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.

That about sums it up. Captured electorate and no accountability. It's part of their preparation for civil unrest in a state where most people always vote D no matter what and are too lazy to keep 3 days of water on hand.

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

Typical.

I answered it in my other post.

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

You were asking me to objectively define something that is inherently subjective, I explained that.

I answered it in my other post.

No, you did not.

Quote from: Flapp_Jackson on February 22, 2017, 06:00:02 PM

    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?"

--------------------

Your "answer" ==> 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.

Get a room you two.

Get a room you two.

That joke's so old, last time I heard it, I fell off my dinosaur!   

The police and AG should do everything in their power, AND WITHIN THE CONSTITUTION, to prevent and curb attacks of violence or terrorism to the public or individuals.  A new law that strips RIGHTS and FREEDOM of the citizen is not the answer to the problem.

Being free isn't the easiest or best way to be safe and having little protective bubble being provided by the government.  It is the complete antithesis of the whole concept.

I'd rather be free, and able to defend myself and loved ones, in the free society, than be dependent and enslaved by an overreaching and PROVEN incompetent government (IE  Hawaii government especially) . 

In the end and big picture, they may be able to protect their little 'utopia' of socialism, however, the single individual and their family does not fall into that niche of protection.   I cannot accept that vision they have for me or my family.

The irony/stupidity of this law is that a cop can hear something secondhand from a third party and decide that information is "reliable", then go to a (left-leaning "better to be safe than sorry"?) judge and get an ex parte (the accused is neither present nor even notified of the proceeding and thus has no legal representation at all, aka "due process") order for the "informally" accused person's firearms to be confiscated, and while the "hearing" to determine whether or not that person is truly a "person who pose(s) a serious risk of violence or harm to public safety" is supposedly to be held within 30 days, in the meantime that person who has had his/her rights rendered meaningless because someone claims they "pose a serious risk of violence or harm to public safety" can get behind the wheel of any motor vehicle and do whatever they want (See: Nice, Berlin, Ohio State University, Isla Vista, Melbourne, Las Vegas, etc.)! They can also do whatever they want with any hammer, knife, chainsaw, pipe, machete, poison, gasoline, dangerous chemicals, etc., etc., etc.  JFC!! If a person actually is a " serious risk of violence or harm to public safety" the only serious and obvious answer is to arrest and incarcerate that person, thus removing them from the possibility of using any tools or their hands and feet to enact "violence or harm to public safety". In that scenario, however, the protections of individual rights remain in place and that person is entitled to an immediate hearing, with legal representation, to defend themselves against the charges in an open courtroom.

You gotta wonder why the exclusive focus on "firearms" as the only tools confiscated while the dangerous person roams the streets of the community free to enact violence by any other of myriad means.

I hope everyone here sends an email to their senator urging them to oppose this bill. You can "Take Action" through the NRA-ILA website.
I contacted Sen Mike Gabbard.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, you did not.

Refer to reply #32 for a three paragraph explanation where I did answer what you asked.

Here is a link for you.
https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=26639.msg234913#msg234913

The irony/stupidity of this law is that a cop can hear something secondhand from a third party and decide that information is "reliable", then go to a (left-leaning "better to be safe than sorry"?) judge and get an ex parte (the accused is neither present nor even notified of the proceeding and thus has no legal representation at all, aka "due process") order for the "informally" accused person's firearms to be confiscated, and while the "hearing" to determine whether or not that person is truly a "person who pose(s) a serious risk of violence or harm to public safety" is supposedly to be held within 30 days, in the meantime that person who has had his/her rights rendered meaningless because someone claims they "pose a serious risk of violence or harm to public safety" can get behind the wheel of any motor vehicle and do whatever they want (See: Nice, Berlin, Ohio State University, Isla Vista, Melbourne, Las Vegas, etc.)! They can also do whatever they want with any hammer, knife, chainsaw, pipe, machete, poison, gasoline, dangerous chemicals, etc., etc., etc.  JFC!! If a person actually is a " serious risk of violence or harm to public safety" the only serious and obvious answer is to arrest and incarcerate that person, thus removing them from the possibility of using any tools or their hands and feet to enact "violence or harm to public safety". In that scenario, however, the protections of individual rights remain in place and that person is entitled to an immediate hearing, with legal representation, to defend themselves against the charges in an open courtroom.

You gotta wonder why the exclusive focus on "firearms" as the only tools confiscated while the dangerous person roams the streets of the community free to enact violence by any other of myriad means.

Where are you getting that information? I read the bill and you are making statements about certain standards used to judge that seem to go beyond what the bill itself says.

The police and AG should do everything in their power, AND WITHIN THE CONSTITUTION, to prevent and curb attacks of violence or terrorism to the public or individuals.  A new law that strips RIGHTS and FREEDOM of the citizen is not the answer to the problem.

Being free isn't the easiest or best way to be safe and having little protective bubble being provided by the government.  It is the complete antithesis of the whole concept.

I'd rather be free, and able to defend myself and loved ones, in the free society, than be dependent and enslaved by an overreaching and PROVEN incompetent government (IE  Hawaii government especially) . 

In the end and big picture, they may be able to protect their little 'utopia' of socialism, however, the single individual and their family does not fall into that niche of protection.   I cannot accept that vision they have for me or my family.

How would you go about it? What system would you put in place to restrict firearm ownership to those who you think should not be allowed to own firearms? Some place other than the courts? If the courts, what requirements need to be met?

Refer to reply #32 for a three paragraph explanation where I did answer what you asked.

Here is a link for you.
https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=26639.msg234913#msg234913

No, you did not answer.

You pontificated and rambled on about what you think.

I asked what you would change in the existing bill to make it "a decent gun control law."

If you can't answer, you can't answer.  Either way, I don't care.  But you need to be able to answer a question directly and not offer general, philosophical results versus real, OBJECTIVE alterations to the bill in question.

Some suggesting watchlisting.
That's a slippery slope.
Not much to do in regards to a person's rights to put a subject on a watchlist. No trial. No courts. Boom. You are on a watchlist.

No, you did not answer.

You pontificated and rambled on about what you think.

I asked what you would change in the existing bill to make it "a decent gun control law."

If you can't answer, you can't answer.  Either way, I don't care.  But you need to be able to answer a question directly and not offer general, philosophical results versus real, OBJECTIVE alterations to the bill in question.

I did answer, I said specifically certain requirements I would change or add. Go read it again, I gave multiple specific changes I would make.

For example, a hearing within 48 hours instead of 30 days. I am not going to retype my whole post for you. Refer to my answer or drop it.
https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=26639.msg234913#msg234913

Some suggesting watchlisting.
That's a slippery slope.
Not much to do in regards to a person's rights to put a subject on a watchlist. No trial. No courts. Boom. You are on a watchlist.

Agreed, the watchlist itself needs to be overhauled as it can affect many things beyond just gun rights.

I did answer, I said specifically certain requirements I would change or add. Go read it again, I gave multiple specific changes I would make.

For example, a hearing within 48 hours instead of 30 days. I am not going to retype my whole post for you. Refer to my answer or drop it.
https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=26639.msg234913#msg234913

So, you can't answer.

I guess you concede the point.

 

So, you can't answer.

I guess you concede the point.

 

I answered. Apparently you have reading comprehension problems because it is there for everyone to see. Once again here is the link.

https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=26639.msg234913#msg234913

I don't care what EEF says. Its not worth anything of value. This bill had so much public opposition but yet the committee UNANIMOUSLY passed it. It was a big FUCK YOU to the people in the spirit of "Ainokea I do wut I like"
These politicians cater to their self-righteous opinions and not the people.
Same kind of attitude that will bring us high taxes and an expensive rail system.
These politicians shouldn't be in office at all.

Where are you getting that information? I read the bill and you are making statements about certain standards used to judge that seem to go beyond what the bill itself says.

Yeah, I read the bill too. Several times in fact. What specifically are you referring to? Or am I supposed to be able to read your mind? If you ask a question, and want a specific answer, you have to ask a specific question. Especially as you imply that I am misrepresenting or misunderstanding some specific part of the bill, which you neglect/refuse to state. Otherwise, the answer to the actual question you DID ask: "Where are you getting that information?", is: The bill. Read it again, this time make an effort to understand the clear meaning and implications of the actual language in front of you. Do you know what an "ex parte" hearing is? Look it up. Maybe you're thinking I got the standard of proof wrong for the initial (ex parte) warrant to be issued to confiscate the weapons... Read this: the officer "Describes any other individual's observations of or interactions with the person, if the law enforcement officer believes that information obtained from that individual is credible and reliable". I.e. "Hearsay". What are the "objective criteria" a street cop uses to determine whether a third party claim is "credible and reliable". Guess what... there isn't any criteria, they're just guessing or surmising based upon nothing at all but their "hunch". Etc. Etc. Etc.

You can read my submitted testimony where I detail some of the obvious faults of the bill. And I use quotes from the bill to preface my criticisms. If you can't be specific when you question my veracity or understanding you should just shut the fuck up until you can comprehend what it is you're criticizing while failing to understand plain English.

Now, tell me, EXACTLY what did I get wrong? And I mean EXACTLY. I know, you think this would be a "decent gun control law" (terms you refuse to define because you laughably argue that those terms are "subjective") if only what wording was changed exactly how? Go ahead, prove you're not full of shit.