This is a house bill that has passed and is being heard by the senate PSM committee.  Please submit testimonies.  Due 3/16/2016 Wednesday 1:45pm!

HB2632 HD2   Firearms Disqualification; Mental Illness; Police   
RELATING TO FIREARMS. Requires firearms owners who have been disqualified from owning a firearm and ammunition due to mental illness, including emergency hospitalization, to immediately surrender their firearms and ammunition to the Chief of Police. (HB2632 HD2)
Bill -> http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=HB&billnumber=2632
S 3/14/2016: The committee(s) on PSM has scheduled a public hearing on 03-17-16 1:45PM in conference room 229.

DONE.

Hmm, looks like they amended it to take care of two of the bigger issues we had concerns with. Now they say that the firearms can be sold/transfered, and it also says that they will be kept until the person is documented to be cleared from the mental health issue. There are still things wrong with the bill but at least it isn't as bad as it was. Maybe they were reading my (and others) testimony?!

Hmm, looks like they amended it to take care of two of the bigger issues we had concerns with. Now they say that the firearms can be sold/transfered, and it also says that they will be kept until the person is documented to be cleared from the mental health issue. There are still things wrong with the bill but at least it isn't as bad as it was. Maybe they were reading my (and others) testimony?!

This is still a tyrannical statist move full of ambiguity and potential for abuse. You need to read exactly who and how a person can be deemed a "danger to self or others" in the referenced section of HRS. It's preposterous: a person could be denied their Constitutionally-guaranteed rights based solely upon the “oral application of... any state or county employee in the course of employment”. Haw. Rev. Stat. § 334-59 as referenced in HB2632. That is, a person could be sent for emergency treatment, etc. based solely upon the oral statement of ANY government employee... of which, I'd estimate, approximately 1/100 of 1% are qualified to determine whether a person is a "danger to himself or others". Of course people are going to say "That would/could never happen", but you know what? The only way to guarantee that "that" will never happen is to NOT pass a law that says it it legal and lawful to do so. Why don't they just pass a law that says what they really mean? Or is the law, as written with all the ambiguities and potentials for abuse written exactly the way they want it written?

Also, how does one sell or transfer ones firearms while in police custody? Just asking.

Note to that in testimony by the HPD they state that once one is medically cleared the owners firearms "could be returned to them". Why not state "would be returned to them" or even better "shall be returned to them within 24 hours"? I don't trust any of these people (legislators, law enforcement, any government agency really) to be more concerned about my rights than about exercising their power to infringe my rights. And I submit history supports my concern.

Here is how it's written:

 (c)  For any person disqualified from ownership, possession, or control of firearms and ammunition under section 134-7(c), or who underwent or is undergoing an emergency hospitalization under section 334-59, once the chief of police is notified that the person is disqualified, the chief of police shall promptly issue a notice to the disqualified person to immediately surrender all firearms and ammunition.  The notice shall be in writing and shall set forth the reasons for the disqualification and shall state the requirement that the person immediately surrender all firearms and ammunition to the chief of police.  If any person fails to voluntarily surrender all firearms and ammunition, the chief of police may seize all firearms and ammunition.  The firearms and ammunition shall be held in police custody until the person has been medically documented to be no longer adversely affected as provided in section 134-7 or until transferred or sold by the owner.

Here's another example of why I don't trust any government agency or agents to NOT violate my rights given any ambiguity at all in a law: they violate our rights when there is absolutely no ambiguity in a law!

Some f***ing cops think they own the interstate and the bridges over it and decide that you have no right to exercise even your First Amendment rights let alone your Second Amendment rights, so a whole group of them draw their weapons on you. You really think the cops and other government goons here in Hawaii are immune to this abuse of power? Look around! Wake the f*ck up! You really think those legislators don't know exactly what the potential is in those "poorly worded" ("say exactly what they mean"?) laws?

http://www.captainsjournal.com/2016/03/14/brandon-howard-victory-against-hopewell-police/

Howard had been protesting lawfully for about 30 minutes when a Hopewell police officer pulled up to the area on the overpass where Howard was standing and parked his vehicle. Three to five police cruisers arrived a short time later with their emergency lights flashing, the suit said.

Six to eight officers then got out of their cars with their guns drawn and commanded Howard to drop his sign and get on the ground with his hands spread above his head, the complaint said.

Done.

So, if a firearm owner gets into a car accident and required emergency hospitalization the chief can take away their guns?

So, if a firearm owner gets into a car accident and required emergency hospitalization the chief can take away their guns?

Too long to print here, but HRS 334-59, referenced in HB 2632,is here: http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0334/HRS_0334-0059.htm

Here is one phrase that might clarify things a bit: "...believe the person is mentally ill or suffering from substance abuse or is imminently dangerous to self or others and in need of care or treatment, or both", which would (likely) rule out purely physical trauma suffered in any accident as cause to confiscate the firearms. The intent of the law is clearly for "mental illness". The loophole is that an "animated discussion" (aka "argument") with a county building inspector over some ridiculous technicality in the building code that makes no practical difference in the real world but the inspector wants you to "correct" at substantial time and expense allows tfor "state or county employee" to decide that you are a danger...

If you haven't yet, send in testimonies before 1:45pm today.