The Senate hears two bills Thursday afternoon, 2/12/15.
 
The worst bill of the decade, SB 783, is heard in a Joint Hearing of the Senate Committees on Transportation and Public Safety starting at 2:45pm.
 
Senator Maile Shimabukuro (Southwest Oahu) has introduced this terribly restrictive anti-Second Amendment bill.  Please submit testimony, and come to the hearing and deliver it if you can. See the hearing notice for bill language, history, and to send testimony at:
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2015/hearingnotices/HEARING_TRA-PSM_02-12-15_.HTM
SB783 requires that when you apply for a firearms permit you must swear in writing that neither you or any of your family or household has now or in the past "certain mental disorders."
 
If you don't swear so, you must lock up and secure or turn in all firearms and ammunition within 48 hours or pay a fine of $50 per day. 
 
SB783 requires that failure to pay child or spousal support is cause for revocation of a firearm permit (which means also turn in all firearms and ammunition that you already have).
 
If you are ever arrested and refuse a breath, blood, or urine test, you must turn in or dispose of all your firearms within 48hrs.
 
Law enforcement officers are exempted from all provisions.
 
 
HRA STRONGLY OPPOSES.  There are already sufficient laws in Hawaii on safe storage of firearms, mental health background checks, and ways to go after "dead-beat dads," and drunk drivers without such severe infringements on individual civil rights.

 
SB674.   Ban on Ivory sales in Hawaii
The Senate Energy and Environment and Commerce and Consumer Protection Committees have scheduled a joint hearing on SB 674, a ban on Ivory sales in Hawaii (Same as HB837 heard in the House today and passed with amendments).  Please submit testimony.  If you sent in on HB837, you may update it and send it again to this hearing.  Come to the hearing and deliver it if you can, please.  Take your pick, both hearings start at 2:45pm.  See the hearing notice at:
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2015/hearingnotices/HEARING_ENE-CPN_02-12-15_.HTM

HRA OPPOSES .  Elephant populations in sub-equatorial Africa in areas with good habitat development and game management policies are healthy and increasing in numbers according to the World Wildlife Fund web site, 2015.       

In impoverished African areas with no political stability elephant populations are threatened with extinction. This bill will not alter poaching in those areas.  Bans are price supports for illegal activity there.  Confiscated ivory and ivory harvested to protect subsistence farming and habitat degradation should be and is marketed to fund habitat improvement and anti-poaching enforcment.
 
This bill makes criminals of anyone with antique gun grips or sight beads, musical instruments, scrimshaw, hatpins, or jewelry bearing small amounts of ivory from any source harvested long ago and offered for sale or transfer other than by inheritance.  Appraisal as an antique, produced before 1989, or lawfully harvested, should be exemptions or represent an affirmative defense.
 

Mahalo,
 
Dr. Maxwell Cooper,
 
HRA Legislative Liason
 
macooper.1941@gmail.com
 
808 225-6944
 
 
 
 

Done! I can't understand how refusing a DUI screening automatically voids you of your 2nd amendment right. Might as well say you can't remain silent and no longer have a right to an attorney.

Done! I can't understand how refusing a DUI screening automatically voids you of your 2nd amendment right. Might as well say you can't remain silent and no longer have a right to an attorney.

I may have to blatantly plagiarize this statement in my testimony.....

.

Thanks for posting. didnt get this update

Completed 

Are you doing live testimony, HiCarry?

Probably not....I haven't been able to get off work due to project deadlines and such...still gonna try but it'll be last minute if I can....

Looks like the typical bootstrapping of totally unrelated offenses to the possession of firearms. The requirement of affirming that  the applicant's family or household member(s) is or has not been diagnosed with or treated for certain mental disorders imposes an affirmative duty upon the applicant to ascertain the status of both family and non-family household members' mental health appears to be an unreasonable burden on the right to bear arm given the fact that the applicant has no right to secure this information in the first place due to stringent privacy laws (e.g.,HEPA).

Looks like the typical bootstrapping of totally unrelated offenses to the possession of firearms. The requirement of affirming that  the applicant's family or household member(s) is or has not been diagnosed with or treated for certain mental disorders imposes an affirmative duty upon the applicant to ascertain the status of both family and non-family household members' mental health appears to be an unreasonable burden on the right to bear arm given the fact that the applicant has no right to secure this information in the first place due to stringent privacy laws (e.g.,HEPA).

That was my feeling, too.  I'd really like to see the studies and science they based this bill on that shows people with mental disorders are more likely than others to become violent.   The type and degree of mental illnesses vary greatly, as do the effects and side-effects of any medication being prescribed.  This should be a case-by-case evaluation of the risks, not a "one size fits all" blanket to restrict everyone in the designated group.

From my readings, the percentage of mentally ill who use guns for violence is not significantly different than the percentage of those not diagnosed with mental problems.  To preemptively punish one group with no other evidence than this is the same as saying all Muslims should be exported from the US. 

Not all Muslims are terrorists, but the majority of terrorists are Muslims. To be safe, we should treat the larger group as potential threats.

Not all mentally ill are violent, but a large number of violent events is caused by mentally ill people, particularly mass shootings.  Therefore, all mentally ill should be treated as potentially violent people.

I don't see any difference other than one is a willful choice influenced by their religious beliefs, and the other is a choice influenced by a disease they may have little control over..

.

Here is my grip with this.

Many service members and vets are seeking treatment for mental disorders acquired through their service, which would automatically disqualify them from owning firearms, yet HPD gets an exemption?

Lots of vets with metal problems are still functioning, law abiding citizens in society, yet they are going to be singled out even when they may be some of the most proficiently trained at firearms?

It is shit like this that makes vets and service members not want to seek treatment, for fear of losing their rights.

I second above and the last sentence is why if I ever thought I needed treatment I wouldn't go.

In addition to what I've already said, here's a couple of other observations about the proposed bill:

1.  Proposed Sec. 291E provides for the disqualification of ownership, possession or control of firearms and ammunition for the duration of the refusal to submit to a breath, blood, or urine test... I understand that law enforcement currently has the power to suspend your drivers license for exercising your right against self incrimination because driving is a privilege, not a right. In contrast, the right to bear arms is a constitutionally protected right, not a privilege. What this bill essentially provides is that if you choose to exercise your right against self incrimination, you will lose another constitutionally protected right.

2. Proposed amendment to 134-2 provides that no person shall own, possess, or control any firearm or ammunition who lives with a family or household member who has been diagnosed as having a significant behavioral, emotional, or mental disorder....unless medically documented to be no longer adversely affected by the addiction, abuse, dependence, mental disease, disorder, or defect.  This provision appears to deprive citizens of their constitutionally protected right to bear arms based on the mental health condition of others. It also places the burden on the applicant to affirmatively secure medical documentation concerning the mental health of others for which the applicant has not right, authority or legal means to obtain them.

3.  Proposed amendment to 134-13 provides that an applicant's permits may be revoked for failing to pay child or spousal support. HRS 134-7 already prohibits individuals convicted of a felony, crime of violence, illegal sale of drugs from owning, possessing or control of any firearm. The proposed amendment raises the failure to pay child support or spousal support to the level of a felony or a conviction for a violent crime,or illegal sale of drugs without even so much as a felony conviction for failing to pay child support or spousal support.

In addition to what I've already said, here's a couple of other observations about the proposed bill:

1.  Proposed Sec. 291E provides for the disqualification of ownership, possession or control of firearms and ammunition for the duration of the refusal to submit to a breath, blood, or urine test... I understand that law enforcement currently has the power to suspend your drivers license for exercising your right against self incrimination because driving is a privilege, not a right. In contrast, the right to bear arms is a constitutionally protected right, not a privilege. What this bill essentially provides is that if you choose to exercise your right against self incrimination, you will lose another constitutionally protected right.

2. Proposed amendment to 134-2 provides that no person shall own, possess, or control any firearm or ammunition who lives with a family or household member who has been diagnosed as having a significant behavioral, emotional, or mental disorder....unless medically documented to be no longer adversely affected by the addiction, abuse, dependence, mental disease, disorder, or defect.  This provision appears to deprive citizens of their constitutionally protected right to bear arms based on the mental health condition of others. It also places the burden on the applicant to affirmatively secure medical documentation concerning the mental health of others for which the applicant has not right, authority or legal means to obtain them.

3.  Proposed amendment to 134-13 provides that an applicant's permits may be revoked for failing to pay child or spousal support. HRS 134-7 already prohibits individuals convicted of a felony, crime of violence, illegal sale of drugs from owning, possessing or control of any firearm. The proposed amendment raises the failure to pay child support or spousal support to the level of a felony or a conviction for a violent crime,or illegal sale of drugs without even so much as a felony conviction for failing to pay child support or spousal support.

Random thought, next year will be the year I do conlaw in my 2L.  Should be interesting to see what all i learn in there about this type of stuff, especially anything in the child support / 5th amendment realm as it relates to this.

I questioned the legality of the government forcing me to make a medical diagnoses of family members, since I'm not a medical professional and am in no way qualified to do so.
Then they want me to swear it's true or they'll confiscate my guns.

I would love to see the research that shows firearms owners are more likely to skip out on child support or alimony and get arrested for DUI at a higher rate than other citizens. I'm quite sure the opposite is true.

This entire bill is about nothing more than targeting legal firearms owners because they own firearms.