"Hawaii could be first to put gun owners in federal database"

Discussion in 'In the News' started by mountainpass, May 24, 2016.

  1. mountainpass

    mountainpass Under Scrutiny

    19,368
    29
    48
    This is an AP link. If anyone can find a non-AP story I will gladly replace it.

    http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/...e-first-to-put-gun-owners-in-federal-database

     
  2. moe mensale

    moe mensale Well-Known Member

    12,608
    1,704
    113
    That doesn't make any sense at all. Citizens need a state issued permit before buying handguns or long guns. They don't perform a BG check before issuing the permits? That permit is needed for private sales also. And what about the NICS checks by FFL's? Something more appears to be going on in the background.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_by_state#Hawaii
     

  3. Siege

    Siege Active Member

    3,950
    3
    38
    Why is the FBI maintaining this database, instead of the ATF?

    Oh wait, could it be because, IIRC, Congress forbade the government from doing any such thing, regardless of which alphabet-soup-agency was doing it, but they think if they have the FBI do it instead of the ATF, they can get away with it?

    I'd sat that's a pretty clear no-no.
     
  4. Mrs_Esterhouse

    Mrs_Esterhouse Swollen Member

    11,831
    505
    113
    Basically, HI is saying gun owners will be placed under suspicion by default.
     
  5. EJR914

    EJR914 Cheezburger Operator

    44,830
    186
    63
    Well we sometimes are a rambunctious sort
     
  6. CoffeeMate

    CoffeeMate Junior Butt Warmer

    46,427
    9
    0
    Yes. Say "FBI" and the public's eyes glaze over.
     
  7. janedoedad

    janedoedad Liver Abuser

    1,044
    16
    38
    They are not registering the firearms. They are registering the owners.

    Talk about a loophole. . . . :?
     
  8. Siege

    Siege Active Member

    3,950
    3
    38
    No loophole... At least not on those grounds. See highlighted portion of original text:

    The loophole lay in that it is not being prescribed or established by the US Attorney General, but rather at the state level, in order to effect that which is illegal for the Federal Government to do without an Act of Congress.
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2016
  9. GM404

    GM404 Well-Known Member

    3,028
    153
    63
  10. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,050
    1,428
    113
    Pretty clear.
     
  11. Taurus92

    Taurus92 Well-Known Member

    9,458
    112
    63
    There is no end to 'compromise'.
    Now, the background check isn't sufficient. Mandatory concealed carry PLUS forehead branding will be next. This way the gun won't scare people, but they'll know you carry.
     
  12. Taurus92

    Taurus92 Well-Known Member

    9,458
    112
    63
    More asset forfeiture.
     
  13. Phil1979

    Phil1979 Member Georgia Carry

    11,493
    600
    113
    Maybe they'll just have your doctor or insurance company report to the police chief if you've ever been prescribed any medication that could be used to treat anxiety or depression, even if those are not the reasons you were prescribed the drug.

    For the record, even if those are the reasons, you don't lose your self-defense rights because of it. That's just too low of a bar to take away a citizen's Second Amendment Rights.

    Folks, it's coming. I'm talking about over-reach of government that might flip the switch for a reboot.


    "The third new law requires gun owners to surrender their firearms and ammunition to the police if they've been disqualified to possess the weapons 'due to a diagnosis of having a significant behavioral, emotional, or mental disorder, or due to emergency or involuntary admission to a psychiatric facility.' If the person does not voluntarily give up their arms, the police chief has permission to seize the weapons."
     
    Last edited: Jun 25, 2016