done

testimony submitted

Testimony sent.

Submitted

Mentioned this on Facebook 808 guns accessories buy/sell trade page.

Always check before you submit your testimony people.

Yeah
Default setting is "support"

H 2/22/2016: Broadcast of hearing/briefing available. See: www.capitoltv.org
HB2632 HD1   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. (HB2632 HD1)
Bill -> http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=HB&billnumber=2632

==================

This bill HB2632 is scheduled to be heard today at 2:00pm.

See the live broadcast at http://www.capitoltv.org/

Time for testimonies are past.  This is the time to contact your rep directly with an email and a phone call.

Please see this other thread if you don't know what to say or write.
https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=22027.0

Remember not to be antagonistic with your reps and that they are your "friends" / "voice" for your district.  Tell them why the bill is bad and what amendments are needed to fix it.

Below is the alert from Harvey Gerwig, HRA Legislative Liaison
==============================================

Hawaii Rifle Association
State Affiliate of the National Rifle Association - Founded in 1857
February 23, 2016
 
PLEASE CONTACT YOUR REPRESENTATIVE IMMEDIATELY ABOUT HB2632
 
HPD wants to seize all firearms immediately from any person disqualified from possession due to treatment or counseling for addiction to, abuse of, or dependence upon any dangerous, harmful, or detrimental drug, intoxicating compound..., or intoxicating liquor...or has been diagnosed as having a significant behavioral, emotional, or mental disorder....or who underwent an emergency hospitalization for psychiatric reasons.
 
No due process, no judge involved, no more 30 day wait to prove you are not disabled to own guns, just a police officer, a police department psychologist on the phone, and an ER doctor can relieve you of your 2nd Amendment rights and your 4th Amendment rights against search and seizure.
 
SERIOUSLY MENTALLY ILL PATIENTS SHOULD NOT HAVE ACCESS TO FIREARMS, BUT AN AMENDMENT THAT A COURT ORDER NEEDS TO PRECEDE CONFISCATON, AND A RETURN OF FIREARMS MECHANISM FOR THOSE "NO LONGER ADVERSELY AFFECTED" BOTH NEED TO BE INSERTED INTO THE BILL.
 
At the hearing today in House Judiciary Committee Chair Karl Marx passed the bill with small amendments.
 
You can identify your Representative by opening the Hawaii State Legislature web site at:  http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/
                         
and entering your street name in the upper right hand box. Click on the name of your Representative.  The e-mail and phone number for his or her office will appear next to the photo of your Rep.
 
Email your Rep. how you feel about this bill and ask that it be killed or seriously amended. Follow up your e-mail with a phone call during business hours.  Ask if your Rep. has seen your e-mail and ask for a reply.
 
MAHALO,

HARVEY GERWIG, LEGISLATIVE LIAISON, HRA

Just did a count of the testimonies.

HLT Committee hearing
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/Session2016/Testimony/HB2632_TESTIMONY_HLT_02-10-16_.PDF
- 4 support
- 40 against

JUD Committee hearing
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/Session2016/Testimony/HB2632_HD1_TESTIMONY_JUD_02-23-16_.PDF
- 16 support
- 118 against
- 1 comment

Testimonies in support were mostly from the PDs and from some social services organizations.

JUD Committee hearing
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/Session2016/Testimony/HB2632_HD1_TESTIMONY_JUD_02-23-16_.PDF
- 16 support
- 118 against
- 1 comment

Thanks for the tally. I did the same for the 46 pages of the HLT hearing testimony, but couldn't muster the energy last night to go through the 143 pages of the JUD hearing testimony.

Public testimony:
Ayes  16
Noes 118

Committee vote:
Ayes 12
Noes  1

That "one comment" was from LCSW (Licensed Clinical Social Worker) Matthew Brittain representing Effective Change, LLC, who wrote: "...a better approach to gun control would be to require owners to pass a similar set of requirements as owning a car. Registration, insurance, competency testing, safety inspection...". I wonder if he intentionally left out "annual registration renewal fee for each firearm"?

Testimonies in support were mostly from the PDs and from some social services organizations.

Don't forget Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) and Progressive Democrats of Hawaii. Those two organizations can always be counted upon to squelch individual freedom (except in the arenas of abortion and gay rights... unless your a "fetus" or a baker...).

Thanks for the tally. I did the same for the 46 pages of the HLT hearing testimony, but couldn't muster the energy last night to go through the 143 pages of the JUD hearing testimony.

Public testimony:
Ayes  16
Noes 118

Committee vote:
Ayes 12
Noes  1

That "one comment" was from LCSW (Licensed Clinical Social Worker) Matthew Brittain representing Effective Change, LLC, who wrote: "...a better approach to gun control would be to require owners to pass a similar set of requirements as owning a car. Registration, insurance, competency testing, safety inspection...". I wonder if he intentionally left out "annual registration renewal fee for each firearm"?
Don't forget Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) and Progressive Democrats of Hawaii. Those two organizations can always be counted upon to squelch individual freedom (except in the arenas of abortion and gay rights... unless your a "fetus" or a baker...).

These LCSW should have liability insurance as well. If they misdiagnose a person with meds and/or treatment and they harm somebody these LCSWs should be held liable. Just sayin' for our keiki.

Slightly OT

A response to equating guns to cars is that gun owners should then have the SAME RIGHTS as car owners.

Our guns would be OK across the USA

No Limitations on capacity, just like no limitations on Horse power.

Open carry, concealed carry no limitations

If DUI people can keep their cars, so can gun owners etc.

Pull those arguments on them and see how they respond.

Remind them that automobiles are a Privilege Granted by Government and can be severely restricted by government with out due process.

Firearms are in the US Constitution, motor vehicles are not.

Has anyone here testified in person? I work nights so I would be able to make it time wise but I am not sure how the process works.

I am assuming I have to give my full name but wondering what else I could leave out.

Go down,
Check the clipboard for meeting. It will tell you what time and what room it's scheduled in.
Go to room and find a seat in the front.  The legislatures will be sitting on a table panel style facing the crowd.  There will be a microphone in between facing legislatures where you give testimony.
When it's your turn you go up, say your name, organization and if you support or oppose and why.
They thank you, than you take your seat.

If you never been before I highly suggest you attend.  It's a really great experience sitting in the meeting, learning how the process works, meeting your representatives, and all types of folks in the crowd.

Has anyone here testified in person? I work nights so I would be able to make it time wise but I am not sure how the process works.

I am assuming I have to give my full name but wondering what else I could leave out.

Also if you can make it down in person to oppose a bill it is pretty much your duty to go down and oppose it.

Also if you can make it down in person to oppose a bill it is pretty much your duty to go down and oppose it.

Gotta figure out something that will get their attention, and not in a crazy person sort of way either.

Specifically with regards to this one I was thinking I could argue that it lacks due process for someone to fight against the taking of their firearm but I am not sure if that is true. The law in question doesn't say whether it can be appealed or how and it doesn't say what happens to the firearms after confiscation. But there may be some other law somewhere else that deals with that and does provide an avenue for appealing the decision. This of course makes a difference to whether I have a solid argument they cannot counter. I don't want them throwing some curve ball at me while testifying. I mean there is always your basic lawsuit against the department but that is not a specific course of action specified for this revocation of rights.

I did ask a guy who works at HPD firearms about what happens to the guns that are seized. He said that they are held and can be gotten back after someone is cleared of any mental issues but I don't know long they would have to keep it or if that is even really something set in stone or just the current practice.

Hawaii Rifle Association
State Affiliate of the National Rifle Association - Founded in 1857
February 28, 2016
 
Senator Keith-Agaran, Chair of the Hawaii Senate Judiciary Committee, will give decision on  SB2956  Tuesday March 1, 2016.
 
Senate rules provide that, since the bill was already heard in its first committee, Public Safety, and public testimony was taken, no public testimony is needed to pass the bill out of the Judiciary Committee Tuesday.  No testimony will be accepted.
 
State law provides that a person may be involuntarily committed to a mental hospital if they are a danger to self or others.   A police officer, a police psychologist, and an emergency room doctor can determine if such a hospitalization is necessary.  SB2956  requires the county police to immediately seize all firearms from any person so hospitalized.
 
Please e-mail or fax Senator Keith-Agaran something like this, fax: 808-586-7348 or
senkeithagaran@capitol.hawaii.gov  before Tuesday, 9am:
 
Dear Senator Keith-Agaran,
 
Please amend SB2956 to require court action before seizing guns as required under state mental health law: §334-61  Presumption; civil rights.  No presumption of insanity or legal incompetency shall exist with respect to any patient by reason of the patient’s admission to a psychiatric facility under this chapter.  The fact of the admission shall not in itself modify or vary any civil right of any such person, including but not limited to civil service statutes or rights relating to the granting, forfeiture, or denial of a license, permit, privilege, or benefit pursuant to any law, or the right to dispose of property, execute instruments, make purchases, enter into contractual relationships, and to vote.  If the administrator of a psychiatric facility or the deputy is of the opinion that a patient should not exercise any civil right, application for a show cause order shall be made to the court under the above proceedings after notice pursuant to section 334-60.4.
 
Very respectfully,
 
(your name)
                       
MAHALO,
HARVEY GERWIG, LEGISLATIVE LIAISON and PRESIDENT, HRA