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.

It says the permit shall be impounded, but that is just the permit to purchase. So being arrested will invalidate any existing permits to purchase. This is not as bad but still brings up due process questions.

§134-7.3  Seizure of firearms upon disqualification.  (a)  If any applicant is denied a permit, the chiefs of police of the respective counties shall send, by certified mail, a notice setting forth the reasons for the denial and may require that the applicant voluntarily surrender all firearms and ammunition to the chief of police where the applicant resides or dispose of all firearms and ammunition.  If an applicant fails to voluntarily surrender or dispose of all firearms and ammunition within thirty days from the date notice was mailed, the chief of police may seize all firearms and ammunition.

Once you're denied a permit, you have to dispose of your guns, or they will be seized.

So? What's the problem? You've got a full 30 days to get a second mortgage on your home to hire an attorney who will take on the entire deep-pocket taxparyer-funded unlimited-resources of the entire state government's full-time apparatchiks and prove that you ought to be allowed to keep your firearms. How could that be a "problem"? (Peruta 6 years so far, Nichols 5 years so far, Young 4 years so far... etc. etc. etc.). 

Once you're denied a permit, you have to dispose of your guns, or they will be seized.

I was thinking about that however they might be independent of each other. 134-7.3 says "denied a permit" while 134-2 says a permit is "impounded." These are not necessarily the same thing, as impounding doesn't mean the application is denied.

But all of this is already existing law, so will the rap back really change anything? The rap back will let HPD know if an arrest is made in another state. If indeed an arrest means you lose your guns then it is true regardless of whether rap back notifies HPD  or not. If being arrested means you lose your guns then wouldn't a law abiding gun owner dispose of their guns anyway, with or without notification by rap back?

The reason I am on the fence about the rap backs because I haven't seen where it actually changes anything in terms of who can and cannot have a gun. It only shares information.

I was thinking about that however they might be independent of each other. 134-7.3 says "denied a permit" while 134-2 says a permit is "impounded." These are not necessarily the same thing, as impounding doesn't mean the application is denied.

But all of this is already existing law, so will the rap back really change anything? The rap back will let HPD know if an arrest is made in another state. If indeed an arrest means you lose your guns then it is true regardless of whether rap back notifies HPD  or not. If being arrested means you lose your guns then wouldn't a law abiding gun owner dispose of their guns anyway, with or without notification by rap back?

The reason I am on the fence about the rap backs because I haven't seen where it actually changes anything in terms of who can and cannot have a gun. It only shares information.

I was thinking about that however they might be independent of each other. 134-7.3 says "denied a permit" while 134-2 says a permit is "impounded." These are not necessarily the same thing, as impounding doesn't mean the application is denied.

But all of this is already existing law, so will the rap back really change anything? The rap back will let HPD know if an arrest is made in another state. If indeed an arrest means you lose your guns then it is true regardless of whether rap back notifies HPD  or not. If being arrested means you lose your guns then wouldn't a law abiding gun owner dispose of their guns anyway, with or without notification by rap back?

The reason I am on the fence about the rap backs because I haven't seen where it actually changes anything in terms of who can and cannot have a gun. It only shares information.

If that were true, then why did they pass a bill to have Hawaii gun owners added to rap-back?

The difference has to do with being arrested in another state. Let's say you're arrested in another state. Rap Back flags the arrest to HPD. HPD sends out your 30 day notice, but you can't respond, because you couldn't get a bail hearing in time to get out of jail, and make the trip back to Hawaii. So HPD is going to break your door down when you're not home in order to seize your guns ?  Sounds like this law, in conjunction with existing laws, allows exactly that to happen.

So HPD would be notified of convictions in other states that make firearm ownership illegal rather than relying on self reporting or continuously running checks on all firearm owners.

So HPD would be notified of convictions in other states that make firearm ownership illegal rather than relying on self reporting or continuously running checks on all firearm owners.

HPD would need to get a search warrant first but again, there is nothing in writing that anyone here has found that says an arrest alone will cause a loss of firearms.

I was thinking about that however they might be independent of each other. 134-7.3 says "denied a permit" while 134-2 says a permit is "impounded." These are not necessarily the same thing, as impounding doesn't mean the application is denied.

But all of this is already existing law, so will the rap back really change anything? The rap back will let HPD know if an arrest is made in another state. If indeed an arrest means you lose your guns then it is true regardless of whether rap back notifies HPD  or not. If being arrested means you lose your guns then wouldn't a law abiding gun owner dispose of their guns anyway, with or without notification by rap back?

The reason I am on the fence about the rap backs because I haven't seen where it actually changes anything in terms of who can and cannot have a gun. It only shares information.

Search warrant lol. SSD would just roll in shoot your big dog and take your firearms why would they need a search warrant they already know what you have registered according to their records.

EEF what do you do besides wood working sorry I didn't ask when we met. It seems like you might work for HPD?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wrong. It gathers information.

Specifically about law abiding firearms owners exercising their constitutional rights and where they are. If any sharing is being done, it's the state "sharing" this information with the federal government. If you girls want to "share" information, by all means go ahead, there's nothing preventing you from doing so. Make a phone call, send an email requesting information on the arrested person's record. I find it ludicrous that I'm expected to believe a law enforcement agency in Bumfuck Some Other State isn't going to do this if a perpetrator is identified as a Hawaii resident, without gun owners being on a criminal watch list. It defies logic. The insanity only gets deeper if I'm expected to believe that HPD is incapable of "flagging" a record that is subject to such a request without that person being entered into a federal criminal database. The entire premise is BS.

This law infringes on our constitutional rights to due process, and is illegal under the Firearms Owners Protection Act.

Fish Boy, maybe you can explain why people WHO ALREADY OWN GUNS should be monitored as if they are criminals as opposed to, say, HPD officers?  or Big Island Mayors?  or Illinois State Governors?

EEF what do you do besides wood working sorry I didn't ask when we met. It seems like you might work for HPD?