Hawaii will place gun owners on a FBI data base

[Horn6721]

So much for paradise.
From reuters:
"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.

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.

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.

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.

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 "
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-hawaii-gun-law-idUSKCN0ZA3IP


Cause I am so sure criminals and evil doers will register their guns.

 

[nashhorn]

#1

 

[mb227]

Sadly there are people who actually still believe the current liberal efforts are not about getting guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens and turning those that DO want to keep them into criminals of some type.

 

[n64ra]

Will Hawaii have the FBI provide a federal LTC permit?

 

[Clean]

No surprise. The liberal Dems of today believe that the Constitution is an out of touch, 18th century document that can't possibly work in the technologically advanced civilization of today. They could care less about the 2nd amendment. Their goal is to make it such a burden to own a gun that most people won't even try.

 

[Crockett]

Excuse my lack of imagination. What problem will this cause of law-abiding gun owners?

 

[Seattle Husker]

No surprise. The liberal Dems of today believe that the Constitution is an out of touch, 18th century document that can't possibly work in the technologically advanced civilization of today. They could care less about the 2nd amendment. Their goal is to make it such a burden to own a gun that most people won't even try.

It was the conservatives that re-defined the 2nd amendment in 1977. Oh wait...it's OK to redefine the constitution for conservative issues but not liberal ones? I'd argue the Supreme Court and amendment processes were put in place for that purpose.

 

[mb227]

Excuse my lack of imagination. What problem will this cause of law-abiding gun owners?

All you have to do is get cross-ways with someone, they phone in their 'anonymous tip' that they saw someone brandishing a gun, police involvement ensues and the risk of the 'ping' in the database just became a personal headache.

Don't believe such things happen? I have a client who would likely disagree with you given that is precisely the opening to the sequence of events that got him to prison. Someone claimed he had brandished his handgun, gave the description of the vehicle and got put out across the radio. His actual sentence is related to evading (he had consumed two beers at dinner less than a half-hour earlier) and was worried about a DWI...it was obviously stupid to try and run when they lit him up, but it was a bogus claim that got him in the crosshairs to begin with. No weapon was found in the vehicle...

There exist any other number of scenarios that result in harassment simply because one believes in owning a gun, much to the chagrin of certain libs that would rather see NO private ownership of weapons.

 

[Seattle Husker]

All you have to do is get cross-ways with someone, they phone in their 'anonymous tip' that they saw someone brandishing a gun, police involvement ensues and the risk of the 'ping' in the database just became a personal headache.

Don't believe such things happen? I have a client who would likely disagree with you given that is precisely the opening to the sequence of events that got him to prison. Someone claimed he had brandished his handgun, gave the description of the vehicle and got put out across the radio. His actual sentence is related to evading (he had consumed two beers at dinner less than a half-hour earlier) and was worried about a DWI...it was obviously stupid to try and run when they lit him up, but it was a bogus claim that got him in the crosshairs to begin with. No weapon was found in the vehicle...

There exist any other number of scenarios that result in harassment simply because one believes in owning a gun, much to the chagrin of certain libs that would rather see NO private ownership of weapons.

With the sterling decision making skills of your client I can't imagine why anyone would question him having a handgun. Shouldn't that be a consideration if he applies for a concealed carry permit? If not, what would it take for him to have that right constrained?

BTW, I'm not against private ownership but do support common sense constraints. I have not problem with hunting and have hunted myself for big game. Guns for self protection is acceptable too but should you demonstrate poor decision making (e.g. the client above) it's entirely appropriate to have the right restrained because there is a chance that right infringes on others rights. Oh, I'll never be convinced that military style weapons are necessary for protection in anything but a war. The gun industry is too entrenched on that issue so I'd support Senator Kaine's proposal to limit magazine sizes to 10-12 bullets.

 

[Crockett]

Well, I do believe in private ownership of firearms. But I believe there can be "controls" that make it harder for those on the terror watch list or with a history of stalking and/or domestic violence to obtain firearms or at least be noticed when they obtain weapons. I also favor magazine size limits. People can't own howitzers or fully automatic weapons without special scrutiny. I think a closer look at folks buying weapons with high capacity magazines for large caliber or high velocity rounds is good public policy and further limitation on who can own such weapons wouldn't concern me.

 

[Horn6721]

So you are ok with your state AND the FBI having your name as a gun owner in their data bases?

 

[Crockett]

Sure, I'm OK if its only available for use for legitimate law enforcement purposes. They already know my car license number, my height, weight, eye color and every interaction I've ever had with police. I had a securities license and a teaching certificate, so somewhere in government archives they have a complete set of my fingerprints.

I don't want to give would-be burglar/gun thieves/marketers/political organizations a database of folks who own guns though.

 

[Seattle Husker]

So you are ok with your state AND the FBI having your name as a gun owner in their data bases?

They have my name as owner and driver of cars, owner of a house, pet owner and any number of a myriad of things. I need to be a responsible dog owner or they may come take him away. Same with my car. Why are guns any different?

 

[Horn6721]

I did not know there was a national data base on home owners or car owners.
Yep I can see it is all the same thing

 

[Seattle Husker]

Wait...if I get pulled over in Texas you don't think the trooper can check my plates and my license (both from Washington State)? For Homeowners insurance...how do you think companies check my claim history and the property history when I apply with a new company? How do you think Carfax works?

 

[mb227]

With the sterling decision making skills of your client I can't imagine why anyone would question him having a handgun. Shouldn't that be a consideration if he applies for a concealed carry permit? If not, what would it take for him to have that right constrained?

Except that he did nothing wrong to warrant being 'lit up.' Yet all it takes is a bogus assertion and he becomes a target. The point is that the same thing can happen to ANYONE in such a database and then they have the potential of a right being taken from them despite having committed no offense that is a bar to gun ownership under current federal law.

If you believe that the database desired by liberals is a good thing, then there is no point in continuing the discussion. Further, such databases can often be viewed as public records, just as home ownership and automobile registrations are now. I don't need someone I don't know being able to pull the records and see that I own firearm(s).

 

[Crockett]

mb227, there must be a real tough justice attitude in your community if a guy without a significant amount of other criminal baggage in the record is sent to prison for trying to evade police. To one extent or another, I guess any of us could be victimized by a bogus police report. My older brother was accused of child rape by a soon-to-be ex wife. He was honest and cooperative with police, contacted a lawyer and got home before her family managed to load all community property onto a UHaul. Even though he was accused, lit up and arrested, my brother was smart enough to be cooperative with police and I'm cool with him owning a firearm. He's got no lasting blemishes on his record. Like Seattle Husker, I'm wondering if it's in the best interest of public safety for a guy like your client, with enemies and demonstrated poor decision-making skills is carrying around capacity to end multiple lives within a few seconds.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Except that he did nothing wrong to warrant being 'lit up.' Yet all it takes is a bogus assertion and he becomes a target. The point is that the same thing can happen to ANYONE in such a database and then they have the potential of a right being taken from them despite having committed no offense that is a bar to gun ownership under current federal law.

If you believe that the database desired by liberals is a good thing, then there is no point in continuing the discussion. Further, such databases can often be viewed as public records, just as home ownership and automobile registrations are now. I don't need someone I don't know being able to pull the records and see that I own firearm(s).

Forgive me but I'm having trouble following the argument. What does the assertion that "he brandished a gun" have to do with a national gun database? It could have been "he had a knife" or "he was shooting roman candles" that ultimately led to the incident you describe. Now, if you display grossly irresponsible behavior like evading police (likely putting other drivers lives in jeopardy) then should you get to have the responsibility of the firearm? Regardless of what triggered the chase, this client clearly is not a sound decision maker. If that is the posterchild for not having a gun then the argument will be lost as quickly as a re-run of COPS is aired.