In government, there is delegation of authority.  it is not feasible for the chief to approve everything that passed through the department personally.  If she delegates to her commanders, then they can take actions in her name.  But it is her duty to understand the types of things they are doing using her authority, and put it to a stop if she doesn't agree with it.

In MY government agency, any letters that go out with my signature block would need to be routed through me for approval/signature.  If I'm not physically in the office for several days, and the letter is time sensitive, there is still email available to send me a copy for review before letting the section head sign in my absence.

You can delegate authority, but you can't delegate responsibility.

Well, confiscation could not be easily enforced because of the 4th amendment and all the Ex Post Facto law in the constitution.  Not that it stopped the police before.  But when you have an amendment other than the 2nd involved then  they are much less likely to win in court and probably dont want to pay out all those lawsuits they would loose. 

the Fourth Amendment is not an absolute bar against searches and seizures.  i don't think that a magistrate would have a difficult time finding probable cause to support the issuance of a search warrant.  regardless, there are a ton of exceptions to the search warrant requirement.  also, i don't think that the ex post facto doctrine applies in this situation.

Nothing is certain but if police came to my house and seized property like a firearm without a conviction I'd be calling my attorney and fighting that up to the point that they lost and gave back my property. 

Im no attorney but if you are allowed to legally purchase property and later the police send you a letter saying "now you cant own that property" and you were not convicted of a crime I believe that fits the spirit of the 4th amendment.

if you want to discuss how the law should be, then that is an entirely different topic.

However, if I were to take this paragraph apart like Legislators do with the Bill of Rights, "Health Records" by itself, ignoring the supplementing "related to an individuals mental health history", then I would have to say there isn't an issue.  I don't think that holds water though.

With that, i would say there is a violation of privacy here at least.

“It is not illegal to possess the ones you already have,” Ballard told the Honolulu Police Commission on Wednesday. “Merely having a medical marijuana card doesn’t mean you’re using marijuana. We can’t prove you’re using marijuana. Our practice of having them turn in their firearms was incorrect.”  The department is returning firearms to two people who voluntarily relinquished their guns, Ballard said.
............
Ballard also said five HPD officers have been authorized to verify Department of Health marijuana registry records for firearms permit applicants, though confidential patient information is not released in that process.
.....................
Retired state Supreme Court Justice Steven Levinson, a member of the Police Commission, questioned why the department was denying firearm permits for marijuana patients but not people using much stronger prescription drugs.

“I really can’t answer that question,” she said. “The main thing is … what federal law is telling us.”

Federal law prohibits an “unlawful user” of any controlled substance from possessing firearms, and under federal law, marijuana is a controlled substance. Ballard said that includes caregivers of cannabis patients with marijuana cards.

“I recognize the conundrum,” said Commissioner Loretta Ann Sheehan. “(But) respectfully it seems ridiculous. Keeping your old guns violates federal law. That doesn’t make any sense at all.”

“I’m a little puzzled as to why the distinction between medical marijuana and medical opioids,” he told Ballard.

Carl Bergquist, executive director of the Drug Policy Forum of Hawaii, testified before the commission that HPD should revisit the policy since medical cannabis is legal under state law.

“On behalf of physicians, nurses, caregivers and patients involved in the medical cannabis program, the assumption that they’re all impaired or a danger to society is a great insult,” he said. “A policy like this could push people out of the regulated system. We think these patients should not be stigmatized in this fashion.”

http://www.staradvertiser.com/2017/12/07/hawaii-news/hpd-in-error-over-cannabis-patients-with-guns-chief-says/?HSA=ef7ce414e218674ae3b48ae1e6ab26026109f482   

Update:  Ballard says HPD was wrong in seizing firearms.   I don't recall in recent memory the HPD chief ever saying they were wrong, it's normally bullshit and redirecting blame.  Interesting.....

 Only 2 people out of the 30 "voluntarily" turned in their guns.  In other words, 95% of the people that got this letter told HPD to fuck off.

wilson vs lynch no. 14-15700


 The burden on Wilson’s core Second Amendment right is not
severe. Title 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(3), 27 C.F.R. § 478.11, and
the Open Letter bar only the sale of firearms to Wilson–not
her possession of firearms. Wilson could have amassed legal
firearms before acquiring a registry card, and 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(d)(3), 27 C.F.R. § 478.11, and the Open Letter would
WILSON V. LYNCH 15
not impede her right to keep her firearms or to use them to
protect herself and her home. In addition, Wilson could
acquire firearms and exercise her right to self-defense at any
time by surrendering her registry card, thereby demonstrating
to a firearms dealer that there is no reasonable cause to
believe she is an unlawful drug user.

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/08/31/14-15700.pdf

“Merely having a medical marijuana card doesn’t mean you’re using marijuana.

Update:  Ballard says HPD was wrong in seizing firearms.   I don't recall in recent memory the HPD chief ever saying they were wrong, it's normally bullshit and redirecting blame.  Interesting.....

 Only 2 people out of the 30 "voluntarily" turned in their guns.  In other words, 95% of the people that got this letter told HPD to fuck off.

also, what if you have a prescription for MJ but never actually pick anything up?  are you actually using it?
what if you cancel your prescription, do you still need to surrender your firearms?

I hope they got their firearms back.

Is it just me or does't one have to re-apply for a permit to get your guns back after being turned in/confiscated?
Catch 22???
I hope so too, but are they going to issue a permit to return guns to a MJ card holder?
Thoughts?

The erroneous letter that instigated the voluntary surrender should be enough of an argument toward simply returning the firearms without following "standard procedure."  If HPD decides to summarily confiscate them, I think a lawsuit would be a slam-dunk.

 Only 2 people out of the 30 "voluntarily" turned in their guns.  In other words, 95% of the people that got this letter told HPD to fuck off.

Only 2 people out of the 30 "voluntarily" turned in their guns.  In other words, 95% of the people that got this letter told HPD to fuck off.

You can't draw the conclusion that 95% refused to comply until the 30-day deadline passes.

A copy of a letter I saw on FB was dated Nov 13.  The deadline was "30 days upon receipt of this letter," which would logically begin at least a day or two after the letter was dated.

Since the letter was rescinded on or before Dec 6, we'll never know if any would have refused.