IMO the politicians who did this rap back thing should also be entered in the database.

Entering someone's home, or bag or car for that matter, is a search and requires a search warrant. Even if they are just "recovering" firearms they know to be there, a search warrant is still required.

As for the second part, I respectfully decline to mention my full time profession for reasons that would be clear if you knew my profession. It doesn't involve killing people who find out my profession though 

I am fairly certain (and I have a damn good memory) that a long time ago he admitted being a cop. 

Down-thread he claims to have a friend that works the firearms window, draw your own conclusions.

The one way it does matter is that if he, by his employment, is "above" the laws we are discussing that apply to us peasants/subjects, then he really doesn't have a (big) dog in the fight if the laws will not effect him or be applied to him due to his possibly being an "only one".

True, by entering us all into the system it does end up gathering data, but the purpose of the system itself is to inform local jurisdictions of significant events in other jurisdictions. Now I am not a big fan of a federal system tracking all gun owners either and that is one of the things I consider to be a point against it. But the system as an idea, not limited to firearms alone, makes sense in terms of law enforcement efficacy and efficiency.

Imagine a different group of people, lets say teachers. Imagine a teacher from Hawaii is on a trip to the mainland and gets arrested or even convicted for a pedophilia type charge. That person may return to Hawaii and the school would be none the wiser unless the teacher informed them of his arrest or conviction. A system like rap back could provide a notification and action could be taken where otherwise no one might know to take action. That is the benefit of the system. There are other negative implications to the program but there do exist positives in the system. That is why I am on the fence because I haven't yet decided whether the negatives outweigh the positives. I am not trying to convince anyone that it is some great system, just to look at the whole picture.

As sort of an anecdote, my friend who works at the firearms window explained that there have been times where someone who genuinely should not have a firearm was able to possess firearms and that the rap back would have enabled them to catch this individual. I did not share his enthusiasm but understood where he was coming from.

Not true. The cops can confiscate firearms under a restraining order, without a search warrant.

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol14_Ch0701-0853/HRS0711/HRS_0711-1109.htm


Also, the Supreme Court just ruled that States can require a breath test without a warrant.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/23/politics/supreme-court-drunk-driving-breathalyzers-birchfield/

What amuses me is how people like to keep feeding the troll then get their panties in a bunch about the replies. 

EEF, I'm not necessarily saying you're a troll (you pretty much are as you won't agree to disagree and keep pushing crap sideways and people keep feeding you)

But the fact that members will roll down the hill with him makes me laugh.
 

We do need a moderate opinion on this forum, IMO.
It just doesn't need to go on and on and on and on............and that's both ways.
Am I a Mod. No. Does my opinion matter. No.
Should we all get along. Hopefully yes.

2A GTG July 2nd Baby ! 

Imagine, if you will, a bureaucracy that's willing to get up off it's rosy ass and make a phone call or send an email to the PD or the AG in the jurisdiction that the accused/convicted person hails from. Imagine if the bureaucracy in that jurisdiction picked up the phone or answered that email and maybe, just maybe, jotted down this important information and compared it to the persons records. If that person owned firearms, whatever laws that might be applicable could be enforced. As an added "bonus" maybe that jurisdiction could send information back to the first jurisdiction to help with the case against the accused.

The REALLY amazing thing is, all this could occur without law abiding citizens that have committed no crime having to be put in a criminal database for exercising their Constitutional rights.

Maybe what we need is a federal law forcing lazy ass LE bureaucracies across the nation to perform this simple, logical act of communication that requires nothing but a small amount of effort on their part.

Problem with that is we are talking about a huge scale where such a system is too open to abuse, mistakes, and a waste of time. Say you get arrested in another state, they might not know where you come from, even if you have an ID with your address. They aren't going to spend so much time on the phone making sure your hometown jurisdiction knows you were arrested. It is easy to say that people should just get on the phone but we both know things would fall through the crack.


So let me get this straight, you feel that the larger, even more inefficient federal bureaucracy is better able to abuse, make mistakes and waste time than a smaller local bureaucracy?

You think that, even with a valid ID and an address, LE across the nation is too incompetent to figure out where you're from?

Finally, you're saying that LE just doesn't want to spend the time to do their job?

This is easily the most idiotic rebuttal I've ever seen you post, and a sad indictment of law enforcement's ability to protect the public as well as confirming the need for the law I mentioned in my previous post.

Unless you want me to continue to pound you into the ground like a form stake, on a public forum, I recommend you concede.

I like how 2ahawaii suppress opinions wether right or wrong about the subject at hand freedom is being challenged now I know why

You posted the wrong section, that one is cruelty to animals. A search warrant isn't needed to confiscate firearms but it is needed to enter into someone's property.

As I understand it, breath tests were ruled as not being invasive into a person's body and thus does not constitute a search. Exterior evidence on a person's body does not require a warrant search. When you start poking people with needles then you run into search issues.

Quote from: eyeeatingfish on June 26, 2016, 03:12:54 AM

Problem with that is we are talking about a huge scale where such a system is too open to abuse, mistakes, and a waste of time. Say you get arrested in another state, they might not know where you come from, even if you have an ID with your address. They aren't going to spend so much time on the phone making sure your hometown jurisdiction knows you were arrested. It is easy to say that people should just get on the phone but we both know things would fall through the crack.


So let me get this straight, you feel that the larger, even more inefficient federal bureaucracy is better able to abuse, make mistakes and waste time than a smaller local bureaucracy?

You think that, even with a valid ID and an address, LE across the nation is too incompetent to figure out where you're from?

Finally, you're saying that LE just doesn't want to spend the time to do their job?

This is easily the most idiotic rebuttal I've ever seen you post, and a sad indictment of law enforcement's ability to protect the public as well as confirming the need for the law I mentioned in my previous post.

Unless you want me to continue to pound you into the ground like a form stake, on a public forum, I recommend you concede.

Failure to share information between law enforcement agencies about people of interest isn't exactly a new thing.

But speaking in terms of man hours alone, it is more efficient to have  a computer do automatic notifications than to have an officer on the phone calling up various agencies. That is true even if we assume police are 100% responsible at making notifications.

Sorry about posting the wrong statute. This is the right one: http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol03_Ch0121-0200D/HRS0134/HRS_0134-0007.htm

The law says a police officer can confiscate any firearms in plain sight, and the ones surrendered under the restraining order. No search warrant needed.

Also, I can tell you that I have personally had several HPD officers in my front yard with no warrant, after I had told them to leave. They then proceeded to enter my house and conduct a search against my permission. They were sent there by an investigator for the prosecutor's office, who had given them the false information that I had been beating my girlfriend. They left without incident, but my attorney said it was perfectly legal in Hawaii for them to do that.

Also, a few years ago I was arrested at my business property (which I own), with no warrant. This time my lawyer said that was not legal, but they did it anyway.  I had pressed the cop for a warrant, but he was quite certain that he didn't need one.


Did you happen to see the latest Batman movie ? I know it's fantasy, but one theme was absolutely correct. That power corrupts. It may not corrupt Superman, but it will corrupt most humans.

No offense, but you sound like a young person with very little life experience. As you get older, you will gain wisdom.

Failure to share information between law enforcement agencies about people of interest isn't exactly a new thing.

But speaking in terms of man hours alone, it is more efficient to have  a computer do automatic notifications than to have an officer on the phone calling up various agencies. That is true even if we assume police are 100% responsible at making notifications.

Millions of dollars later, Maryland has officially decided that its 15-year effort to store and catalog the "fingerprints" of thousands of handguns was a failure.

Since 2000, the state required that gun manufacturers fire every handgun to be sold here and send the spent bullet casing to authorities. The idea was to build a database of "ballistic fingerprints" to help solve future crimes.

But the system — plagued by technological problems — never solved a single case. Now the hundreds of thousands of accumulated casings could be sold for scrap.

"Obviously, I'm disappointed," said former Gov. Parris N. Glendening, a Democrat whose administration pushed for the database to fulfill a campaign promise. "It's a little unfortunate, in that logic and common sense suggest that it would be a good crime-fighting tool."

The database "was a waste," said Frank Sloane, owner of Pasadena Gun & Pawn in Anne Arundel County. "There's things that they could have done that would have made sense. This didn't make any sense."

A recent example of a failed "Sounded like a good idea at the time" gun control project...

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bs-md-bullet-casings-20151107-story.html

Right. It's not a "new" thing, it's the same old shit. Note that I never said it had to be an "officer" making the calls or inputting the data. The LE bureaucracies are filled with lard assed underachieving paper pushers that can perform these tasks just as inefficiently as the lard assed underachievers in the federal bureaucracy. You're deflecting.

None of this shows a "need" for law abiding citizens to be put into a criminal database for exercising their constitutional rights. Quite the opposite. It shows that the LE bureaucracies need to get up off of their collective lazy asses and start doing the job they're being paid for.

So let me get this straight, you want a government employee to call another jurisdiction anytime a resident from that jurisdiction is arrested? A computer system would do this much quicker and more efficient even if no one was lazy.