The problem with the generic term "background check", it could entail too little or too much personal information, none of which is guaranteed to prevent the purchase of a firearm in and of itself......

A very thought out reply. I too would find a quick check such as you mentioned entirely reasonable. These checks should on average only take 15 minutes per person unless there are certain serious red flags that need further investigation. I was not aware though that there is a backlog of info not in the system though. There is no excuse for that.

I don't fully understand the doctor and patient privacy rules so I am not sure exactly when a doctor could be required to inform the police. I do believe that they are required to inform authorities if there is imminent danger though. If the doctor fails to inform the police of an individual diagnosed with a dangerous mental condition or the doctor fails to properly recognize a dangerous condition then the system will fail. In the case of my adopter brother, once he turns 18 are his juvie records sealed? I don't know. Or if I know my son is dangerously mentally unstable but I cannot afford a psychological diagnosis, once he turns 18 what legal block stands in his way? At least though, the crazy ones do not make up a large portion of the gun murders in this country.

The second flaw I see is that if there is no system that tracks ownership of a firearm by a person then there is no way to take away the gun already owned by someone who becomes diagnosed with a dangerous mental condition, or some appropriate violent felony conviction. I realize the double edged nature of requiring firearms to be registered but it is also essential if we are expecting to be able to take away guns from certain dangerous people. Thus I have mixed feelings on gun registration. I sure do hope though that if we got invaded by some foreign enemy, someone at HPD would have the wherewithal to delete the gun registry.

And the third flaw I see is in the private sales where background checks are not required. (Not in Hawaii but in other states) A private citizen has no way to ensure that they are not selling their firearm to someone who should be restricted from firearm ownership. The system in Hawaii, even though cumbersome, does prevent this. I do think though that perhaps this could be remedied by some system where a seller is able to consult law enforcement with the information of the potential buyer and get the OK. This would be easier than going back and forth to the police station 3 times.

I realize that of course even a perfect system would not prevent a person from getting a gun through the means of theft but I still feel there are some flaws.

You want a list? It would take some time and space to make a comprehensive list. How about a simple basic one? I would say many felony crimes of violence would qualify.. Attempted murder for example.

I am not OK with innocent people being caught up and denied fundamental rights. I never said I condone the use of such a list, I merely listed a myriad of examples where someone might consider the denial of the right to own firearms as being justified.

I didn't notice the question of what I would do if I were on the list, sorry. If I were on the list I would fight it. I would start by making complaints or inquiries to the appropriate agency. If that didn't work perhaps contact a representative. Next could be the media or seeking a remedy through the courts. I am sure there are other options available I am unaware of.

Sorry, it certainly sounded like you supported the terror watch list and using that list to restrict rights, including innocent people who would then have to fight to prove their innocence. You said:

And yes I do realize that a terror watch list could be abused or catch up innocent people but all the monday morning quarter backs in the world would ask why the guy on a terror watch list was legally allowed to buy a firearm the day after he killed multiple people. I do believe the courts ruled that people are allowed to petition the government to remove their name from the no fly list now though.

Either your naivete or your willful ignorance make your suggestions that innocents on some governmental watchlist can just make a few calls or go to the newspaper to remedy the problem laughable. Anyone caught up in the maze of bureaucracy and administrative roadblocks that are the hallmarks of this type of program will tell you it is anything but easy. The criteria for getting on the list is minimal and the obstacles to get off of it nearly insurmountable.

The watchlist tracks “known” and “suspected” terrorists and includes both foreigners and Americans. It’s also based on loose standards and secret evidence, which ensnares innocent people. Indeed, the standards are so low that the US government’s guidelines specifically allow for a single, uncorroborated source of information – including a Facebook or Twitter post – to serve as the basis for placing you on its master watchlist.

Of the 680,000 individuals on that FBI master list, roughly 40% have “no recognized terrorist group affiliation”

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/30/terrorist-watch-list-rules-innocent-people

And while the list has snared many innocents, it has failed to stop those on the list from flying, the most notable example is the Christmas Day underwear bomb plotter Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who had a record in TIDE (the master list used for the terror watch list and the no-fly list)  but still boarded a plane to the United States in 2009. So the program fails at its primary mission and ensnares multiple innocents with some routine, and that is the list you think is a valid argument by "someone" who thinks it should be used to restrict rights?

What felonies should NOT disqualify you from owning a firearm?

I am most interested in HB710.  I sent testimony on 3 bills according to the instructions on HRA's site and contacted my representative with specific info about Maui county's difficult application process for ccw. 

Thanks to this forum I will now be following Peruta, Baker, Young, and some house bills.

Either your naivete or your willful ignorance make your suggestions that innocents on some governmental watchlist can just make a few calls or go to the newspaper to remedy the problem laughable. Anyone caught up in the maze of bureaucracy and administrative roadblocks that are the hallmarks of this type of program will tell you it is anything but easy. The criteria for getting on the list is minimal and the obstacles to get off of it nearly insurmountable.

I never made it sound easy, you asked me what I would do and I listed the steps I would take.

And while the list has snared many innocents, it has failed to stop those on the list from flying, the most notable example is the Christmas Day underwear bomb plotter Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who had a record in TIDE (the master list used for the terror watch list and the no-fly list)  but still boarded a plane to the United States in 2009. So the program fails at its primary mission and ensnares multiple innocents with some routine, and that is the list you think is a valid argument by "someone" who thinks it should be used to restrict rights?

Sounds like the system isn't being operated properly. If the system worked properly and prevented those people from flying would you be more supportive of it?

What felonies should NOT disqualify you from owning a firearm?

I would say perhaps most that don't involve any element of violence, once a person has served their time. However if someone has a large number of convictions for felonies, violent or not, then perhaps that wight could be taken away.

I would say that there is always the process of wiping your record as a way to reinstate your rights but as I have heard it is immensely complicated to do that in Hawaii.

Please let us know when Maui P.D. provides you with the information you need to attempt to get their permission to exercise your natural unalienable civil right to bear arms.

Maui county ccw application update:

I asked a whole list of people about the test, no one knew what it was.  I went back to the records dept today and asked again.  I was politely persistent.  None of the clerks knew, so they sent the supervisor out to help me.  She said there is no definitive test. If there were a specific test, then it would be listed and described. The burden is on the applicant to structure their own proof of firearms proficiency with the oversight of a certified instructor.  This is very interesting. Basically everything is at the discretion of the chief of police, including the firearms proficiency test that the applicant submits. 

At this point I CAN NOT even apply for a ccw.  Sorry, guys. I sure tried!


I am content in my search for information at the moment. It will take me some time to decide whether or not to pursue the "test" on my own. It would require planning, practice, and financial investment.  Until there are any significant changes to the laws, I imagine it is an exercise in futility.  Everyone who knows anything says I absolutely will be denied.  A law enforcement friend said I might have to become a private investigator if I wanted to carry.  Have any of you ever considered that?  A career change just so you can carry?

Do you have another state CCW such as Utah?  Prior military?  NRA certification?  try submitting those.  Will probably be denied anyways, but the point is to show demand for CCW.

Do you have another state CCW such as Utah?  Prior military?  NRA certification?  try submitting those.  Will probably be denied anyways, but the point is to show demand for CCW.

I doubt that demand or lack of demand has anything to do with whether they issue a permit or not.

I doubt that demand or lack of demand has anything to do with whether they issue a permit or not.

No doubt. If 10% of the population applied, they'd deny licenses to 10% of the population. However, I believe that at some point somewhere some official (somebody help me out here... HiCarry? Funtimes?) stated that the failure to issue CCW licenses wasn't really an issue of any import BECAUSE so very few people apply that it indicates there is no real interest in it anyway. Apparently the supposition being that if so very few people want to exercise their rights, it's alright for government to violate the Constitution and deny them the exercise of those rights. A novel legal theory to say the least. If that is an argument, I'd ask what is the necessary number or percentage requesting to exercise their civil rights when it becomes NOT okay for the government to deny those rights? As a followup question I'd ask how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Do you have another state CCW such as Utah?  Prior military?  NRA certification?  try submitting those.  Will probably be denied anyways, but the point is to show demand for CCW.

I would consider setting up a test that emulated mpd or sherif.  The records dept supervisor specifically said they were NOT asking for a safety or training course.  For the moment, our only public range: Ukumehame is closed because the Nēnē are nesting.

No I don't have a ccw, military, or NRA cert. I've lived in Hawaii since 1999.  Maui is rumored to be particularly harsh in denying ccw even to retired law enforcement officers.  Making them perform difficult tests as a requirement.  I know one officer who carries concealed, and even he wasn't able to offer much immediate help.  His suggestions showed how difficult Maui's current laws are. I may try to move forward with this, but it will be slow.  Sorry about that. A closed range is part of that problem

I never made it sound easy, you asked me what I would do and I listed the steps I would take.

Sounds like the system isn't being operated properly. If the system worked properly and prevented those people from flying would you be more supportive of it?

I would say perhaps most that don't involve any element of violence, once a person has served their time. However if someone has a large number of convictions for felonies, violent or not, then perhaps that wight could be taken away.

I would say that there is always the process of wiping your record as a way to reinstate your rights but as I have heard it is immensely complicated to do that in Hawaii.

But, IMHO, your seemingly cavalier attitude towards the difficulties encountered by individuals presumed to be innocent until proven guilty, who are supposed to be given fair opportunity to address their accusers, certainly appear to make you very supportive of this fatally flawed system. Then, you further show your naivete or willful ignorance when you ask if I would support it if it "worked properly." And therein lays my concern. You seem incapable of realizing that by their very nature these types of bureaucratic systems, especially those have have been granted seemingly extrajudicial powers, inevitably don't work "properly." Denying otherwise law abiding individuals from exercising their rights should be fraught with difficulties for those seeking to limit rights. The system should favor the individual in terms of correcting mistakes and inevitable paperwork screw ups, not shield the governmental functionaries from scrutiny when those mistakes happen.

Restoring your rights is yet another typical perversion of the supposed checks and balances on governmental overreach. As you said, once you serve your time you should be able to at least start the process to restore your rights. One might quibble about the specifics but at least we agree with the concept. Yet, those same people you think can somehow magically turn this dysfunctional system around and manage the terror watch list "properly", effectively shut down anyone's chances of restoring your rights by defunding the program meant to effect this process.

And this may be the fundamental problem in terms of arguing gun rights with you. You believe that a big, intrusive, powerful governmental agency tasked to enforce these types of "common sense" laws will actually do their job with wisdom, benevolence, and a concern for the rights of those under their charge. While I believe that such an agency, inevitably, will grow ineffective, ask for even more intrusive and powerful "tools" when the original ones fail to accomplish the originally stated goals, and will ignore the rights of those very people it was originally tasked to protect in order to preserve itself and continue receiving funding. One need not look far to see the many examples of just such a genesis. The ATF, for example. We're supposed to trust that an agency that was willing to set up one of its own agents and lie in Federal Court is going to be concerned about us peons?

No doubt. If 10% of the population applied, they'd deny licenses to 10% of the population. However, I believe that at some point somewhere some official (somebody help me out here... HiCarry? Funtimes?) stated that the failure to issue CCW licenses wasn't really an issue of any import BECAUSE so very few people apply that it indicates there is no real interest in it anyway. Apparently the supposition being that if so very few people want to exercise their rights, it's alright for government to violate the Constitution and deny them the exercise of those rights. A novel legal theory to say the least. If that is an argument, I'd ask what is the necessary number or percentage requesting to exercise their civil rights when it becomes NOT okay for the government to deny those rights? As a followup question I'd ask how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

In the past the police have testified that concealed carry isn't a big deal and that "we" were just a vocal minority. No one was really interested in concealed carry or there would be more applicants, they would say.

Furthermore, when Funtimes started his legal endeavors, he had several others apply for CCWs knowing they would be rejected. When the AG's yearly report came out, the number of applicants was much less than it should have been based on Funtime's personal knowledge of the many others that had applied.

So, the basis for the effort to get more applicants was to address the first issue (no "real" interest in CCW in Hawaii) and the documentation of the denials was to address the questionable numbers of applicants reported by the AG's office.

Hope that fills in some of the background info for everyone.

In the past the police have testified that concealed carry isn't a big deal and that "we" were just a vocal minority. No one was really interested in concealed carry or there would be more applicants, they would say.

Furthermore, when Funtimes started his legal endeavors, he had several others apply for CCWs knowing they would be rejected. When the AG's yearly report came out, the number of applicants was much less than it should have been based on Funtime's personal knowledge of the many others that had applied.

So, the basis for the effort to get more applicants was to address the first issue (no "real" interest in CCW in Hawaii) and the documentation of the denials was to address the questionable numbers of applicants reported by the AG's office.

Hope that fills in some of the background info for everyone.

not only that, but it shows a lot of lies... like them saying no other process servers etc. have ever applied.  You know, except for my boss, who went with me on the same day and I typed up his narrative and we did the whole thing together lol.

not only that, but it shows a lot of lies... like them saying no other process servers etc. have ever applied.  You know, except for my boss, who went with me on the same day and I typed up his narrative and we did the whole thing together lol.

Hi, Chirs. Thanks for chiming in on this one. Do you expect me to really believe that my "public servants", who I pay to serve me (duh!), would intentionally lie to me in order to facilitate imposing an unconstitutional denial of my civil rights? Well, that'd be a first... oh, wait...

 

No doubt. If 10% of the population applied, they'd deny licenses to 10% of the population. However, I believe that at some point somewhere some official (somebody help me out here... HiCarry? Funtimes?) stated that the failure to issue CCW licenses wasn't really an issue of any import BECAUSE so very few people apply that it indicates there is no real interest in it anyway. Apparently the supposition being that if so very few people want to exercise their rights, it's alright for government to violate the Constitution and deny them the exercise of those rights. A novel legal theory to say the least. If that is an argument, I'd ask what is the necessary number or percentage requesting to exercise their civil rights when it becomes NOT okay for the government to deny those rights? As a followup question I'd ask how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Good point. I do suppose that the more numbers you have the weaker the argument that they could make that only "isolated gun nuts" want them.

But, IMHO, your seemingly cavalier attitude towards the difficulties encountered by individuals presumed to be innocent until proven guilty, who are supposed to be given fair opportunity to address their accusers, certainly appear to make you very supportive of this fatally flawed system. Then, you further show your naivete or willful ignorance when you ask if I would support it if it "worked properly." And therein lays my concern. You seem incapable of realizing that by their very nature these types of bureaucratic systems, especially those have have been granted seemingly extrajudicial powers, inevitably don't work "properly." Denying otherwise law abiding individuals from exercising their rights should be fraught with difficulties for those seeking to limit rights. The system should favor the individual in terms of correcting mistakes and inevitable paperwork screw ups, not shield the governmental functionaries from scrutiny when those mistakes happen.

Restoring your rights is yet another typical perversion of the supposed checks and balances on governmental overreach. As you said, once you serve your time you should be able to at least start the process to restore your rights. One might quibble about the specifics but at least we agree with the concept. Yet, those same people you think can somehow magically turn this dysfunctional system around and manage the terror watch list "properly", effectively shut down anyone's chances of restoring your rights by defunding the program meant to effect this process.

And this may be the fundamental problem in terms of arguing gun rights with you. You believe that a big, intrusive, powerful governmental agency tasked to enforce these types of "common sense" laws will actually do their job with wisdom, benevolence, and a concern for the rights of those under their charge. While I believe that such an agency, inevitably, will grow ineffective, ask for even more intrusive and powerful "tools" when the original ones fail to accomplish the originally stated goals, and will ignore the rights of those very people it was originally tasked to protect in order to preserve itself and continue receiving funding. One need not look far to see the many examples of just such a genesis. The ATF, for example. We're supposed to trust that an agency that was willing to set up one of its own agents and lie in Federal Court is going to be concerned about us peons?

I am sorry but you are mistaken. I have always been a strong critic of the inability to appeal being placed on a watch list and I was happy to hear when the courts (supreme court?) ruled that people do have the right to challenge their name being on the terror watch list. I am able to look at the idea of a watch list independently of whether it was implemented properly in this instance. The unconstitutional nature that the no-fly list was employed does not mean it is impossible to implement a watch list that is effective without denying citizens their rights.

Your main argument appears to just be undermining the belief that the federal government can do anything large or complex. So what is the alternative, just have them not even try? After all they will never do their job with wisdom, benevolence, or concern for individuals rights.

Good point. I do suppose that the more numbers you have the weaker the argument that they could make that only "isolated gun nuts" want them.

About 0.30% of Hawaii residents are employed in the Journalism industry.  That includes newspaper, radio, television, social advocacy organizations, periodical and other publishers, cable and subscription programming, as well as independent artists, writers, and performers.

The demand being less than one-third of a percentage point of the population, it's reasonable to assume the majority of the residents have no interest in exercising their First Amendment Rights to free speech in any meaningful way -- particularly as a professional pursuit.

Therefore, due to a miniscule level of demand in journalism and related occupations, we should stop licensing or allowing any and all professional press-related activities in the state.  To continue to support such a small minority's Constitutional rights is not cost effective.  It also ignores the obvious desire of the majority to do away with  these rights for the minority.

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

Rights of the minority should never be decided by the majority.

I am sorry but you are mistaken. I have always been a strong critic of the inability to appeal being placed on a watch list and I was happy to hear when the courts (supreme court?) ruled that people do have the right to challenge their name being on the terror watch list. I am able to look at the idea of a watch list independently of whether it was implemented properly in this instance. The unconstitutional nature that the no-fly list was employed does not mean it is impossible to implement a watch list that is effective without denying citizens their rights.

Your main argument appears to just be undermining the belief that the federal government can do anything large or complex. So what is the alternative, just have them not even try? After all they will never do their job with wisdom, benevolence, or concern for individuals rights.

Always been a strong critic? Really? Where? Certainly not on this forum. But, assuming that is indeed the case, let's look at your statement that even though the no-fly list was unconstitutional, you think it's possible to implement a watch list that would survive real Constitutional scrutiny. How do people get on the list? If people get placed on the list and then have any rights restricted, how can this be constitutional? Have they they been adjudicated or was placement on the list based on suspicions and innuendos? The fact of the matter is that if you deny people their rights without due process, that's unconstitutional, period. A watch list, at least as perceived using the current government model would be impossible to use without trampling the constitutional rights of those on the list. So, please, tell us all how you would envision such a list being implemented and used. I'm quite interested in how that would work.

As for the issue of the large, unwieldy and intrusive government and alternatives: Yes! A prime example is the BATF. There is nothing they do that could not be transferred to the FBI. The BATF is fraught with government overreach and self-serving "interpretations" that seem more intent on maintaining their power than actually enforcing existing laws. "How can we make ourselves more needed" is what the BATF seems to do particularly well...let's get gun stores to go along with straw purchases to Mexican bad guys so we can claim that Mexican drug cartels get most of their firearms from the US because of its lax gun laws. Sound familiar?  The BATF's opinion(s) on a piece of hardware (the Sig arm brace, the mechanical device to let you "rapid fire" a semi-automatic rifle, etc.) are frequently changed after the detrimental reliance on that opinion. Why? Did they just change their mind or is it a means to keep them relevant and "enforcing" gun laws? Want to increase your workload so it appears your agency is "needed?" How about creating a new administrative rule that you have to report any purchase of two or more rifles at a time or within 30 days? That should create more work so they can ask for more money to keep the agency afloat, right? So yes, let's get rid of some of these ineffective and self-serving dinosaurs. The fact is that we could do quite well with a smaller, less intrusive government. But since we're asking questions, let me ask you this: Name a big governmental agency that you think does a good job at what it's supposed to be doing.   

But since we're asking questions, let me ask you this: Name a big governmental agency that you think does a good job at what it's supposed to be doing.

Definitely the post office. They are much better than the common carriers..... At least when it comes to delivering illegal drugs 

.

I've been really derelict in my personal duty to keep up-to-date on legislation, this session, and with just 2 weeks remaining, I am humbly asking if someone would kindly provide any updates.

Thanks! 

HAWAII CITIZENS’ RIGHTS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE
The only political action committee in Hawaii supporting the 2nd Amendment
 
Aloha, Gun Rights Supporters.
 
The Hawaii State Legislature is finishing up for the year with adjournment scheduled for May 7, 2015.  Once again NO ANTI-GUN BILLS ARE PASSING.  Thanks to aggressive grass roots lobbying by many of you, some very nasty bills were laid to rest.  IT IS TIME TO EXPRESS OUR APPRECIATION TO THE MANY LEGISLATORS WHO SUPPORTED OUR RIGHTS this session by supporting their re-election campaigns.
 
Several of the conservative House Democrats who looked after your interests this session are holding a joint fundraiser next Tuesday, April 28, 2015, 5:30-7:30 pm, at Jade Dynasty Restaurant (Ala Moana Shopping Center).
 
Please attend and thank:
 
Speaker Emeritus CALVIN SAY, Representatives ISAAC CHOY, SHARON HAR, KEN ITO, JO JORDAN, DEREK KAWAKAMI, AND JIMMY TOKIOKA. 
 
 If you cannot attend, please send your contribution to your favorite Legislator(s).
 
Friends of KEN ITO, P.O. Box 4354, Kaneohe, Hawaii 96744
 
Friends of Sharon Har, Box 101, 590 Farrington Highway #210, Kapolei, HI 96707
 
Friends of Derek Kawakami, P.O. Box 3136, Lihue, Hawaii 96766
 
Friends of Jo Jordan, P.O. Box 1398, Waianae, Hawaii 96792
 
SUGGESTED DONATION at the door, $100 each, or whatever you can afford will be welcomed.  Don't forget to mark your check, "Thanks for your support of gun rights."
 
Some accept Pay-Pal online.  Google their Official Websites.  Do not send to their Capitol offices, as campaign rules prohibit such.
 
 
 
Mahalo,


 

.