ALERT!   A couple of mental illness = seizure and confiscation bills are scheduled for hearing within the next 2 days.  Please read and send in your testimonies 24 hours before the hearing!

HB2632  Seizure of Firearms; Mental Illness; Police   RELATING TO FIREARMS
Requires firearms owners who have been disqualified from owning a firearm and ammunition due to mental illness to immediately surrender their firearms and ammunition to the Chief of Police.
HLT committee hearing on Wednesday 2/10/2016 10:00am at House conference room 329. Testimonies must be in by tomorrow Tuesday 10:00am!!!!
HLT:   http://capitol.hawaii.gov/committeepage.aspx?comm=HLT&year=2016 (Au Bellati, F)
HB2632: http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=HB&billnumber=2632 (testify here)


SB2956  Firearms; Mental Illness; Surrender of Firearms   RELATING TO FIREARMS
Requires firearm owners who have been disqualified from owning a firearm due to mental illness to immediately surrender their firearms to the chief of police upon notification and authorizes the chief of police to seize the firearms if the owner fails to comply.
PSM committee hearing on Thursday 2/11/2016 1:15pm in conference room 229.  Testimonies must be in by Wednesday 1:15pm!
PSM:  http://capitol.hawaii.gov/committeepage.aspx?comm=PSM&year=2016 (Nishihara, B)
SB2956: http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=2956 (testify here)

These are too broad and need to be opposed ASAP!

Please send in your testimonies!

If these bills pass, looks like ALL YOUR FIREARMS can be confiscated if you ever have a Kaiser problem again....  with no due process to boot...

I would like to strongly oppose this bill.  It is far too overreaching and vague in it's scope.  This will allow people's rights to be forcefully surrendered with no due process of law.  Firearms would be confiscated at the mere arbitrary disqualification.  There has been many instances this past year of many many people wrongfully disqualified for firearms permits because of a 'misunderstanding' between Kaiser healthcare and HPD.  Every one of these people would have to be forced to surrender all firearms and stripped of their rights to self protection.  This is unacceptable.  The problem of MENTAL HEALTH needs to be addressed, NOT firearms ownership.  Legislators, please work on that issue.  Not 2nd Amendment RIGHTS.   Thank you.

How do you "submit testimony"?

Go to the link to the bill below and click "Submit Testimony".  The Capitol website will require you to create an account before you can submit testimony online.

Please note that deadlines for online testimony have to be received 24 hours prior to the actual hearing of the bill.  For HB2632, these sneaky bastards basically gave us less than 24 hours to submit public testimony online! 

HB2632 (online testimony due Tuesday 10am!!!)
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=HB&billnumber=2632

SB2956 (online testimony due Wednesday 1:15pm!)
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=2956

Ok, thanks. I will have to read the bill to understand the issues with it and try to write something in time.

Ok, thanks. I will have to read the bill to understand the issues with it and try to write something in time.

The issue is the ambiguity.

It is essentially a forced confiscation for individuals who are and/or were deemed mentally unfit to possess firearms.

This has the potential to effect law abiding citizens who are currently taking the steps to overcome their problems, or who are no longer adversely effected by their conditions.

Specifically, this will have extreme ramifications within the military and veteran community.

Also, it does away with the ability to transfer ones firearms to the care of another individual until they are deemed fit to control their firearms. Your have no choice but to release your firearms to the chief of police, and many know how hard it is from that point to reacquire firearms from HPD once they have been turned in and/or confiscated.

I am still trying to figure out how this is different from the existing system. I thought that the police chief can revoke someone's permit in the case of a discovered mental illness anyway.

I am still trying to figure out how this is different from the existing system. I thought that the police chief can revoke someone's permit in the case of a discovered mental illness anyway.

Yes, but he must submit an official notice that you are disqualified, and you have 30 days to either voluntarily turn firearms into HPD, or make the smarter choice and relinquish firearms legally to someone who will care for them until you are no longer adversely effected by your conditions.

This bill strips the ability to transfer your firearms to someone you trust, and forces you to give them to the chief of police.


This bill is also so ambiguous in that it basically states that if you have EVER been disqualified in the past, regardless of if you are no longer adversely effected by your conditions and are clear or have been cleared for some time, you must turn over your firearms.

Yes, but he must submit an official notice that you are disqualified, and you have 30 days to either voluntarily turn firearms into HPD, or make the smarter choice and relinquish firearms legally to someone who will care for them until you are no longer adversely effected by your conditions.

This bill strips the ability to transfer your firearms to someone you trust, and forces you to give them to the chief of police.


This bill is also so ambiguous in that it basically states that if you have EVER been disqualified in the past, regardless of if you are no longer adversely effected by your conditions and are clear or have been cleared for some time, you must turn over your firearms.

Gotcha.
I guess the fear is that someone might go crazy and should not have firearms but in compliance with the current law they will just give them to a spouse which in reality will mean they still have access to them. The question is then, how do we propose something as an alternative instead of just saying that we are against it, what is a good solution to the problem at hand? The argument that it is vague and can overreach is good but it would be nice to have some sort of proposal as well so we don't just look like we are fighting anything and everything.
Brainstorm time.

Gotcha.
I guess the fear is that someone might go crazy and should not have firearms but in compliance with the current law they will just give them to a spouse which in reality will mean they still have access to them. The question is then, how do we propose something as an alternative instead of just saying that we are against it, what is a good solution to the problem at hand? The argument that it is vague and can overreach is good but it would be nice to have some sort of proposal as well so we don't just look like we are fighting anything and everything.
Brainstorm time.

You can never completely stop someone from accessing a firearm, try as you will.
An alternative? Allow conceal carry.
Illegal people can get guns from whoever they want, whenever they want, and try and shoot as many people as they want. Conceal carry will reduce response times.
Could people still be killed? Possibly. But the benefits outweigh the risks

Done.

Gotcha.
I guess the fear is that someone might go crazy and should not have firearms but in compliance with the current law they will just give them to a spouse which in reality will mean they still have access to them. The question is then, how do we propose something as an alternative instead of just saying that we are against it, what is a good solution to the problem at hand? The argument that it is vague and can overreach is good but it would be nice to have some sort of proposal as well so we don't just look like we are fighting anything and everything.
Brainstorm time.

the system is set up to say support or oppose and why
technically, according to the rules of order, the legislators are not supposed to be considering alternatives at this point
practically, they have to keep that in the back of their mind, yes
but i have been told multiple times that the legislators themselves do not read the testimonies, they have a staffer just tally the yeas/nays

Testimony submitted for HB2632.  I'll have to revisit the other one later, gotta get to work.

Testimony submitted for HB2632.  I'll have to revisit the other one later, gotta get to work.

here's mine:
bill is overly broad
in december, tens of thousands of kaiser and straub patients potentially could have been caught up in this due to a procedural issue between HPD and the insurance carriers that caused many people to have their permits denied
many of these people would have potentially had their firearms/ammunition seized according to this bill as written

i just read heavies' testimony
his is better than mine
should have just copied his
 

done!

These are too broad and need to be opposed ASAP!

Please send in your testimonies!

guys, we need to hit these bills HARD
show that we care and are politically active
register and send in testimony, even if just to say "oppose"

Done and done.

weird thing is the second time that HPD lost my psychologist letter (yes they lost it twice), the officer told me that i need to send them another bc, "you wouldn't want to lose all your firearms bc you dont have a letter."


I found that a little concerning since they lost the letter after i gave it to them, so its not my fault its theirs, but i would still lose my firearms
but actually not, bc thats not the law, but thats what he said
another example of how they just make stuff up as they go along.
welcome to Hawaii.