You CANNOT remove freedom from a person because they "might" do something bad!  How hard is that to understand?

If there is enough evidence that a person will do something bad, THEN ARREST THEM AND DETAIN THEM UNTIL TRIAL! 

Where are the psychics that will be doing the foreseeing for this law to work?  No doubt they will work for the city/state attorney and only harass lawful gun owners, as they can't seem to keep real criminals unarmed and in jail there they belong!

A number of issues.

For starters, arresting the person does little if the person bails out as soon as they are processed (for a misdemeanor) of sometime within 48 hours for a felony. Now they may be subsequently jailed for their offenses but in the meantime should there be any system that temporarily takes their firearms?

Yes, taking away a dangerous individual's guns does not neuter him/her. However it takes away one of the tools that person can do harm with, to themselves or someone else. The effectiveness is of course debatable but not every harm sought to be prevented can be accomplished with just anything. You don't hijack an airplane with a car for example. Again, obviously it isn't full proof but it is a step. Firearms are particularly effective and that is why they are at issue here.

As for the notion of pre-crime, police take those steps for those who may be mentally ill. They can't schedule a full hearing to put someone away in the middle of the night so they call a psychologist  who determines whether to take the individual in for a mental health examination, which is still taking away their civil rights. The individual may not have attempted suicide or homicide but they may be having suicidal or homicidal thoughts. So again, no act may have been committed but they are being taken.

Let me ask this, is there any conceivable case where you believe that someone should be denied firearms but without justifying their being locked in a mental institution?

A number of issues.

For starters, arresting the person does little if the person bails out as soon as they are processed (for a misdemeanor) of sometime within 48 hours for a felony. Now they may be subsequently jailed for their offenses but in the meantime should there be any system that temporarily takes their firearms?

Yes, taking away a dangerous individual's guns does not neuter him/her. However it takes away one of the tools that person can do harm with, to themselves or someone else. The effectiveness is of course debatable but not every harm sought to be prevented can be accomplished with just anything. You don't hijack an airplane with a car for example. Again, obviously it isn't full proof but it is a step. Firearms are particularly effective and that is why they are at issue here.

As for the notion of pre-crime, police take those steps for those who may be mentally ill. They can't schedule a full hearing to put someone away in the middle of the night so they call a psychologist  who determines whether to take the individual in for a mental health examination, which is still taking away their civil rights. The individual may not have attempted suicide or homicide but they may be having suicidal or homicidal thoughts. So again, no act may have been committed but they are being taken.

Let me ask this, is there any conceivable case where you believe that someone should be denied firearms but without justifying their being locked in a mental institution?

You don't have to lock someone up permanently in any "mental institution."  Bail is not automatic if the situation warrants holding for observation or evaluation.  You detain them for a minimum amount of time.  You contact members of the family, friends and co-workers for insight into the person's mental health.  You look at prior police intervention -- not just arrests & convictions.  How many times have the police been contacted due to this person's behavior?  Create a complete picture of the individual.

Your problem is you want a "one -size fits all" rule for everything.  This is a perfect example, asking for a "case" where a certain action should be taken.  When it comes to human behavior, it needs to be based on either acts which have already been committed, or an individual evaluation of the person's mental health and, more importantly, mental state at the time.  That should be part of the due process BEFORE denying access to firearms. 

If the state can't demonstrate the person is a risk to himself or others, the state should allow him to go free.  Firearms should NOT be confiscated based on that encounter alone.  The test should be:  if the person is a danger, then DO NOT ALLOW A DANGEROUS PERON TO BE FREE.  If you can's say reasonably the person is a danger, then DO NOT TAKE AWAY HIS RIGHTS.

How's that for a clear, concise rule?

Isn't imprisoning someone because of a crime they might commit, also taking away a right? 

This option seems like a worse violation of someone's rights.


What exactly makes a person "dangerous" and when does this pre-condition deserve violation of their rights?

A martial arts black belt is a "dangerous" person. 

An ex-marine is a "dangerous" person.

A buffed up male is a "dangerous" person. 

A desperate homeless druggie is a "dangerous" person.

A seditious professor calling for civil disobedience is a "dangerous" person.

A person posting threats is a "dangerous" person.

A legislator writing laws violating the constitution is a "dangerous" person.


What is the threshold where their rights are taken away?  Isn't it supposed to be only after someone has actually committed a crime and been convicted?

A martial arts black belt, an ex-marine and buffed up gym rat are "dangerous" people but if they haven't done anything criminal, should not be punished by the state.

Someone who has fallen on hard times (financially desperate, druggie and homeless) and may have contemplated suicide or committing robbery but not have actually done so should not be punished by the state.  They may be able to turn their lives around and learn from such a life changing experience.

A seditious professor who have differing views but have not actually committed a crime should not be punished by the state.  Sure, they may have critics and haters and will have consequences but not by the law.

A legislator violating the constitution ... well, they should go to maximum prison. 

A person posting threats but have not actually done anything in violation of the law should not be punished by the state, (just based on that threat alone).

The three aspects considered in a criminal proceedings and in self defense OODA loops are:
- means
- motive
- opportunity

If someone has a means (car, knife, hammer, firearm, MMA skills, bomb making skills, etc), motive (expressed a threat), but not necessarily the immediate opportunity, this doesn't warrant a defensive shooting, right?

At what point does it warrant taking away their right?

Isn't imprisoning someone because of a crime they might commit, also taking away a right? 

This option seems like a worse violation of someone's rights.


What exactly makes a person "dangerous" and does this deserve violation of their rights?

A martial arts black belt is a "dangerous" person. 

An ex-marine is a "dangerous" person.

A buffed up male is a "dangerous" person. 

A desperate druggie is a "dangerous" person.

A seditious professor calling for civil disobedience is a "dangerous" person.

A legislator writing laws violating the constitution is a "dangerous" person.

If detaining someone is "imprisonment", then the state is guilty of that in every arrest and detention.  Do we need judges on the street to decide a case before someone is detained?  Observation and evaluation takes some time, but it's temporary.  I don't call that imprisoning someone.

A firearm sitting is a safe is not dangerous.  Someone willfully or negligently using it to commit violence and cause injuries makes it dangerous.

Your implication someone is "dangerous" simply because they have the means to do violence and cause injury or death is wrong.  Dangerous requires a willingness to USE those means in a way which puts the public in danger.

If you see a high voltage box with the warning "Danger!", does that mean the electricity is going to attack you if you get too close?  Or does it simply mean you need to exercise caution and take steps to ensure you are not electrocuted?

That's the same with "dangerous" people.  If they have the intent or lack of control to keep themselves from becoming dangerous, then someone needs to take precautions to make sure that doesn't happen for the safety of the public.

Of course I agree that being "dangerous" is not sufficient. I listed those examples to illustrate a few situations.  (Sorry, I was in the process of adding to my previous post to explain my points further.)

I'm not saying this is an easy discussion.

What about cases of a trained militant from a hostile country who somehow managed to enter the US?  Or a US convert who swears allegiance to a militant group?

What about people on a terrorist screening database? 

Or those on a no fly list?

What I'm trying to say is that these are not only questions but likely actual situations that LE and the AG have to consider.

Does the general public expect this to be part of their job? 

Does the general public expect them to do something about this to prevent terrorist attacks or mass murders from happening?  If or when they do happen, who does the public tend to blame?

I think LE is a shitty job to be in. Personally, I often thank LE officers for their service.

IMO, the CRITERA needs to be much much CLEARER and shared with the general public. Instead this bill leaves the criteria really vague and leaves it up to the agencies to know and interpret.

If theyre so dangerous why is the judge releasing them? Their bail should be denied. Again another reason for anti 2a hawaii to take guns away.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

I am not saying there is a right to lock someone up just because someone thinks that person is dangerous or a threat.  There needs to be a charge, evidence, and a fair trial.

If there is not enough evidence to detain or imprison a subject, then there is not enough evidence to remove their firearms rights, their right to vote, right to go to the church they wish to attend, or any other right for that matter.   

These kinds of dangerous laws and bills being considered are the reason this country was founded with the idea of personal liberty.  This kind of law trashes that idea.


Yes I agree that LE have a shitty job because of liberty.   Liberty is difficult because it requires persons to have some type of responsibility and moral character.


Not all have that, therefore we have the 2nd Amendment, for those that do have that grit, to defend against those that do not.

A legislator violating the constitution ... well, they should go to maximum prison.

Smartest thing I've heard in awhile.  Well played sir, well played!

A legislator violating the constitution ... well, they should go to maximum prison. 

That would be a very expensive proposition, as the current prison capacity would have to be at least doubled or tripled (if you include all those in the "chain of command" who enforce the unconstitutional laws). But I see it as my civic duty to incarcerate those traitors so I'd chip in for the "traitor imprisonment tax".

Isn't imprisoning someone because of a crime they might commit, also taking away a right? 

This option seems like a worse violation of someone's rights.


What exactly makes a person "dangerous" and when does this pre-condition deserve violation of their rights?

A martial arts black belt is a "dangerous" person. 

An ex-marine is a "dangerous" person.

A buffed up male is a "dangerous" person. 

A desperate homeless druggie is a "dangerous" person.

A seditious professor calling for civil disobedience is a "dangerous" person.

A person posting threats is a "dangerous" person.

A legislator writing laws violating the constitution is a "dangerous" person.


What is the threshold where their rights are taken away?  Isn't it supposed to be only after someone has actually committed a crime and been convicted?

A martial arts black belt, an ex-marine and buffed up gym rat are "dangerous" people but if they haven't done anything criminal, should not be punished by the state.

Someone who has fallen on hard times (financially desperate, druggie and homeless) and may have contemplated suicide or committing robbery but not have actually done so should not be punished by the state.  They may be able to turn their lives around and learn from such a life changing experience.

A seditious professor who have differing views but have not actually committed a crime should not be punished by the state.  Sure, they may have critics and haters and will have consequences but not by the law.

A legislator violating the constitution ... well, they should go to maximum prison. 

A person posting threats but have not actually done anything in violation of the law should not be punished by the state, (just based on that threat alone).

The three aspects considered in a criminal proceedings and in self defense OODA loops are:
- means
- motive
- opportunity

If someone has a means (car, knife, hammer, firearm, MMA skills, bomb making skills, etc), motive (expressed a threat), but not necessarily the immediate opportunity, this doesn't warrant a defensive shooting, right?

At what point does it warrant taking away their right?

I don't disagree with you at all, but what course of action would you propose be allowed by law to address this issue? Since time may be of the essence it would need to be a quick system of course but what would you envision? Who investigates the individual, what system has the final say, is there ever a time to temporarily take away someone's guns, etc etc? The person may be mental ill or may have a bunch of red flags of being a terrorist.

All of your concerns are more than valid and it is a very difficult question, but I think we should have at least some attempt at an answer as to how legal action can be taken against such individuals.

Throughout history, governments have proposed similar laws based on suspicion.   The French Revolution Reign of Terror; Nazi Germany; Stalinist Russia to name the most widely known.   Going on suspicion without a fair trial is going down the proverbial slippery slope .
Following is from a Wikipedia article on the Reign of Terror:

The second point, the passing of the Law of Suspects, stepped political terror up to a much higher level of cruelty. Anyone who ‘by their conduct, relations, words or writings show themselves to be supporters of tyranny and federalism and enemies of freedom’ was targeted and suspected of treason. This created a mass overflow in the prison systems. As a result, the prison population of Paris increased from 1,417 to 4,525 people over a course of 3 months. This overpopulation problem caused the execution rates to rise enormously.[citation needed] From March to September 1789 sixty-six people had been guillotined. By the end of the year, that number had risen to 177.[23]

Sad how this state government seems so willing to accept immigrants who may not have any official identification and say suspicion is racism, but yet be so willing to rob it's citizens of individual undeniable rights based on suspicion.
Also:

 The execution of Olympe de Gouges, feminist writer close to the Girondins
The Revolutionary Tribunal summarily condemned thousands of people to death by the guillotine, while mobs beat other victims to death. Sometimes people died for their political opinions or actions, but many for little reason beyond mere suspicion, or because some others had a stake in getting rid of them. The historian Peter Jones recalls the case of Claude-François Bertrand de Boucheporn, the last intendant of Béarn, whose “two sons had emigrated. [He] attracted mounting suspicion. Eventually, he was tried on a charge of sending money abroad and, in 1794, executed.” [24

Throughout history, governments have proposed similar laws based on suspicion.   The French Revolution Reign of Terror; Nazi Germany; Stalinist Russia to name the most widely known.   Going on suspicion without a fair trial is going down the proverbial slippery slope .
.....

It can't happen here.

Especially given that Hawaii residents are so much better educated, better informed, and generally far more intelligent than, say, for example, the ignorant, uneducated, uninformed Jews of Nazi Germany. [/sarc]

3/3/2017   S   48 Hrs. Notice 03-07-17.
3/7/2017   S   Report Adopted; Passed Third Reading, as amended (SD 2). Ayes, 25; Aye(s) with reservations: Senator(s) Gabbard, Harimoto, Riviere. Noes, 0 (none). Excused, 0 (none). Transmitted to House.


RIP

Good article on this from NRA rep printed in the star-advertiser this morning.

email sent
not that it will make a difference...

I made the mistake (bad for my health) of watching the legislature live this morning on channel 55, as the .gov website re streaming video, video-audio archives, etc. stated that the senate was to be broadcast live (hoping to see any comments on SB898), but instead it was the house live (that was the first time I ever remember the government getting something wrong ). I was rather shocked to see that virtually all of the committee reports on the various bills were adopted almost always unanimously, even all six Republicans joining the Democrats. There was occasionally (rarely) one rep that would express "reservations", but still vote to accept the reports. I think I recall two or three voting against various bill reports. It's like a steamroller in there... they're just going through the motions of saying yes to everything that made it that far (through committee(s)). And from watching the committee hearings, it's clear that all the "business" of the legislature (writing the bills, amending language, lobbying for votes, etc.) is all taking place somewhere out of public view. I knew that, but seeing the superficiality of the public spectacle is still extremely disheartening. It's almost enough to make me think "This is so corrupt and so "fixed" that there is really no point at all in communicating with any of these legislators, as they have already determined how they are going to vote independent of any citizen input, or perhaps even their own claimed "beliefs"".

I'll be curious to see if even one house member stands up to the egregious violations in SB898 and either submits serious amending language or votes no.

       

We have NO REPRESENTATION.   

I don't get it. Why no immediate calls ("Never let a crisis go to waste".) for new commonsense axe safety regulations and adding axes to the firearms confiscation requirement of SB898? It is absolutely completely illogical for the confiscation of potentially harmful tools to be limited to firearms as they are in SB898. Not that I would expect Hawaii's politicians to unanimously pass (the senate) a bill that was actually rational and evidence-based...

Germany axe attack: Duesseldorf train station sealed off

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39225847