I don't agree with this bill but let me put this scenario and see if we can come up with a better solution. I try to look at this from the other (HPD and the AG's) point of view.

(The example below is purely hypothetical.)

1. Someone overhears or sees a social media post on Facebook about an impending crime, terrorist attack or murder.

2. The police receives a tip off.

3. At this point, what can HPD or the AG do?  What should they be able to do?

Put yourself in their shoes and imagine you were LEO and this was your job. What would be an acceptable course of action that LEO be allowed to take?

In my mind, it should be.... nothing?   There's that thing called bill of rights and innocent until proven guilty.

I'm not trying to convince anyone that this is wrong... Just wondering what is an acceptable course of action for LEO to take to stop something imminent.

I don't agree with this bill but let me put this scenario and see if we can come up with a better solution. I try to look at this from the other (HPD and the AG's) point of view.

(The example below is purely hypothetical.)

1. Someone overhears or sees a social media post on Facebook about an impending crime, terrorist attack or murder.

2. The police receives a tip off.

3. At this point, what can HPD or the AG do?  What should they be able to do?

Put yourself in their shoes and imagine you were LEO and this was your job. What would be an acceptable course of action that LEO be allowed to take?

In my mind, it should be.... nothing?   There's that thing called bill of rights and innocent until proven guilty.

I'm not trying to convince anyone that this is wrong... Just wondering what is an acceptable course of action for LEO to take to stop something imminent.

Wow, that is a steep slippery slope of greased ice topped with Teflon.... 

I totally agree with you, Heavies. HPD and the AG are totally wrong about the way they are approaching this issue.

I'm just trying to point out where LEO and AG may be coming from.

There has to be a better way to address this than the approach taken by this bill.

I totally agree with you, Heavies. HPD and the AG are totally wrong about the way they are approaching this issue.

I'm just trying to point out where LEO and AG may be coming from.

There has to be a better way to address this than the approach taken by this bill.

next step:
"Minority Report"

Pre-crime unit -- the movie is worth watching again.

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/chicago-police-pre-crime-algorithm-target-innocent-citizens/

https://www.technocracy.news/index.php/2016/08/03/chicago-police-using-pre-crime-ai-arrest-people-commit-crime/

Countdown: 2 hours until the committee convenes at 9:15AM.

I'm hoping someone (zippz?) can explain this situation:

"The following measures were previously heard in their respective standing committees:" [includes SB 898]

"Decision making meeting only, no oral testimony will be accepted.

Persons wishing to submit written testimony may do so up to 24 hours prior to the hearing."

Is this really a "decision making meeting" or really a "decision announcement meeting"? Why would they be making a decision without allowing oral testimony? Why would they not allow oral testimony prior to making a decision, but accept written testimony? Are they claiming that written testimony could be influential in their "decision making", but oral testimony would not be? Why? Huh? What!? Is the whole "hearing" a sham/pretense that is merely a pro forma public display conforming to the "rules" but in fact is irrelevant as a decision has already been made? And if it has, and no oral testimony will be allowed, why not just have the chair send out an email with the result? Maybe they can't vote without holding a formal meeting. Any clarification of this process appreciated.

The people of Hawaii have spoken.

Testimony is up for SB 898. Here is my (may not be perfectly accurate) tally:

FAVOR: 8 (4 organizations, 4 individuals)

OPPOSE: 91 (1 organization, 90 individuals (includes 1 auto-submitted testimony that had clicked "favor", but comments are clearly opposed, and 3 that had "comments only" but were also clearly opposed by the comments they left)).

Ratio Opposed to Favor: 11.4 to 1

Now let's see how the committee respects the will of the people.

2/23/2017  The committee(s) on JDL recommend(s) that the measure be PASSED, WITH AMENDMENTS. The votes in JDL were as follows: 4 Aye(s): Senator(s) Keith-Agaran, K. Rhoads, L. Thielen; Aye(s) with reservations: Senator(s) Gabbard ; 0 No(es): none; and 1 Excused: Senator(s) Kim.

The "amendment(s)" aren't available yet. Unanimous vote FOR, with Senator Gabbard at least expressing "reservations". I don't know what to say...

As I posted above, the public testimony in the earlier committee hearing had a ratio of 6 to 1 OPPOSED, and it PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

I'm pretty sure if most (any?) of the state legislators were really concerned about upholding their oath to uphold and defend the constitutions, including our civil rights protected by the Second Amendment and Article I, section 17, that we'd have had evidence of it by now in this hellhole of treasonous traitors (yeah, I said it.). Maybe I'm wrong and the committee chair and members have decided to abide by their oath of office and summarily dismiss this bill which denies due process. Sure they will. 

Yeah, I saw your previous post.  As always, thank you for your always thoughtful posts that convey a positive attitude that encourages others to support the 2A cause.   

How's your "positive attitude" workin' out for ya now?

How's your "positive attitude" workin' out for ya now?

DELETED

Nevermind. . .

Carry on 

This is why you are identified by many as an anti-gun sympathizer.

What, specifically, would you change to make it "a decent gun control law?"

Funny how being objective labels you as being on the other side. The difference between you and me is I acknowledge facts even when I don't like them.

I don't agree with this bill but let me put this scenario and see if we can come up with a better solution. I try to look at this from the other (HPD and the AG's) point of view.

(The example below is purely hypothetical.)

1. Someone overhears or sees a social media post on Facebook about an impending crime, terrorist attack or murder.

2. The police receives a tip off.

3. At this point, what can HPD or the AG do?  What should they be able to do?

Put yourself in their shoes and imagine you were LEO and this was your job. What would be an acceptable course of action that LEO be allowed to take?

In my mind, it should be.... nothing?   There's that thing called bill of rights and innocent until proven guilty.

I'm not trying to convince anyone that this is wrong... Just wondering what is an acceptable course of action for LEO to take to stop something imminent.

When I have discussed this issue with other gun rights advocates and how to go about revoking rights of people who really should not have guns. The answer was always to go through courts. Well this is a step in that direction, having a hearing and a judge make a decision instead of a police officer or administrative official. Police do currently have a system for taking individuals with dangerous mental health issues in for assessment and that could be a basis for deciding on when and how to take away firearms.

Here is a system I might come up with an alternative, feel free to add requirements you would like to see. I do realize that there is never going to be a foolproof system however that is not a good reason to do nothing.
-A threat may be imminent so I do think that there needs to be a means to immediately secure a dangerous individual's firearms. However a hearing needs to be scheduled much sooner, say within 5 days (or 48 hours like charging time limits).
-If the state cannot prepare enough evidence then the firearms will be returned with the option of refiling later if more evidence comes to light.
-If the case is pending a mental health assessment then the hearing time limit can be extended because realistically it can sometimes take a while to do a proper diagnosis.
-If it is a mental health issue then a mental health expert must testify as to the danger of the individual.
-A "terrorist watch list" listing in and of itself is not enough to deny someone their firearms. The state must petition the federal government for the evidence that put the person on the list and use it in the decision.
-The state must provide a public defender for the individual
-If an individuals rights are taken away with just cause then the individual has the right to petition the court for another hearing to reconsider. This is to allow for the fact that people may recover from a mental condition or they may have their name cleared from a criminal list.

But you are totally right about the problem. A police department has a very difficult task. Get it wrong one way and you take away rights unjustly, get it wrong the other way and dozens could die. If you err on the side of protecting individual rights and the individual in question goes on a shooting spree now the weight rests on you for all those deaths. Maybe you didn't do anything wrong but the world will still play monday morning quarter back and slander you or even sue you.

I think the intent of this law is good but it fails to have a number of important protections of individual's rights. With some modifications I think this could be the start of a decent gun control law but as of now it is very problematic.

Funny how being objective labels you as being on the other side. The difference between you and me is I acknowledge facts even when I don't like them.

Please provide the "objective" definitions of "gun control", "gun control law", and "decent gun control law" (compared, I suppose, to an "indecent gun control law"). Perhaps include your "objective" evaluation of various Hawaii laws regarding the keeping and bearing of arms, such as full registration, permits to acquire, RapBack mandatory enrollment, handgun magazine limit of 10, "assault pistol" ban, ban on Mossberg 590 or similarly configured firearms, ban on "stun guns", ban on expandable baton outside the home, ban on suppressors, etc.

Please provide the "objective" definitions of "gun control", "gun control law", and "decent gun control law" (compared, I suppose, to an "indecent gun control law"). Perhaps include your "objective" evaluation of various Hawaii laws regarding the keeping and bearing of arms, such as full registration, permits to acquire, RapBack mandatory enrollment, handgun magazine limit of 10, "assault pistol" ban, ban on Mossberg 590 or similarly configured firearms, ban on "stun guns", ban on expandable baton outside the home, ban on suppressors, etc.

Are we debating the definition of what is and isn't gun control? I don't see objectivity being an issue there as word/term definitions inherently deal with something subjective.

When I say decent I am adding my own judgement.

Are we debating the definition of what is and isn't gun control? I don't see objectivity being an issue there as word/term definitions inherently deal with something subjective.

When I say decent I am adding my own judgement.

In other words, "No, I'm not willing to answer those questions about the meaning of terms I used."

Funny how being objective labels you as being on the other side. The difference between you and me is I acknowledge facts even when I don't like them.

You didn't answer the question.  You just tried to insult and deflect.

Typical.

Just called Judiciary chair Keith-Agaran's office asking when the amended version of SB898 will be available: not until mid next week.

Will crossover to the House on March 3, after which the House will decide where the bill will go when.

Update of Judiciary committee testimony tally now including "late testimony":

FAVOR: 10
OPPOSE: 102

Ratio OPPOSED: 10 to 1

Committee vote: Unanimous in FAVOR

[I guess "public servant" means "Voting against the stated preference of "the people" because they are too stupid to know what's good for them (we're much smarter, so we have to do what's best for the ignorant sheeple)." And yes, I understand the concept of protecting against a "tyranny of the majority", but this is a case where the minority (legislators) is taking away rights from the majority (all residents of the state), NOT the majority taking away rights from a minority.]

If it goes to the House Judiciary committee maybe we'll get one vote against it from McDermott. Would that be considered a "victory" around here?

The JDL doesn't even bother to have a hearing on these bills.

The JDL is basically just giving HPD and the AG whatever they ask for.  It's like kabuki theatre, except in this case, they're not even bothering to pretend to be interested in what we have to say.

The JDL doesn't even bother to have a hearing on these bills.

The JDL is basically just giving HPD and the AG whatever they ask for.  It's like kabuki theatre, except in this case, they're not even bothering to pretend to be interested in what we have to say.

Man, are you cynical or what? I think you're being very unfair. I watched the video of the PSM hearing on SB898 on 2/2/17 (only one available so far on this bill) and I'd have to say, just in my personal opinion, of course, that one or two of the politicians did pretend to be a little bit interested in what we have to say. Though, again, to be honest, those performances likely won't be nominated for a Golden Globe nor an Oscar (TM).