There's no way they are going to list all the potential uses of a registration on the form or anywhere in writing.  The best we could get would be just a vague "IAW HRS 134-2 and HRS134-3". the same thing that's on the permit to acquire.

Again, looking what the city/state could say. 

the purpse of the form and fingerprinting is to conduct a background check to check for eligibility of owning a firearm in Hawaii, Rap-back is checking the same eligibility

Again, looking what the city/state could say. 

the purpse of the form and fingerprinting is to conduct a background check to check for eligibility of owning a firearm in Hawaii, Rap-back is checking the same eligibility

You're paraphrasing.  The purpose of the Permit to Acquire is to acquire a firearm.  The purpose of the NICS background, mental health background, and personal information provided on the application is to be used for the purpose of approving or denying the permit to acquire.

Rap-Back monitors subscribed individuals for ID purposes when a reporting condition triggers a notification to the subscribing agency.  What the subscriber (HPD) does with that is NOT part of RAP-BACK.  In other words, RAP-BACK doesn't have a list of Hawaii-specific triggers that only report to HPD when they are activated, e.g. domestic violence, gun crimes, felonies, drug crimes, etc.  RAP-BACK has its own triggering criteria the subscriber selects from.

Are you sure because my anger against gov Ige and his policies are all wrong I didn't even vote for him because he didn't even have a real job all his life, I like curt Caldwell he finds balance, he's not going to be on gun rights all the time maybe 25% of the time , but it beats Ige 0% of the time. I stand corrected I'm sorry