From HRA

Hawaii Rifle Association
State Affiliate of the National Rifle Association - Founded in 1857
March 12, 2016
 
The Senate Public Safety Committee, Chairman Senator Clarence K. Nishihara, will hear 3 gun bills Tuesday, March 15, 2016.
 
Please go to capitol.hawaii.gov , sign in, and click on the orange "submit testimony" button to send testimony on all three bills.
 
Deadline to submit testimony, 1:20pm Monday March 14.
 
HB625  Includes misdemeanor stalking among the offenses that disqualify a person from owning, possessing, or controlling any firearm or ammunition. 4th degree stalking can be as little as sending unwanted texts or e-mails, and conviction means permanent loss of gun rights, restorable only by Governor's pardon.  OPPOSE.  Support if 4th degree stalking removed.
 
HB626 Petty misdemeanor for drinking alcohol outside your home while possessing a firearm.  Former Mayor Carlisle's "Deedy" bill.  Targets police, as no one else can lawfully carry.  OPPOSE.  Off duty police carrying is a public safety benefit.  The courts may eventually force Hawaii police chiefs to issue carry permits to civilians.  Needs an amendment specifying .08 alcohol level.
 
HB2629 Requires the county police to enroll all gun permit applicants and those registering firearms in "Rap Back," a FBI data base of individuals arrested anywhere in the US, including on misdemeanor and even some civil charges.  A fee of approximately $50 will be charged.  The system is used now to screen job applicants for sensitive jobs, like foster parents, etc.  No state currently uses it for firearms acquisitions.  HRA OPPOSES.  It creates a permanent federal list of firearms owners and charges a fee for exercising a civil right.
                 
MAHALO,

HARVEY GERWIG, LEGISLATIVE LIAISON and PRESIDENT, HRA
EMAIL:  HGHAWAII@GMAIL.COM,    PHONE:  (808) 306-7194

They changed the wording for the alcohol bill, however, IMO it is not needed.  When we are allowed to CCW then I may consider supporting something like this bill.

As for the others testimoniy above is how I feel.

No due process of law is unconstitutional.  One should be convicted of a actual crime BEFORE rights are removed. That is the whole point of the constitution and the spirit of freedom.  Arbitrary removal of rights is NOT constitutional.

I was wondering about the due process argument. Not every law has some due process clause in it. So if I am going to go make the argument that there is no due process in the way the new law is written, I want to make sure that I don't get blindsided by them just pointing to some coverall law that says "appeal to any action under these laws can be made through the court by doing......"

I was wondering about the due process argument. Not every law has some due process clause in it. So if I am going to go make the argument that there is no due process in the way the new law is written, I want to make sure that I don't get blindsided by them just pointing to some coverall law that says "appeal to any action under these laws can be made through the court by doing......"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_Process_Clause

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution each contain a due process clause. Due process deals with the administration of justice and thus the due process clause acts as a safeguard from arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property by the Government outside the sanction of law.[1] The Supreme Court of the United States interprets the clauses more broadly because these clauses provide four protections: procedural due process (in civil and criminal proceedings), substantive due process, a prohibition against vague laws, and as the vehicle for the incorporation of the Bill of Rights. Due process ensures the rights and equality of all citizens.

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides:
[N]or shall any person . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . . .[5]
Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides:
[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . . .[6]

The city and state of Hawaii seems to do all of the above regularly with any and all legislation they come up with....  Vagueness, no due process, arbitrary removal of rights based on whatevaz....

Yet life goes on.  More and more it feels like this place is not even a part of the USA.   No wonder Amazon won't ship select items to me, they were right, I am in an other country... heh

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_Process_Clause
The city and state of Hawaii seems to do all of the above regularly with any and all legislation they come up with....  Vagueness, no due process, arbitrary removal of rights based on whatevaz....

Yet life goes on.  More and more it feels like this place is not even a part of the USA.   No wonder Amazon won't ship select items to me, they were right, I am in an other country... heh

I am not sure if there really is no due process. Just because these specific laws do not list a due process procedure doesn't mean that there isn't one that covers them. That is what I want to know because that is what is part of the argument. The vagueness is very true also though.

I am not sure if there really is no due process. Just because these specific laws do not list a due process procedure doesn't mean that there isn't one that covers them. That is what I want to know because that is what is part of the argument. The vagueness is very true also though.

You are right.  I was thinking of the other bill.  The bills above probably don't apply to that.  I just thought about due process from your question on it.
I still stand by my testimony though.

Just submitted testimony. 
I encourage everyone to do the same

done

I have to be in town in the morning but not sure I can bleed away my whole day tomorrow to testify. Any idea how long these things can go? Looks like 7 or 8 bills are going to be heard at the 1:30 start time.

My testimony for HB2629

According to a 2009 report on facial recognition technology authored by Helen Nissenbaum and Lucas Introna, the Next Generation Identification (NGI) project aggressively being pushed by the FBI actually hinders intelligence by creating false positives and wasting resources on needless investigations. The rap-back scheme is a way of implementing NGI for the non-criminal population, which inefficiently attempts to find “needles in the haystack” by piling more hay on the stack.

It also has devastating consequences for privacy and civil liberties, but here my main concern is with biometric technology that can never hope to keep up with such a huge often-homogeneous data set. I already have one doppelganger on the North Shore that I know about. Lucky for me he's a good guy, and lucky for him so am I but if one of us did get into trouble and had our facial features scanned by a NGI-connected camera then the other could be investigated and possibly prosecuted for crimes they did not commit. All this because one of us was 'voluntarily' signed up to be scanned into machines that have no business sifting through the facial geometries of 300,000,000 people.

You may think I'm exaggerating, but do your own research through the Electronic Frontier Foundation instead of browsing the latest promotional material from FBI that gives itself glowing reviews while ignoring the consequences. What if this system ever falls into the wrong hands? What if you, in your duties as a government official, are forced to make a choice between your constituents and an all-powerful oligarchy that knows everything about you? That's pretty much the antithesis of democracy and the death of the republic. 

If you haven't seen the movie Brazil by Terry Gilliam then I suggest you watch the opening scene where a machine makes an error, changing the last name on an arrest warrant from Mr. Tuttle to Mr. Buttle. This results in an innocent family man getting ambushed by a militarized police force, extraordinarily renditioned, indefinitely detained with enhanced interrogation, and finally targeted for assassination as an enemy combatant. It most definitely CAN happen here, and your recent familiarity with those specific terms means you are aware that it's been happening for a while now.

Rap-back is a waste of resources that puts us all in danger. In the end there is no substitute for good old-fashioned police work, and the current system seems to be working just fine. 

From reading the updated bill on firearms and intoxication, I am no longer against it. Instead of just possession it says physical possession and it also says outside of the home. So basically someone carrying a gun around can't be intoxicated. This isa law I would favor if there was CCW anyway.       

From reading the updated bill on firearms and intoxication, I am no longer against it. Instead of just possession it says physical possession and it also says outside of the home. So basically someone carrying a gun around can't be intoxicated. This isa law I would favor if there was CCW anyway.     

The bill does NOT state "intoxicated", and gives no definition of what intoxicated would be even if it did.

"(g)  No person shall be in actual physical possession of any firearm outside of a residence, a temporary residence, or place of sojourn while consuming any alcohol, as defined in section 291E-1."

"They" like these vague ambiguous laws because they can stretch/interpret them to mean almost anything they want them to. As written, technically a person could no have "actual physical possession" and consume alcohol and then "be in actual physical possession of any firearm" and not be chargeable under this statute, since it requires that one be BOTH "in actual physical possession" AND "consuming any alcohol". Someone hands their firearm to a buddy, takes a drink, takes the firearm back: not chargeable. If they want to have a law that says you can't be intoxicated (and define intoxication) and possess a firearm outside the home, they should just write that bill. How hard is that? One has to wonder what their real goal is since plain language is so simple to understand.

How about this:

"(g)  No person shall be in actual physical possession of any firearm outside of a residence, a temporary residence, or place of sojourn while intoxicated (.08 blood alcohol or greater) or demonstrably physically or mentally impaired by any intoxicating substance (subject to blood test verification). "

The bill does NOT state "intoxicated", and gives no definition of what intoxicated would be even if it did.

"(g)  No person shall be in actual physical possession of any firearm outside of a residence, a temporary residence, or place of sojourn while consuming any alcohol, as defined in section 291E-1."

"They" like these vague ambiguous laws because they can stretch/interpret them to mean almost anything they want them to. As written, technically a person could no have "actual physical possession" and consume alcohol and then "be in actual physical possession of any firearm" and not be chargeable under this statute, since it requires that one be BOTH "in actual physical possession" AND "consuming any alcohol". Someone hands their firearm to a buddy, takes a drink, takes the firearm back: not chargeable. If they want to have a law that says you can't be intoxicated (and define intoxication) and possess a firearm outside the home, they should just write that bill. How hard is that? One has to wonder what their real goal is since plain language is so simple to understand.

How about this:

"(g)  No person shall be in actual physical possession of any firearm outside of a residence, a temporary residence, or place of sojourn while intoxicated (.08 blood alcohol or greater) or demonstrably physically or mentally impaired by any intoxicating substance (subject to blood test verification). "

That would be a better version of this law.

no...they won't abuse the database....

http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/31469838/denver-monitor-urges-steep-penalty-for-crime-database-abuse

Just read through today's submitted testimony on HB 626, simultaneously possessing a firearm and consuming alcohol criminalization bill.

Overwhelming opposition (I didn't do a count).

Noticed that both HPD and HRA's Max Cooper submitted testimony for bills other than HB 626.

From HRA:

---------------------------------------------

Hawaii Rifle Association
State Affiliate of the National Rifle Association - Founded in 1857
 
March 16, 2016

Decision on all three BAD gun bills heard by the Senate Committee on Public Safety, Intergovernmental and Military Affairs was deferred until next Tuesday, March 22. IT IS TIME FOR ACTION!  WE NEED TO KILL THESE BILLS BEFORE THEY MOVE FORWARD AND IT'S TOO LATE.
 
Contact the Committee Chair, Senator Clarence Nishihara at sennishihara@capitol.hawaii.gov, or call him at 808-586-6970 or fax him at 586-6879.
Also, contact the Committee Vice Chair, Senator Will Espero at senespero@capitol.hawaii.gov, or call him at 808-586-6360 or fax him at 808-586-6361.
Let them know your concerns and displeasure.
 
You should also contact your district Representative and Senator if you are a registered voter. If you aren't sure who that is, go to: www.capitol.hawaii.gov and on the upper right of the page, enter your street name where it says "Find your legislator".  This is an election year and they need to know that you vote and you are watching how they vote on bills affecting your Second Amendment rights.  Be sure to identify your district in all contacts with your legislators.
 
The bills are:
HB 625, HD1 - Misdemeanor Stalking (includes unwanted text messages, calls, and emails) disqualifies ownership, possession, or control of a firearm
HB 626, HD 1 - Consumption of any alcohol (no quantification identified) while in possess of a firearm is a misdemeanor
HB 2629, HD2 - Enrolls all firearm applicants in the federal Rap Back system at the cost of the firearm applicant, about $50.

MAHALO,

HARVEY GERWIG, LEGISLATIVE LIAISON and PRESIDENT, HRA
EMAIL:  HGHAWAII@GMAIL.COM,    PHONE:  (808) 306-7194