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

They should also take away any pointy or sharp objects, internet connection (can google how to make a weapon), and only allow spoons.

I want to ask a basic question that gets to the root of the issue.

Is there ever a time where you think it may be appropriate to limit a constitutional right to an individual without them having been convicted of a crime or incarcerated (including a mental health facility)? Doesn't have to be limited to 2nd amendment rights.

I want to ask a basic question that gets to the root of the issue.

Is there ever a time where you think it may be appropriate to limit a constitutional right to an individual without them having been convicted of a crime or incarcerated (including a mental health facility)? Doesn't have to be limited to 2nd amendment rights.

No.

I want to ask a basic question that gets to the root of the issue.

Is there ever a time where you think it may be appropriate to limit a constitutional right to an individual without them having been convicted of a crime or incarcerated (including a mental health facility)? Doesn't have to be limited to 2nd amendment rights.

I would also say no. 

That is not how the bill of rights was intended, and not how liberty works.  People often forget these rights are not "given" by the government, they are inherent.
common (not so common these days) sense and morality dictates how these rights are applied/exercised. 

I want to ask a basic question that gets to the root of the issue.

Is there ever a time where you think it may be appropriate to limit a constitutional right to an individual without them having been convicted of a crime or incarcerated (including a mental health facility)? Doesn't have to be limited to 2nd amendment rights.

No

I want to ask a basic question that gets to the root of the issue.

Is there ever a time where you think it may be appropriate to limit a constitutional right to an individual without them having been convicted of a crime or incarcerated (including a mental health facility)? Doesn't have to be limited to 2nd amendment rights.

Absolutely no.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

I want to ask a basic question that gets to the root of the issue.

Is there ever a time where you think it may be appropriate to limit a constitutional right to an individual without them having been convicted of a crime or incarcerated (including a mental health facility)? Doesn't have to be limited to 2nd amendment rights.

Of course. Any time a poll or vote indicates that people approve of limiting or outright denying natural, fundamental, individual, inalienable, enumerated Constitutionally-protected civil rights for any reason then it must be so. I would also include the legislature, executive branch, and judges as well may deny the exercise of such rights for any reason at all, or no reason at all in the case of SB898. [Do I really need to do this? Okay: /sardonic]

I want to ask a basic question that gets to the root of the issue.

Is there ever a time where you think it may be appropriate to limit a constitutional right to an individual without them having been convicted of a crime or incarcerated (including a mental health facility)? Doesn't have to be limited to 2nd amendment rights.

loaded question...

My friend just got a letter saying he has 30 days to get a mental health waiver signed or HPD will come to his home and take his guns away.  He got this letter AFTER renewing his long rifle permit.  He's had a permit for years.  He is also in the military so the feds trust him.

So about 20 years ago, he was a minor and went to a family therapist because he wasn't getting along with his moms new bf.  Now HPD saying he needs a waiver for that visit.

Kaiser won't sign waivers anymore so he has to spend money on a private psychologist to evaluate him.  VA has more than a 30 day waiting list.

So if this bill passes, could any prior visit to a psychologist prompt a ban of the 2a even with a waiver from a health care provider?

So if this bill passes, could any prior visit to a psychologist prompt a ban of the 2a even with a waiver from a health care provider?

The "low bar" in the bill is if a cop believes a third party claim that a person may be dangerous, that would trigger the ex parte hearing (the accused is  not only not present, but the accused is not informed that hearing is taking place) where the confiscation order could be issued. The accused could have a stack of letters from dozens of mental health professionals attesting to this mental health and they wouldn't mean a thing.

The "low bar" in the bill is if a cop believes a third party claim that a person may be dangerous, that would trigger the ex parte hearing (the accused is  not only not present, but the accused is not informed that hearing is taking place) where the confiscation order could be issued. The accused could have a stack of letters from dozens of mental health professionals attesting to this mental health and they wouldn't mean a thing.

Got it,so a 3rd party has to make a complaint.

All part of Democrat thinking such as braddah Joe Souki saying:  When asked why the decision seemed shrouded in secrecy, Souki said, “We are always secretive. It’s part of being a legislator.”

I want to ask a basic question that gets to the root of the issue.

Is there ever a time where you think it may be appropriate to limit a constitutional right to an individual without them having been convicted of a crime or incarcerated (including a mental health facility)? Doesn't have to be limited to 2nd amendment rights.

absolutely not.
I don't like liberals but they still have the 2A right

loaded question...

I don't think so. This is the fundamental basis for any situation where the government may want to restrict rights, whether they be 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, etc etc etc.

People who have been convicted of crimes do lose some of the freedoms recognized in the bill of rights. Additionally, people under parole or probation status may lose additional rights as part of their conditions of release. That is of course a different situation than a law abiding individual.

The question people are trying to answer is what to do about a dangerous individual who doesn't quite meet the criteria of actually being put in a secure facility. Someone who appears to be a terrorist, someone who has a mental condition associated with violence, a pedophile, etc.

I do get having the standard be the same as having a person locked up but the downside of that is we will miss some individuals. Not saying which one is right here but just pointing out that there is no perfect system.

Got it,so a 3rd party has to make a complaint.

It depends. Basically it has to be brought to a cop's attention somehow, and unless the cop witnesses the incident or behavior in question then it ends up being reported to them by another party who is a witness. Like a criminal complaint, you need a witness or a complainant to have viewed the crime.

I don't think this proposed law would have any effect on the situation you raise.

The question I have for the whole issue is how did they find out a juvenile treatment incident just now? This seems to be overstepping their duties here.

I don't think so. This is the fundamental basis for any situation where the government may want to restrict rights, whether they be 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, etc etc etc.

People who have been convicted of crimes do lose some of the freedoms recognized in the bill of rights. Additionally, people under parole or probation status may lose additional rights as part of their conditions of release. That is of course a different situation than a law abiding individual.

The question people are trying to answer is what to do about a dangerous individual who doesn't quite meet the criteria of actually being put in a secure facility. Someone who appears to be a terrorist, someone who has a mental condition associated with violence, a pedophile, etc.

I do get having the standard be the same as having a person locked up but the downside of that is we will miss some individuals. Not saying which one is right here but just pointing out that there is no perfect system.

Yes, it is a loaded question.

A loaded question or complex question fallacy is a question that contains a controversial or unjustified assumption (e.g., a presumption of guilt).

Your question is based on the unjustified assumption that the individual is dangerous.  If he is an active threat, that's one thing.  But to try and predict the future behavior of the individual without enough evidence to satisfy due process is wrong.  The trial (and conviction) provides due process and validates the state's actions (limiting rights) to ensure public safety. 

Yes, it is a loaded question.

Your question is based on the unjustified assumption that the individual is dangerous.  If he is an active threat, that's one thing.  But to try and predict the future behavior of the individual without enough evidence to satisfy due process is wrong.  The trial (and conviction) provides due process and validates the state's actions (limiting rights) to ensure public safety.

Exactly.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

I don't think so. This is the fundamental basis for any situation where the government may want to restrict rights, whether they be 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, etc etc etc.

People who have been convicted of crimes do lose some of the freedoms recognized in the bill of rights. Additionally, people under parole or probation status may lose additional rights as part of their conditions of release. That is of course a different situation than a law abiding individual.

The question people are trying to answer is what to do about a dangerous individual who doesn't quite meet the criteria of actually being put in a secure facility. Someone who appears to be a terrorist, someone who has a mental condition associated with violence, a pedophile, etc.

I do get having the standard be the same as having a person locked up but the downside of that is we will miss some individuals. Not saying which one is right here but just pointing out that there is no perfect system.

What does a terrorist look like?
Your last sentence contradicts itself. Yes, there is no perfect system, hence, there will always be some individuals that we will miss.

With the logic of this bill, the DOJ and DHS can label HI leaders who propose to defy Fed immigration laws as potential lawbreakers based on the accusation of a HI resident and restrict their travel and driving privileges interstate. 
SB898 and it's supporters reminds me of this clip from Invasion of the Body Snatchers, LOL.

I don't think so. This is the fundamental basis for any situation where the government may want to restrict rights, whether they be 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, etc etc etc.

People who have been convicted of crimes do lose some of the freedoms recognized in the bill of rights. Additionally, people under parole or probation status may lose additional rights as part of their conditions of release. That is of course a different situation than a law abiding individual.

The question people are trying to answer is what to do about a dangerous individual who doesn't quite meet the criteria of actually being put in a secure facility. Someone who appears to be a terrorist, someone who has a mental condition associated with violence, a pedophile, etc.

I do get having the standard be the same as having a person locked up but the downside of that is we will miss some individuals. Not saying which one is right here but just pointing out that there is no perfect system.

Basis?

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

Where is this basis where the government can restrict and remove rights from hearsay and in secret?  Which constitution are you getting your assertions from?

This proposed law is wholly unconstitutional and dangerous to liberty.