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.

Okay, moron, I went back and read the first couple of sentences of your linked comment, and all that does is prove that you're too stupid to understand English, and are prone to serious errors of understanding and shouldn't be relied upon, ever, to convey any accurate information.

To wit, you claim this proposed law is a "step in that [judge making decision] direction" because "having a hearing and a judge make a decision instead of a police officer or administrative official". To me that is clear proof that either 1. you didn't read the bill, or 2. you cannot comprehend the English language, or 3. you're an idiot. As I quoted above, the law proposes EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU SEE AS ITS REDEEMING QUALITY, in fact at the ex parte hearing, relying possibly solely on testimony of an officer's recounting of third party testimony that he "believes" is "reliable and credible", a person, absent from and uninformed of the very existence of the hearing, can have his firearms, but only his firearms, confiscated to keep him from endangering "public safety". A judge in that circumstance is totally reliant on the officer's testimony, so now the judge has to determine whether the officer is "reliable and credible" about the testimony that the officer claims is "reliable and credible". Learn to read dumbass. I couldn't read any more of your gibberish, because well, too stupid.

There's something about gathering intelligence people don't seem to realize. Too much is worse than not enough. Right now the government approach to finding needles is piling more hay on the stack, and it's causing more problems than it solves.

Non sequitur, ad hominem attack.

You seem to think that nothing has to be proven in court, that an officer can simply decide what is reliable and that it does not face scrutiny as would evidence in a criminal case. In all cases an officer has to make observations or hear reports from a 2nd or 3rd party and make a judgement call on whether to arrest or not but when it comes to court it still gets to be cross examined and has to be determined by the judge or jury to be reliable.

As for the hearing to be scheduled within 30 days I don't see why you think the accused has no options for due process.

And I don't know why you take issue with not being able to objectively define decent which is inherently subjective. And I did already provide some modifications I would suggest. It is in reply #32.

I don't know why you are getting offended at this, I am just asking for the reasoning behind your comments as I don't see how you arrived at the statements to made. I am not even disagreeing with you per se.

Good analogy.  The gov't collecting more information on you only helps the gov't.  It won't keep anyone safer except people with political agendas.

Look at the times the FBI had information on suspected terrorists and dropped the ball because they were being "sensitive" to the political aspects of watching Muslim refugees.  People died even though they had all the information they needed.  No one was safer.

Goddamn you're dense (and that's not ad hominem because it isn't being used as a premise in an argument). There is no "reasoning" involved, it's just reading the words of the bill and understanding plain English. I clearly stated that I was talking about the ex parte hearing, which is the hearing where an officer can present hearsay evidence, where the accused is neither present, with or without counsel, nor even informed of the hearing. There is, and cannot be, any "cross examination", because there is neither the defendant present nor counsel for that defendant. The only person present to "examine" the officer is the judge who is tasked with issuing the confiscation order. That ex parte ("one part only") hearing is where the decision is made to confiscate a person's firearms. I  clearly presented the quotes from the bill, and then you still don't get it! How many times would I have to repeat myself, and repeat the quotes from the bill for you to understand? Don't answer with a question or divert, that was a rhetorical question. You need to take this conversation to your Phil 101 prof and have him review it for you, maybe he can straighten you out, but I doubt it. It's almost like you're making a deliberate attempt to be obtuse, make absurd claims, intentionally ignore what was just written, as well as your usual "tactic" of not answering questions after you've made inaccurate accusations against other people. Thus, I now bow to my (unfortunately ignored) original intuition and sentiment and evidence-based reasoned conclusion, and refrain from attempting to get you to make any straight clear unambiguous non-waffling statements. I'm pretty sure almost everyone else can see what's going on.

Legal language is not standard plain English. It is not as easy to understand as plain english. Maybe you are a lawyer so it seems so obvious to you but to others it is not.

You are mistaking the two hearings. The first hearing is indeed an ex parte and everything you say is true. However the second hearing, 30 days later, does not state that it is an ex parte, it only states a "hearing" will be held. That is where I am pointing out that your conclusions seem to make assumptions.

Having said that, I obviously would have problems with the vague wording that simply states a "hearing" must be held because it doesn't offer strong enough protections. This is one of the things I would change to make it into a decent law.

No, YOU were mistaking the two hearings by not ever acknowledging the first (ex parte) hearing where a person's right to keep arms can be totally negated without anything resembling traditional due process, wherein the accused is confronted in open court by his accusers, has the option of having legal representation, and can present arguments and evidence against the charges leveled against him. And you STILL seem to be fine with that. That's okay, you are entitled to your opinion. I have to wonder what other rights you believe can be obliterated (until at some later hearing the accused "passes a test" created by the state). Free speech? Right to be free from warrantless searches? Right to legal representation? Right to practice a religion? Of course, we all know, that can't happen here.

I was aware of the initial hearing and I was not addressing it. I am sorry if I didn't make that clear.

I am fine with the initial hearing provided that other things are changed, such as the requirement to have the second hearing within 48 hours. This is consistent with the time limits police have to charge an individual with a crime if they are arrested. It is also consistent when a judge issues an warrant or search warrant, defendants aren't present at those court decisions either. People arrested for a crime don't get to hold a hearing before they are arrested, and I think if we use general arrest and charging methods we would be within the legal norm when it comes to denying someone's civil rights. I do realize that we are comparing a crime to a potential for harm so they are not directly translatable.

But lets imagine a hypothetical situation where this issue might come into play. You have an individual you have reason to believe will commit harm with a firearm. Now imagine if we have to go by a hearing system in a different manner. First you have to serve the individual, then you have to give him adequate time to prepare a defense, then schedule a court date, then reschedule the court date because the individual calls in sick or reschedule because the officer/doctor/witness is off island on vacation, etc. etc. etc. Do you see how that can create problems for a situation where time is of the essence?

I do believe there needs to be a strong system set in place for the protection of rights, but where do you draw the line? What system would you design that would address this issue?

I was aware of the initial hearing and I was not addressing it. I am sorry if I didn't make that clear.

The initial ex parte hearing is the most important hearing because a person's constitutionally-guaranteed civil rights are being revoked not only without the accused, nor his legal counsel being present, nor is the accused even informed of the imminent revocation of his constitutional rights, but all this takes place WITHOUT THE PERSON HAVING COMMITTED A CRIME. In other words it's "PRE-CRIME", possibly testified to by a cop who may never have seen or heard the accused, but only heard something from a third party. If the person has committed a crime (such as "terroristic threatening") THEN arrest him, he'll be held in jail until his bail hearing and thus unable to do any harm.

I am fine with the initial hearing provided that other things are changed, such as the requirement to have the second hearing within 48 hours. This is consistent with the time limits police have to charge an individual with a crime if they are arrested. It is also consistent when a judge issues an warrant or search warrant, defendants aren't present at those court decisions either. People arrested for a crime don't get to hold a hearing before they are arrested, and I think if we use general arrest and charging methods we would be within the legal norm when it comes to denying someone's civil rights. I do realize that we are comparing a crime to a potential for harm so they are not directly translatable.

No, they are not only "not translatable" they have no common ground at all, at least as far as the typical due process rights have traditionally been understood. Where do you draw the line when deciding what people may and may not do, or what rights they may or may not exercise once one starts down the path of "prior restraint"? Since everyone has a right to free speech, the only way a theater and its patrons could be protected from someone falsely yelling "Fire!" and causing a panic during which many people could be injured or killed would be via prior restraint and installing some device on each patron that would make it impossible for them to shout "Fire!" (or anything else, including "Fire!" if there actually was a fire). By the reasoning of the police departments and the AG such prior restraint is warranted because "public safety" is in jeopardy if people are not made incapable of vocalizing in a crowded theater... and there is a LOT of evidence to demonstrate the such a threat to "public safety" warrants such commonsense safety regulations on the protected right of free speech. I wish I was kidding. Some day...

But lets imagine a hypothetical situation where this issue might come into play. You have an individual you have reason to believe will commit harm with a firearm. Now imagine if we have to go by a hearing system in a different manner. First you have to serve the individual, then you have to give him adequate time to prepare a defense, then schedule a court date, then reschedule the court date because the individual calls in sick or reschedule because the officer/doctor/witness is off island on vacation, etc. etc. etc. Do you see how that can create problems for a situation where time is of the essence?

Yeah, right. What makes anyone think, much less believe due to (non-existent) demonstrably conclusive evidence, that someone intent on harming someone will simply give up when his firearms are confiscated? There is no evidence that such measures actually deter crime (just like all the other "gun control" laws). You serve the warrant and take his guns and five minutes later he gets in his car and drives down a crowded sidewalk, or pours some flammable liquid at key locations of some building with many people inside and starts a fire, or uses a knife or machete or hammer or pipe or axe or chainsaw, etc. to harm whoever he was intent on harming, etc. As I wrote in my testimony, the only way to prevent a person from harming people is to remove that person from the public realm until they are proven to be harmless, NOT take away only one tool that can be used to harm people, leaving him with access to all the other tools to do some evil deed.

I do believe there needs to be a strong system set in place for the protection of rights, but where do you draw the line? What system would you design that would address this issue?

Create "laws" that only make criminals of and punish people if they beyond a reasonable doubt harm another person. Psychologists know and have published papers stating that they cannot predict who will and won't engage in violence based upon psychological evaluations, even including diagnoses of mental illness (a lengthy past history of violent acts, much more likely, but why would anyone with a lengthy history of violent acts be out on the street, in public? I mean other than for the fact that Hawaii has a criminal-coddling system...).