SB 2957 is really bad.  Beyond the massive inconvenience to gun owners, many doctors will be reluctant to write a medical clearance because of liability issues.  This must be stopped.

For the first one, what's the difference with that and the current medical information/doctor info we have to provide now?  Isn't that what they do already?

I think it needs a clearance in black and white. Wear as the present just requires a phone call.

But I have always put "none" as my physician.

For the first one, what's the difference with that and the current medical information/doctor info we have to provide now?  Isn't that what they do already?

Right now, they send a little note to your Doctor that says "John Smith has applied for a permit....If there is any reason it should not be granted, please notify HPD".   My doctor asked me about the notes.  I had to explain to her that I collect firearms and she's  going to see these notes on a semi-regular basis.

SB2957 would require a positive affirmation from doctors that you are not a danger to yourself or others.  Must be within  90 days of permit application.

STOP THIS BILL

SB2957 is onerous, capricious and absurd. Not that there is anything wrong with that, or even surprising, given the hoplophobia of Hawaii legislators. [Interesting that the spell-check software here doesn't recognize the word "hoplophobia"!]

Requires written verification from primary care physician "who has examined the applicant no more than ninety days prior to submission of the application" that applicant is not a danger to self or others. So if one were to buy 4 firearms per year, on a quarterly basis, you'd have to make 4 separate appointments with your doctor each year to get your written notes so the Hawaii bureaucrats, er, I mean government will allow you to exercise a fundamental individual God-given natural right protected by the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. That makes sense. Good job, Dr. Green. If there is really something magical about mental health and guns and 90 days, then shouldn't, to be logically consistent, everyone owning a gun have to undergo such a "psychological fitness" examination every 90 days whether they purchase any new firearms or not? Or is there something magical about a "new" firearm that doesn't apply to an already possessed "old" firearm? What about people who drive cars? Or have prescription medicines in the medicine cabinets that could be used to overdose? What about people who have plant or insect poisons at home? Why don't you just require a weekly evaluation by a Big Brother-approved "physician" who will verify whether a citizen is fit for citizenship, or needs to be "re-educated"?

So if a person gets a "bad review" in their written note and they are not allowed to purchase a new weapon, shouldn't there be a provision in the bill that upon such a "bad review" that law enforcement is then to immediately go and confiscate all their previously purchased and registered firearms? I thought so.

Let's look at the definitions:

"Danger to others" means a serious threat or attempt to injure another person with the use of a firearm or other dangerous or deadly weapon.

There is no agreed upon, nor effective nor reliable, diagnostic methodology by which such a conclusion can be reached. Not by a psychiatrist, much less a general practitioner. E.g. Adam Lanza: never deemed a threat to self or others despite continual involvement in the mental health system for over 15 years: killed 26 people (20 under the age of 7) in a few minutes. Seeing as how this bill is written by a physician, I suspect that there is something going on (I won't specify as it would be merely amateur psychoanalysis) wherein there is exhibited a belief that physicians are superhuman and can do things and/or have knowledge that no humans can really do or know.

What if the plan to harm others involves use of hands, fists or feet? Are those "dangerous or deadly weapons"? What if the plan is to drown someone? They pass the test because they won't be using a "deadly weapon"? Please explain that one Dr. Green.

"Danger to self" means a serious threat of, or attempted, suicide with the use of a firearm or other dangerous or deadly weapon.

So if you are going to jump off a cliff or take pills or poison or run onto the highway in front of a car you're NOT a "danger to self"? Okay. Whatever, doc.

"Primary care physician" means a licensed physician who practices internal medicine, family practice, or pediatrics, and is designated by the patient as a primary care physician to the patient's insurance provider."

So if you don't have an insurance provider you don't have to get a written note? I notice there is no provision for a "physician assistant" (PA) nor for a "nurse practitioner" (NP) nor for anyone else who actually does, more and more, the actual work in medical offices of interviewing, diagnosing and prescribing. It's almost like this was a bill "making work" for physicians. Like some kind of a law that a physician would write. Oh, wait...

I'm just sayin'...

Since many of the mass shooters did not own their own firearms and acquired them illegally, logically every single man, woman, and child should be quarterly required to go under the scrutiny of the mental health exam.  If found to be nuts, then what?  How do you stop them from acquiring a firearm or other dangerous weapon?  Detention, incarceration, euthanization? 

Since many of the mass shooters did not own their own firearms and acquired them illegally, logically every single man, woman, and child should be quarterly required to go under the scrutiny of the mental health exam.  If found to be nuts, then what?  How do you stop them from acquiring a firearm or other dangerous weapon?  Detention, incarceration, euthanization?

The Liberal/Progressive/Anit-Gun answer is:  destroy all guns, and the gun violence problem will be solved.

Bans always work so well:  alcohol, narcotics, pot, Cuban cigars, ...

Since many of the mass shooters did not own their own firearms and acquired them illegally, logically every single man, woman, and child should be quarterly required to go under the scrutiny of the mental health exam.  If found to be nuts, then what?  How do you stop them from acquiring a firearm or other dangerous weapon?  Detention, incarceration, euthanization?

They (we) won't be found to be "nuts", they (we) will be found to have a "borderline personality disorder", which means "we, who make the rules and have the power to enforce the rules, don't like what you believe and think, nor the questions you ask". The appropriate program of "rehabilitation" will be something that will make sure that not only you, but others who might be thinking the same things, "reform" and don't cause any "trouble".

And what's magical about the "90 days"? The first time someone does something "bad" in fewer than 90 days after "passing" their last exam, the time between exams will be shortened to that duration. When someone does something "bad" after just having passed their exam the day before, well, they'll have to start monitoring every day every single email, blog post, phone call, online purchase, online "searches", bank transaction etc. of every citizen... oh, wait... 

They (we) won't be found to be "nuts", they (we) will be found to have a "borderline personality disorder", which means "we, who make the rules and have the power to enforce the rules, don't like what you believe and think, nor the questions you ask". The appropriate program of "rehabilitation" will be something that will make sure that not only you, but others who might be thinking the same things, "reform" and don't cause any "trouble".

And what's magical about the "90 days"? The first time someone does something "bad" in fewer than 90 days after "passing" their last exam, the time between exams will be shortened to that duration. When someone does something "bad" after just having passed their exam the day before, well, they'll have to start monitoring every day every single email, blog post, phone call, online purchase, online "searches", bank transaction etc. of every citizen... oh, wait... 

Should we not have the same mental health exams and restrictions for the 1st Amendment?  The pen is mightier than the sword.  We shouldn't have insane people hiding behind the 1st A, spreading ideas that may lead to acts of violence or overthrow of the government ... no matter how tyrannical those adjudicated "incompetent" may believe it is.

Should we not have the same mental health exams and restrictions for the 1st Amendment?  The pen is mightier than the sword.  We shouldn't have insane people hiding behind the 1st A, spreading ideas that may lead to acts of violence or overthrow of the government ... no matter how tyrannical those adjudicated "incompetent" may believe it is.

I believe we have some recent examples of the IRS and FBI doing exactly that (suppressing expression of ideas) to non-profit organizations promoting (via the First Amendment) certain political ideas, and investigating/wiretapping certain journalists who may be inclined to to use their First Amendment rights to produce writings not in accord with the views of the existing power structure. We are getting our first serious pervasive intrusions-of-privacy tastes of how "our" government will use it's power to suppress those citizens from whom it's powers supposedly derive. 

t's almost like this was a bill "making work" for physicians. Like some kind of a law that a physician would write. Oh, wait...

I imagine most Doctors would oppose this.  It puts them in a very tricky situation.   They have to evaluate someone they normally see once a year and determine they aren't a danger.   The liability issues around this are enormous.  Suppose they write it and someone does something, will they be liable?   Many, I think, would just blanket refuse to write the letters.

Most People who go into medicine do so to help people, not to become some kind of judge.  If you were a Doctor, would you be in favor of making yourself the gatekeeper to 2nd amendment rights?  On the other hand, if you were an anti-gun politician (Doctor or not)  and wanted a backdoor gun control scheme, then just regulate purchase so much that it is impossible to exercise your right.

I think most Doctors will oppose this.  It puts them in a very tricky situation.   They have to evaluate someone they normally see once a year and determine they aren't a danger.   The liability issues around this are enormous.   Suppose they write it and someone does something, will they be liable?   On the flip side, what if they blanket refuse to write these letters?

 1. There is no known methodology to reliably examine someone and determine accurately whether or not they are a danger to themselves or others. Are they "really" a danger, or only "possibly" a danger? What percentage of "possibly a danger" would disqualify a person? 51%? 49%? 10%? 1%? Please show the scientific evidence of a methodology that would allow someone to come up with those percentages and the criteria used to establish what degree of certainty is correlated with those determinations. (Clue: there aren't any.) Therefore, using the "precautionary principle", or fear of liability, the tendency would be to error on the side of declaring someone "dangerous". If that person turns out to never be dangerous all you have lost is that person's freedom (mandatory pharmaceutical use/therapy and/or incarceration).
2. The government will pass a law shielding the diagnosing individuals (aka "physicians" or "psychologists", or whomever else they deem "qualified", etc.) from liability.
3. Trust me, if virtually every gun purchase/transfer in the state (or even just a high percentage of them) requires a psychological examination by a professional, there will be plenty of people who will be willing to do that. That would be MILLIONS of dollars of visits, and I'm sure that Obamacare would cover it ("If you like that gun, you can buy it... unless we decide by some secret magic formula that you can't."). Just as there are now hand-painted signs high up in trees here in roadside Puna advertising physicians who will write you a prescription for "medical marijuana" (whole-heartedly endorsed by co-sponsor Senator Ruderman), there will be a cadre of willing physicians who will become known for their lax evaluations of "not dangerous", and make a ton of money off of it. There is no way that every single physician in the state will refuse to do evaluations.

Most People who go into medicine do so to help people, not to become some kind of judge.  If you were a Doctor, would you be in favor of making yourself the gatekeeper to 2nd amendment rights?  On the other hand, if you were an anti-gun politician (Dr or not)  and wanted a backdoor gun control scheme, this is a pretty good one.

There are a LOT of people, including some percentage of physicians (such as, apparently, bill sponsor/creator Senator Dr. Green), who view SB2957 as "common sense gun safety legislation". There are a large number of physicians who view gun ownership as a "public health problem" (see: Obamacare, with it's required asking of patients by physicians if there is a gun in the home). There is a whole group of physicians who have earned a living for many years doing (advocacy pseudoscience) research through grants from CDC, et. al. "proving" that guns are "bad". I think Green and many other people want every "gatekeeper" possible before citizens are allowed to exercise their inherent rights as guaranteed by the Second Amendment. I don't see this effort as "backdoor"... it looks like a full frontal assault to me.

I think it needs a clearance in black and white. Wear as the present just requires a phone call.

But I have always put "none" as my physician.

As others have said, the current process treats a non-response from your doctor as "not adversely affected." The language of SB 2957 says you must have an affirmative response from your doctor or the process stops and you don't get your gun. Besides the liability issue, it is a workload issue as well. Most private doctors are very busy, get reimbursed at a significantly lower rate than they bill for, and are unlikely to view generating a report for the purpose of buying a gun as a high priority. And, something they cannot bill for.....

As for claiming you don't have a doctor on "the forms." be careful. If you don't have one, it's no problem, but purposefully providing false information on that little form is a felony.....