Not only is this illegal per:
 Firearm Owners’ Protection Act of 1986 (FOPA) is a United States federal law that revised many provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968. As such, FOPA makes it illegal for the national government or any state in the country to keep any sort of database or registry that ties firearms directly to their owner.

But also it is a betrayal by our state government. My question is can I bring legal action to this for sharing my personal information with the federal government since I gave no permission to do so? Or can this action only be taken in the SCOTUS?

The ballot box has failed, now on to the jury box

Not only is this illegal per:
 Firearm Owners’ Protection Act of 1986 (FOPA) is a United States federal law that revised many provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968. As such, FOPA makes it illegal for the national government or any state in the country to keep any sort of database or registry that ties firearms directly to their owner.

But also it is a betrayal by our state government. My question is can I bring legal action to this for sharing my personal information with the federal government since I gave no permission to do so? Or can this action only be taken in the SCOTUS?

The ballot box has failed, now on to the jury box

The ballot box controls the bench (some judges elected, others at the highest levels of appeal appointed and approved by elected officials), which is where decisions come from once past the point of the jury box. So, it makes no difference. The Legislative, Executive (those appointing the appeals-court-level judges), and thus the judiciary are all controlled by the ballot box. Thus the dire position of firearms righrts advocates under jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit.

My wife has been dreaming of living in Hawaii for years so we're moving to Maui 8/1/16.
The gun laws are my main objection, but I'm putting that in a box for now.

Nonetheless, it's a bummer to see Hawaii gun laws getting worse with no apparent way to stop these big-government pin-heads.

Putting all gun owners into the criminal database seems like guilty until proven innocent.
I'm sure it's not the end of the world, and people will blow it off by saying, "If you're not committing crimes, this doesn't affect you."

What are the best rebuttals to how national gun owner registration really does affect the right to keep and bear arms?

Reference: http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/gun-registration-happening-hawaii/
RE: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-hawaii-gun-law-idUSKCN0ZA3IP

The potential for misuse and abuse is massive.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/biometric-security-poses-huge-privacy-risks/

Not only is this illegal per:
 Firearm Owners’ Protection Act of 1986 (FOPA) is a United States federal law that revised many provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968. As such, FOPA makes it illegal for the national government or any state in the country to keep any sort of database or registry that ties firearms directly to their owner.

But also it is a betrayal by our state government. My question is can I bring legal action to this for sharing my personal information with the federal government since I gave no permission to do so? Or can this action only be taken in the SCOTUS?

The ballot box has failed, now on to the jury box

I haven't figured out a solid answer yet but it could depend on how the rap back system registers people. If the rap back system only records a persons name and basic information then it doesn't seem to violate the FOPA. (Basically a system that doest care why you are in, it just makes notification based on names.) But if the rap back records that a person was entered in relation to firearms ownership then there may be standing for legal action based on a violation of the FOPA.

I haven't figured out a solid answer yet but it could depend on how the rap back system registers people. If the rap back system only records a persons name and basic information then it doesn't seem to violate the FOPA. (Basically a system that doest care why you are in, it just makes notification based on names.) But if the rap back records that a person was entered in relation to firearms ownership then there may be standing for legal action based on a violation of the FOPA.

What about our rights to due process? I'm being put on a criminal watch list, against my will, and I've been convicted of no crime. I haven't even been accused of a crime. They are doing it because I choose to freely exercise my 2nd amendment rights, and that makes it unconstitutional on two levels.

What about our rights to due process? I'm being put on a criminal watch list, against my will, and I've been convicted of no crime. I haven't even been accused of a crime. They are doing it because I choose to freely exercise my 2nd amendment rights, and that makes it unconstitutional on two levels.

I wouldn't consider the rap back system a criminal watch list. As it was pointed out, people like teachers could be enrolled in rap back.

I wouldn't consider the rap back system a criminal watch list. As it was pointed out, people like teachers could be enrolled in rap back.

You CHOOSE to be a teacher and be on the list.  You don't get to CHOOSE to be on the rapback list for excising your American right to own a gun.  Its not an American right to be a teacher.

I wouldn't consider the rap back system a criminal watch list. As it was pointed out, people like teachers could be enrolled in rap back.

It's a list of people being watched for criminal activity. WTF else are you going to call it? The career of the person being put on it is irrelevant.

It's a list of people being watched for criminal activity. WTF else are you going to call it? The career of the person being put on it is irrelevant.

I guess I would consider a criminal watch list to be a list of people who have committed a crime or are under suspicion being involved in criminal activity.

Omni, you do make a good point that the only reason someone is put on the list is because they exercised a right. Is that a violation of the 2nd amendment or any other right though?

I guess I would consider a criminal watch list to be a list of people who have committed a crime or are under suspicion being involved in criminal activity.

Omni, you do make a good point that the only reason someone is put on the list is because they exercised a right. Is that a violation of the 2nd amendment or any other right though?

Yes.  Equal protection under the law.  Quite easy to see that.

I guess I would consider a criminal watch list to be a list of people who have committed a crime or are under suspicion being involved in criminal activity.

Omni, you do make a good point that the only reason someone is put on the list is because they exercised a right. Is that a violation of the 2nd amendment or any other right though?

In the case of RapBack, the criminal watch list is under the Criminal Justice side of the system.  People who are under supervision by statute or are under investigation (that's an or -- not a criminal yet necessarily) can be monitored along with those required by law to be supervised:  parole, probation, sex offender, etc.  On the civil side, people with highly sensitive positions of responsibility, like having a clearance, security guards (armored car drivers), or elementary school teachers and staff, can be subscribed, too.  In which category in that list would you group "law abiding people exercising their second amendment rights under the Constitution?"  What part of owning a gun classifies anyone for monitoring?  Position of responsibility?  Then why not all elected officials and appointees?  Judges?  Cops?  Why are gun owners monitored as if we are a higher risk than the rest of society.

The only reason the NRA supported FOPA was the fact  that it allowed free passage with firearms without a registry and gave up  HUGE on all new manufacture of machine guns.

In the case of RapBack, the criminal watch list is under the Criminal Justice side of the system.  People who are under supervision by statute or are under investigation (that's an or -- not a criminal yet necessarily) can be monitored along with those required by law to be supervised:  parole, probation, sex offender, etc.  On the civil side, people with highly sensitive positions of responsibility, like having a clearance, security guards (armored car drivers), or elementary school teachers and staff, can be subscribed, too.  In which category in that list would you group "law abiding people exercising their second amendment rights under the Constitution?"  What part of owning a gun classifies anyone for monitoring?  Position of responsibility?  Then why not all elected officials and appointees?  Judges?  Cops?  Why are gun owners monitored as if we are a higher risk than the rest of society.

I do agree that if we are going to monitor gun owners then we should first enroll elected officials, judges, cops etc.

Yes.  Equal protection under the law.  Quite easy to see that.

How is equal protection being denied by rap back though? Sure, the monitoring of citizens is not equal, but the benefits and rights of the citizens aren't exactly affected.

I am not saying I favor rap back but I don't see a constitutional argument against it.

Then why not a federal registration for everyone who wants to practice their First Amendment rights? I'm sure it's not far away.

"Sorry you cannot post of this forum without your Free Speech Registration Number."

EEF,

At the very least, unconstitutional or not, law abiding citizens exercising their right are being lumped together on a list. A list that was apparently brought forth by a bill, recommended by a ranking HPD employee, to a politician who currently doesn't seem to understand the currently already STRINGENT and RENDUNDANT 2a laws already in place. 
Form 4473 is all you need.

If that doesn't concern you, you might as well be the, "passive gun owner who doesn't support owning a gun and vote for Hillary."

End rant.