First U.S. state to place gun owners on FBI database - Hawaii

[TITAN308]

Think everyone should be posted with a profile and a test shot of their firearm, as well as the details.

Personally I wouldn't mind a sign in my front yard that says "gun owner lives here" as long as everyone else gets a sign that says "there are no guns in this house".

Seems like a fair trade.

Reminds me of a video I once saw where people who were gun control advocates were offered free at no charge signs stating their stance on guns to put in their front yard. I think every single sign was declined.

[Scyclone]

Personally I wouldn't mind a sign in my front yard that says "gun owner lives here" as long as everyone else gets a sign that says "there are no guns in this house".

Seems like a fair trade.

Reminds me of a video I once saw where people who were gun control advocates were offered free at no charge signs stating their stance on guns to put in their front yard. I think every single sign was declined.

Honestly said... I had a mental image of a thief that would wait for the gun owner to leave, break in, take the guns (provided they don't have a safe, some do, some don't), and then use it to make robbing the rest all the easier :P

[TITAN308]

Honestly said... I had a mental image of a thief that would wait for the gun owner to leave, break in, take the guns (provided they don't have a safe, some do, some don't), and then use it to make robbing the rest all the easier :P

Any thief with half a brain would think, "haha jokes on you copper I'm not falling for that!" LOL

On some gun forums I belong to every once in a while someone will offer for sale a Title II gun (like a short barrel rifle, or a pistol with a forward grip), no ATF paperwork or nothing.

The joke has always been "haha nice try ATF agent dude".

Of course reality is it was just someone trying to sell something they had no idea was illegal without proper paperwork, but the joke never gets old.

[Sunseeker]

So now everyone in Hawaii who owns a gun is a criminal and has to go on a criminal database in Hawaii.

No. they go in the FBI criminal database.

But yes, this effectively made every Hawaiian gun owner a criminal.

I would be surprised if this was Constitutional.

[Deleted]

No. they go in the FBI criminal database.

But yes, this effectively made every Hawaiian gun owner a criminal.

I would be surprised if this was Constitutional.

Except it contains more than criminals already. It contains teachers, day care workers and other non-criminals.

[araine]

the far right wingers seems to have no problem with you being on a list when you by allergy medicine OTC but they go bat fucking shit crazy when it comes to making sure guns dont get in the hands of CRIMINALS really whats wrong with you people i dont get it,

- - - Updated - - -

Except it contains more than criminals already. It contains teachers, day care workers and other non-criminals.

But all the far right wingers care about is MOAR guns

[Sunseeker]

Except it contains more than criminals already. It contains teachers, day care workers and other non-criminals.

People who willingly applied for a job that meant they would be put on a list, IE: they chose to submit their names.

Beyond that, I'm also questioning the ability of the State to take away gun rights to people diagnosed with mental illness. There's quite a spectrum of mental illnesses here and as our ability to diagnose them has improve more people have been diagnosed with more subtle illnesses. That's private medical information. I'm fairly certain the State cannot require you, or your doctor to disclose that information, and it can't use your lack of disclosure of medical history to restrict your rights.

Replace the 2nd Amendment with the 1st, or the 4th, or the 5th, and make the same argument. Do you believe mental illness should prevent a person from exercising their freedom of speech, or right to a fair trial?

[TITAN308]

the far right wingers seems to have no problem with you being on a list when you by allergy medicine OTC

This is a rather bizarre claim.

This is more of a trait of the left to act as a nanny state.

Most ring wing people I know don't care what you want to ingest into your body. (aka meth from cooked down OTC meds)

[Noxx79]

People who willingly applied for a job that meant they would be put on a list, IE: they chose to submit their names.

Beyond that, I'm also questioning the ability of the State to take away gun rights to people diagnosed with mental illness. There's quite a spectrum of mental illnesses here and as our ability to diagnose them has improve more people have been diagnosed with more subtle illnesses. That's private medical information. I'm fairly certain the State cannot require you, or your doctor to disclose that information, and it can't use your lack of disclosure of medical history to restrict your rights.

Replace the 2nd Amendment with the 1st, or the 4th, or the 5th, and make the same argument. Do you believe mental illness should prevent a person from exercising their freedom of speech, or right to a fair trial?

Well there are limits to the 1st amendment (a crazy person cannot just stand up and disrupt, they will be arrested) and 4th amendments (if the police believe a mentally ill person is an imminent threat, they don't need a warrant), and the mentally ill don't get their right to a trial. They're declared mentally incompetent to stand trial.

[Lochton]

Personally I wouldn't mind a sign in my front yard that says "gun owner lives here" as long as everyone else gets a sign that says "there are no guns in this house".

Seems like a fair trade.

Reminds me of a video I once saw where people who were gun control advocates were offered free at no charge signs stating their stance on guns to put in their front yard. I think every single sign was declined.

Wierd demand, I wouldn't mind, but I'm in a country where it is highly unlikely. As well, you have this demand, but you are on a governmental list when you are using some sort of medicine, for example. And having a gun safety sign would help a lot too *shrugs* Or at least make 48 hours of mandatory gun handling and service courses before you can buy one.

Though, the database wouldn't really be your enemy, if your gun details are in it, and you know you haven't done wrong, then you are easier to exclude if anything. Then again, I've always thought that if you are 'adult' enough to have a gun, you should be 'adult' enough to have it securely profiled.

[bowchikabow]

Hawaii's governor signed a bill making it the first state to place its residents who own firearms in a federal criminal record database and monitor them for possible wrongdoing anywhere in the country, his office said.

If you live in this state, we will track your behavior nationally. Regardless of what other legal authorities preside, we will also deal with you back home. Big Brother. Like it or not, that is what it comes down to. I'm not saying I don't agree with the idea of the bill. Just, This screams of big brother.

The move by gun control proponents in the liberal state represents an effort to institute some limits on firearms in the face of a bitter national debate over guns that this week saw Democratic lawmakers stage a sit-in at the U.S. House of Representatives.

More demagoguery. The sit-in at the house actually had more to do with scoring political points than affecting change. Part of why they were sitting in is because republicans blocked the gun bill that democrats had proposed.... they blocked it because there was no language in the bill about due process. That pesky 5th Amendment. They were ok with the Terror Watch list being scrubbed.. but we are supposed to just trust the same government with a secret list which... by virtue of being on it... allows the government to strip you of rights... and there was no clear due process for both being added to the list, or being removed (there are numerous people who were wrongly put on the terror watch/no fly list. And they can't even find out how their name got on there, or how to get it off ). Republicans do understand that there is a need for more regulation with regard to guns. They simply don't allow knee-jerk public reaction to drive policy (anyone been keeping up with the Baltimore cop trials that the city residents pressured the DA into doing? Didn't turn out so well).

Hawaii Governor David Ige, a Democrat, on Thursday signed into law a bill to have police in the state enroll people into an FBI criminal monitoring service after they register their firearms as already required, his office said in a statement.

So.. it's not enough that firearms are registered (thus, there is all ready a database in place with serial numbers and ownership records) but we must register ourselves for a special of people who are exercising a right? Repeat after me "I am free, when the government regulates me."

The Federal Bureau of Investigation database called "Rap Back" will allow Hawaii police to be notified when a firearm owner from the state is arrested anywhere in the United States.

I don't really have an issue with this, in a vacuum. as long as it is limited to information about residents of THAT state, not everyone.

Hawaii has become the first U.S. state to place firearm owners on the FBI's Rap Back, which until now was used to monitor criminal activities by individuals under investigation or people in positions of trust such as school teachers and daycare workers

So wait. School Teachers and daycare workers are at such risk, that the government is allowed to default into a position of "guilty until you retire, or do something that confirms the guilt"? Slightly off-topic, but still disturbing.

....

The law could affect gun owners outside Hawaii, because the state requires visitors carrying guns to register, Hunter said.

As a result, they could be added to "Rap Back" because they arrived in the state with a gun, she said. The Hawaii attorney general's office said a weapon-carrying visitor should be able to petition for removal from the national database after leaving the state.

WOAH WOAH! So, if I go to Hawaii while armed.. I AM FORCED to be put on this list without me doing anything? But in order to get removed from the STATE RESIDENT ONLY list, I have to jump through the government bureaucracy myself to get removed? "repeat after me, I am free when the government regulates me"

The law, which takes effect immediately, allows police in Hawaii to evaluate whether a firearm owner should continue to possess a gun after being arrested.

fair enough, but there are all ready laws that allow that. There doesn't need to be even more laws that do the very same thing as existing laws.

Ige's office said he also signed into law two other firearms bills. One makes convictions for stalking and sexual assault among the criminal offenses disqualifying a person from gun ownership. The other requires firearm owners to surrender their weapons if diagnosed with a mental, behavioral or emotional disorder.

My biggest concern here is both how vague the language is, but also how arbitrary it will be that because you have a disorder of some kind.. you must now be stripped of rights.

As a veteran, this type of legislation is a spit in the face to a free society.

[oxymoronic]

This is whack. It's literally "We made it so criminals we arrest are no longer allowed to legally obtain guns"

Why would NOT want your criminals guns taken?

just cause you have been arrested you should not forfeit your right to defend yourself

that is just fucking crazy

- - - Updated - - -

Because majority of firearm homicides are committed by the mentally ill or extremists

misinformed to the max

[Xargoth6634]

Background checks aren't even required to purchase guns if you buy them from a private individual. But we can't get reasonable gun owner requirements when the right just screams bloody murder about people taking away their guns whenever the topic is brought up.

That's not across the board, is it? I feel like that doesn't apply to handguns, at least here in New York State.

[Ghostpanther]

Not at a federal level.

In fact, legally, federal are unable to require states to register gun owners at a federal level.

However, the loophole is that states themselves can register gun owners at a federal level. It is just that none have chosen to do so to date.

These days it seems easier to do everything outside of US Congress.

Change is coming, no matter how slow and whether people like it or not...

But it may be in a direction you would not approve of. Like Kansas and Idaho recently passed laws making it legal to carry concealed or open, firearms without permits. Joining Arizona, Montana and Vermont.

But this change in Hawaii is not going to effect me. No plans on ever going there. They want it that way there, so be it.

[Sunseeker]

Well there are limits to the 1st amendment (a crazy person cannot just stand up and disrupt, they will be arrested) and 4th amendments (if the police believe a mentally ill person is an imminent threat, they don't need a warrant), and the mentally ill don't get their right to a trial. They're declared mentally incompetent to stand trial.

These are such bastardizations of how it actually works I want to slap you through my screen.

Causing a disruption in certain places, such as the classic "FIRE!" in a theater when there isn't one applies to everyone. "Crazy people" are not restricted from doing this while "sane" people are....not to even mention that being "mentally ill" doesn't mean a person is crazy. It could mean they're just not very good at socializing, like the millions of people diagnosed with autism-spectrum.

If the police believe anyone is an imminent threat, they can take action. The police don't get to say "You have bipolar, so we don't need a reason to arrest you." Even if the police do take action, they still have to demonstrate why they took that action, they don't get to just say "He has XYZ mental illness, so we acted." They have to say "He has XYZ mental illness and...."

The mentally ill are not denied their right to trial. They are exempted from trial. The reason the "insanity defense" exists is because the way a trial works is by analyzing the thoughts, actions and motives of the accused. People for whom there are no thoughts, there are no motives and their actions are grossly out of the realm of what we would expect even a sane criminal to do cannot be reasonably tried because the juries don't have anything to work with. Further, if they are indeed that severely mentally ill, it's unlikely they understand what they did, much less understand the purpose of the punishment.

Having Aspergers is not reason to deny someone a fair trial.

People like you have this moronic idea that this list is only going to somehow include the "bad" mentally ill people. No, it's not. It's going to include everyone who's ever been the doctor for a bout of depression. It's going to include your cousin Timmy who was born with mild Autism that makes his interactions with other kids more difficult, and indeed it probably won't include actual psychopaths (people who don't irrationally emote like the rest of us) because they'll be smart enough to stay away from doctors who'd diagnose them.

Worse, idiots like you have this idea that being "mentally ill" means you're "crazy", no, in fact it does not. No doctor is going to tell you that being mentally ill makes you insane, incompetent, "crazy", or even dangerous except when talking about extreme cases. Lists like these don't discriminate between extremes, averages and mild conditions. They just lump people into a list because the State has determined your genetic makeup make you a second-class citizen.

Our nation did that once before, it was called SEGREGATION. It's probably not a great idea to limit people's rights based on their biology again.

[Jaransan]

I mean.... To be fair, being a criminal doesn't automatically mean you are going to shoot people. Not all crimes are gun related, or even related to violence.

Yeah but being a criminal (well an indictable criminal) does speak to a willingness in an individual to ignore rules for personal benefit. Obviously not all criminals are murderers or potential murderers, but the law also states that police can ASSESS whether apprehended criminals should keep their guns. A history of drunken domestic violence is a short skip to a murder when a guns involved - repeated traffic violations? not so much.

People need to get that noone is saying NOONE IS ALLOWED TO HAVE GUNS. But anytime people try to get it set up so they can take SOME guns from SOME people who maybe shouldn't have them, EVERYONE acts like the government is coming to take your guns. Find your chill folks. Either way this is done already - now we sit back for a couple years and see what the numbers say

[Shadowferal]

Personally I wouldn't mind a sign in my front yard that says "gun owner lives here" as long as everyone else gets a sign that says "there are no guns in this house".

While I see signs that say "Protected by Smith & Wesson" or similar, I will likely never see a sign that says "Gun-free Home," not even from the more stubborn gun-control activists.

[Vyxn]

The other requires firearm owners to surrender their weapons if diagnosed with a mental, behavioral or emotional disorder.

And of coarse the anti second amendment crowd doesn't conceder the consequences of this
how many people now will not seek help for depression, anxiety, OCD, ADD, dyslexia and other mental disorders that do not make you a threat knowing you will be losing your constitution rights
and you will be forfeiting you doctor patient privilege the same argument that made abortion legal and all states

[Guy4123]

Useless law. Gun registration doesn't deter gun crime at all which I assume is the reason they created this law.

I also don't see anything saying that you will be reimbursed for the cost of surrendering your firearms if you actually seek help for your mental disorder. Who's going to go to the psych if the consequence is "give us your $5000 worth of firearms thanks"

Background checks aren't even required to purchase guns if you buy them from a private individual. But we can't get reasonable gun owner requirements when the right just screams bloody murder about people taking away their guns whenever the topic is brought up.

Make the background check database free and accessible by any regular person and then you can make background checks for private sales mandatory. Otherwise people will just ignore it because it's a completely unenforceable law, just like California's attempt at "turn in or destroy all your 30 round magazines" law they keep bringing up. Make it easy and free and people will use it if it's the law.