I know that if I decided to go on a shooting rampage and couldn't pass the HPD background check I would most likely resort to 80% lowers.

so that evil thought HAS crossed your mind...hmm




and that's how all these laws get past - self inflection. No references to real data or information. Just a subjective "if I was a ....I'd do that" So we'll pass a law based on what my legislative, political, criminal mind thinks.
seems to me that the people who should be flagged are the ones pushing for these laws...

I know that if I decided to go on a shooting rampage and couldn't pass the HPD background check I would most likely resort to 80% lowers.

This comment is all anyone would need to turn your ass in under a red flag law.

No one has to prove you were serious before reporting you so a judge can order your guns taken.  They only have to show you are considering what it would take to bypass the background check to carry out a possible shooting rampage.  Your post shows you are working on a plan -- at least thinking what it would take.

I hope you can still pass the background check in order to get your confiscated guns back after using your savings/loans to pay a lawyer to defend you against the state.  The state won't have to prove you are a threat.  YOU have to prove you aren't.

Careful which laws you advocate for.  But then, this is better than nothing, right?

This comment is all anyone would need to turn your ass in under a red flag law.

They could try.

No one has to prove you were serious before reporting you so a judge can order your guns taken.  They only have to show you are considering what it would take to bypass the background check to carry out a possible shooting rampage.  Your post shows you are working on a plan -- at least thinking what it would take.

I hope you can still pass the background check in order to get your confiscated guns back after using your savings/loans to pay a lawyer to defend you against the state.  The state won't have to prove you are a threat.  YOU have to prove you aren't.

Hawaii's red flag law doesn't put the burden of proof on the accused. The state still has to prove the individual is a threat. The problem is that it is a lower standard of proof, in my opinion, than what should be required to take someone's rights away.

Careful which laws you advocate for.  But then, this is better than nothing, right?

I have already clearly stated I was not for the law in its current form.

IF you decided ? 
Sounds like you are currently contemplating "to go on a shooting rampage". 
Perfect "Red Flag" candidate. 

Yes, if, as in a hypothetical situation. How do you combat an enemy if you don't try to imagine what steps they might take?

And believe me, I have thought of threat scenarios way worse than those involving firearms. It is one of the reasons I can make the argument that banning guns wont stop these people hell bent on killing large numbers of random people.

They could try.

Hawaii's red flag law doesn't put the burden of proof on the accused. The state still has to prove the individual is a threat. The problem is that it is a lower standard of proof, in my opinion, than what should be required to take someone's rights away.

I have already clearly stated I was not for the law in its current form.

there is no burden of proof in red flag laws. An accusation is enough.

there is no burden of proof in red flag laws.

Not true, at least not for Hawaii's red flag laws. I don't know about red flag laws in other states but keep in mind not all red flag laws are the same. Some might have adequate protections some might have inadequate protections.

For Hawaii's red flag law, the court has to find "Preponderance of evidence" that the person is dangerous to take away their firearms for a year.

Not true, at least not for Hawaii's red flag laws. I don't know about red flag laws in other states but keep in mind not all red flag laws are the same. Some might have adequate protections some might have inadequate protections.

For Hawaii's red flag law, the court has to find "Preponderance of evidence" that the person is dangerous to take away their firearms for a year.

hawaii judges will have a rubber stamp, and to think otherwise is being  in fairy land.

Across the nation and various forms, there are examples of very little needed to confiscate. And at least those states do not have a permitting process which they would make the gun owner go through all over again.



Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

hawaii judges will have a rubber stamp, and to think otherwise is being  in fairy land.

Across the nation and various forms, there are examples of very little needed to confiscate. And at least those states do not have a permitting process which they would make the gun owner go through all over again.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

If judges rubber stamp it all then we will have to confront it after it happens.

But we can't compare all red flag laws as if they are all the same. Red flag is just a generic term, the real devil is in the details here. Each state's red flag law should be evaluated on its own specific language.

For Hawaii's red flag law, the court has to find "Preponderance of evidence" that the person is dangerous to take away their firearms for a year.

"Preponderance of evidence" is a term used to make people think "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" but actually means "Probable Cause" in the hands of a capricious criminal justice system.

"Preponderance of evidence" is a term used to make people think "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" but actually means "Probable Cause" in the hands of a capricious criminal justice system.

Exactly.

Another way to put it is:  The state only needs to be 50.1% swayed the accusation merits action.

This is barely an inconvenience, since there is no one in the initial hearing to defend the accused.

But that's okay.  The accused will have their day in court -- along with a lawyer at the accused party's expense. 

The burden of proof may rest with the state, but the process starts out only hearing that one side.  Only after you've suffered damages and loss of property, perhaps even your freedom during a mandatory psychological evaluation, will you be give the opportunity to defend your rights.

For all this talk on 80%

p80 80% receiver on sale at midway.  $91 with shipping to Hawaii
https://www.midwayusa.com/product/1020552143

Rest of the G17 parts $299 at MDX arms, they also ship to hawaii
https://mdxarms.com/mdx-arms-polymer80-pf940cl-build-kit-less-frame/

One stop shopping
https://fandffirearms.com/product/g19-v1-bbk-builders-kit/   
$399 plus shipping USPS $8.00 - $407 complete less magazines

there is no burden of proof in red flag laws. An accusation is enough.

*ding ding ding*

We have a winner!  Accusation is enough to cause a lot of damage to innocent with "due process" left to be figured out later. 

Someone apparently gets the principle.  And if you (well at least one on this board) doesn't get it, I believe it's already been explained. . .

If judges rubber stamp it all then we will have to confront it after it happens.

But we can't compare all red flag laws as if they are all the same. Red flag is just a generic term, the real devil is in the details here. Each state's red flag law should be evaluated on its own specific language.

The problem with confronting them after is like you said, "after it happens".  So someone with zero criminal history their entire life has their property taken away without their chance to defend themselves in court first.   

And to sue the state later will cost more money and time.  When all they had to do is send a summons and have a court date before confiscation.

Most likely, HPD will make the person who wins in court have to go through the same process to acquire to get all their firearms back.  And remember, ammo is not returned.  So if someone has 20K rds of ammo, that's not returned.  And they won't be compensated at all.

No judge will be held accountable or disciplined (fired, suspended, demoted) at all.  Because they will use the "well, it's better to be safe than sorry" phrase.

Red flag laws violate 4th amendment RIGHTs

Red flag laws violate 4th amendment RIGHTs

Rights are so overrated. We have feelings and wants that are more importanter

"if I decided to go on a shooting rampage"
"How do you combat an enemy "
"believe me, I have thought of threat scenarios way worse than those involving firearms."
"killing large numbers of random people."

Your rhetoric is pretty focused so I do believe you which is why I am becoming extremely concerned. 

Your rhetoric is pretty focused so I do believe you which is why I am becoming extremely concerned. 

Here are my comments to Flapp about his behavior towards me.

https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=34986.msg315356#msg315356

...Differences of opinions are one thing, but when I exposed something he said as not true, I must have hit a nerve because he started saying things about me that were not true. To me it appeared that he went off his meds or something like that because his whole attitude changed from one of stupidity and back peddling to attacking me. It was one of those moments when I realized this guy is getting close to going postal. Enough, ignore.

Rights are so overrated. We have feelings and wants that are more importanter

Must do SOMETHING!

Exactly.

Another way to put it is:  The state only needs to be 50.1% swayed the accusation merits action.

This is barely an inconvenience, since there is no one in the initial hearing to defend the accused.

But that's okay.  The accused will have their day in court -- along with a lawyer at the accused party's expense. 

The burden of proof may rest with the state, but the process starts out only hearing that one side.  Only after you've suffered damages and loss of property, perhaps even your freedom during a mandatory psychological evaluation, will you be give the opportunity to defend your rights.

but on the other hand, if the confiscation squad, SWAT, whatever, ends up shooting the gun owner dead, then they claim success.... e.g. Gary Willis, Maryland, Nov 2018.

https://www.wbaltv.com/article/police-investigate-officer-involved-shooting-in-ferndale/24658392

but on the other hand, if the confiscation squad, SWAT, whatever, ends up shooting the gun owner dead, then they claim success.... e.g. Gary Willis, Maryland, Nov 2018.

"if the confiscation squad, SWAT, whatever, ends up shooting the gun owner dead, then they claim success"
This is Hawaii's future.
Do whatever you can to make sure the cops won't have the money or morale to do this.
Legally of course.
Democrats are going to dis-arm you.  They can't do it if they don't have soldiers to carry out their
dreams.  Starve the government.