Can you please reference the law in Hawaii that bans owning body armor when firearm ownership is banned? Not saying you are a liar or anything but I have never come across it in my criminal law studies.

Also, still haven't found anything to prove that the arrest record in and of itself would give HPD enough to decline a permit to have a firearm.

And people are often arrested and not charged. This can happen for a number of reasons including someone's decision to not prosecute, the prosecutors declining the case, and a few other reasons.

Someone told a horror story about getting their record expunged so I was going off of that. Not that the process is complex but that getting it through can be difficult. No personal experience with that though.

A good explanation of how an arrest can still show up in NICS, even after expunged State records.  https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/fingerprints_biometrics/arrest-disposition-submission

With regards to the State prohibiting body armor, there doesn't seem to be any underlying Statute, but I know they do. This will be an interesting question for my attorney.

A good explanation of how an arrest can still show up in NICS, even after expunged State records.  https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/fingerprints_biometrics/arrest-disposition-submission

With regards to the State prohibiting body armor, there doesn't seem to be any underlying Statute, but I know they do. This will be an interesting question for my attorney.

I await your attorney's reply then.

As for the NICS, I a don't doubt that arrests stay on your record even after expungement, what I am questioning is where it says that an arrest alone is enough to deny a firearm permit.

Cost big money proving yourself innocent more like guilty until proven innocent , that's politicians they want you to jump through Hula hoops if you want your guns back, in the end cost you money cost taxpayers money cost everyone money, that's why they don't have money building the rail hahahahaha

I await your attorney's reply then.

As for the NICS, I a don't doubt that arrests stay on your record even after expungement, what I am questioning is where it says that an arrest alone is enough to deny a firearm permit.

Like I said, I know from experience. And as the webpage states, an arrest will get you into the Federal NICS system. There's also a phone number listed if you want to call them and ask yourself.

Like I said, I know from experience. And as the webpage states, an arrest will get you into the Federal NICS system. There's also a phone number listed if you want to call them and ask yourself.

This might be an opportunity to split your legal fees with Fish Guy!  He sounds like he won't rest until someone else feeds him the information he wants!

Like I said, I know from experience. And as the webpage states, an arrest will get you into the Federal NICS system. There's also a phone number listed if you want to call them and ask yourself.

If an arrest, I am assuming anywhere in the US, gets you on the Federal NICS system why the hell did they pass rapback?  Never mind, I know, they want to keep current tabs on you as a gun owner, like a parolee, with a ankle beeper....   

If an arrest, I am assuming anywhere in the US, gets you on the Federal NICS system why the hell did they pass rapback?  Never mind, I know, they want to keep current tabs on you as a gun owner, like a parolee, with a ankle beeper.... 

Exactly.  NICS doesn't report anything negative unless you try to buy a gun.  RAP-BACK notifies the subscriber (HPD) immediately of any LE encounters you have in any state.  If you get ID'ed for any reason, RAP-BACK notifies everyone monitoring you.

for "safety"!   

I was talking to some fellow shooters this past weekend and a few of them mentioned wanting to buy things sooner rather than later in order to avoid RAPBACK, assuming it gets signed by the Gov.  Any of you doing that or thinking that way?

I have a couple of guns on order and didn't consider RAPBACK into that equation.  I'm not saying that it should or shouldn't be a consideration, but I just never thought about it and was surprised to hear that people were trying to secure things before it took effect.  I had assumed that RAPBACK would impact registered gun owners, regardless of when the gun was purchased.  I should read the language closer. 

I was talking to some fellow shooters this past weekend and a few of them mentioned wanting to buy things sooner rather than later in order to avoid RAPBACK, assuming it gets signed by the Gov.  Any of you doing that or thinking that way?

I have a couple of guns on order and didn't consider RAPBACK into that equation.  I'm not saying that it should or shouldn't be a consideration, but I just never thought about it and was surprised to hear that people were trying to secure things before it took effect.  I had assumed that RAPBACK would impact registered gun owners, regardless of when the gun was purchased.  I should read the language closer.

According to this previously posted article, everyone who has ever applied for a permit would go into the system. So there might not be anyway to avoid it.

http://khon2.com/2016/06/14/hawaii-could-soon-create-database-listing-gun-permit-applicants/


However, if some new gun ban went into effect, it would most likely affect sales. So it's probably not a bad idea to stock up now, rather than wait for Hillary's executive orders.

1) According to this previously posted article, everyone who has ever applied for a permit would go into the system. So there might not be anyway to avoid it.

http://khon2.com/2016/06/14/hawaii-could-soon-create-database-listing-gun-permit-applicants/


2) However, if some new gun ban went into effect, it would most likely affect sales. So it's probably not a bad idea to stock up now, rather than wait for Hillary's executive orders.

1) Ok.  That's pretty much what I was thinking.  Though I should still go back and review the latest version of the legislation. 

2) I think just the threat of new legislation is enough to affect sales, and it's already started.  I personally moved up a purchase that I had been planning on waiting until later this fall.  Concur that it is a good idea to procure things before too long and luckily I've been buying things here and there as prices were getting better in the past year or so.  There are many that believe that things won't be as bad as back in 2012-2013 time frame as the industry is more aware, better equipped to handle, etc.  I wouldn't count on it, but I hope that things won't be like that again.  It got to the point where I stopped shooting very much for a while and was just getting back into it from earlier this year. 

I pretty much finished off my collection before Rap-Back goes into effect.

I don't think they have the funding to enter all previous registrants into the system.
They'll pass the cost onto new permitees.
(pure speculation on my part though)

I think the cost is like $13 per applicant.
That's 1.3 million for a hundred thousand of us.

Somebody post a link to the 2/23/16 Staradvertiser article.

All the articles I've read say the additional fees are to be paid by the applicant.

I think it's a deterrent more than public safety.

P.S.  Dammit, but there is always just one more.....

This might be an opportunity to split your legal fees with Fish Guy!  He sounds like he won't rest until someone else feeds him the information he wants!

It is called burden of proof, look it up.

It is called burden of proof, look it up.

Another homework assignment?  LOL!

Proves my point.  Can't post the facts, so challenge others to do your work for you!

Common Liberal debate tactic.....

It is called burden of proof, look it up.

Here's a link to the new bill passed. Clearly the trigger to impound a permit is an arrest.


http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2016/bills/SB2954_HD1_.pdf

It is called burden of proof, look it up.

NICS - "disqualifying arrest"


https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/nics-process-in-motion-for-the-gun-buyer-video-transcript

It is called burden of proof, look it up.

Seizure of firearms upon disqualification.


http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol03_Ch0121-0200D/HRS0134/HRS_0134-0007_0003.htm


I agree with you that the law should be only upon conviction - innocent until proven guilty. But that's not what it is.

Here's a link to the new bill passed. Clearly the trigger to impound a permit is an arrest.


http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2016/bills/SB2954_HD1_.pdf

I read through the whole thing, I didn't see where an arrest triggers a revocation of all permits. (and thus a losing all guns)

Another homework assignment?  LOL!

Proves my point.  Can't post the facts, so challenge others to do your work for you!

Common Liberal debate tactic.....

You're the one who advocated restricting gay people from buying guns, sound a lot more liberal than me.

And burden of proof is a common term. It means if you make a claim, it is your job to provide the proof. We went over this earlier where you told me to prove your statements wrong. Hypocrite.

You're the one who advocated restricting gay people from buying guns, sound a lot more liberal than me.

And burden of proof is a common term. It means if you make a claim, it is your job to provide the proof. We went over this earlier where you told me to prove your statements wrong. Hypocrite.

Once again, trolling me for some reason.  Are you aware stalking is not okay?

I never "advocated" anything.  Work on your reading comprehension.  What I posted were sources (one of them part of the LGBTQ community) stating scientifically that there are higher instances of psychological disorders in the community than among straight people. 

I also disputed your claim I was for denying rights.  I said FLAG the individuals if identified in higher risk groups so they can undergo more in-depth background checks.

Do you read the words in front of you, or does your mind filter out what I said, substituting what you want it to say?  Either way, you should work on fixing  that.  Maybe you'd be less stressed -- I know the rest of us would be!!

I read through the whole thing, I didn't see where an arrest triggers a revocation of all permits. (and thus a losing all guns)

Page 3, first 4 lines. Arrest triggers disqualification. This new bill does not state that disqualification will result in you losing all of your guns, but that is already existing law. See Reply #35 for the link.