Georgia Firearm Forums - Georgia Packing banner
1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Under Scrutiny
Joined
·
19,386 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
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

Hawaii could become the first state in the United States to enter gun owners into an FBI database that will automatically notify police if an island resident is arrested anywhere else in the country.

Most people entered in the "Rap Back" database elsewhere in the U.S. are those in "positions of trust," such as school teachers and bus drivers, said Stephen Fischer of the FBI's Criminal Justice Information Services Division. Hawaii could be the first state to add gun owners.
Sen. Will Espero, who introduced the bill, and the Honolulu Police Department said Hawaii could serve as a model for other states if it becomes the first to enact the law.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,956 Posts
Right now, Hawaii gun owners undergo a background check only when they register a gun, so police have no way of knowing if they're disqualified from owning a gun in the future unless they try to register a new firearm.
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,951 Posts
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?

18 U.S.C. 926 said:
No such rule or regulation prescribed [by the Attorney General] after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or disposition be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary's authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation.
I'd sat that's a pretty clear no-no.
 

·
Swollen Member
Joined
·
11,969 Posts
Basically, HI is saying gun owners will be placed under suspicion by default.
 

·
Seasteading Aficionado
Joined
·
44,900 Posts
Well we sometimes are a rambunctious sort
 

·
Junior Butt Warmer
Joined
·
46,427 Posts
Siege said:
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?
Yes. Say "FBI" and the public's eyes glaze over.
 

·
Liver Abuser
Joined
·
1,057 Posts
They are not registering the firearms. They are registering the owners.

Talk about a loophole. . . . :?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,951 Posts
No loophole... At least not on those grounds. See highlighted portion of original text:

[B]18 U.S.C. 926[/B] said:
No such rule or regulation prescribed [by the Attorney General] after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or disposition be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary's authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation.
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.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
69,784 Posts
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.
18 U.S.C. 926
No such rule or regulation prescribed [by the Attorney General] after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or disposition be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary's authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation.
Pretty clear.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,458 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,458 Posts
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.
More asset forfeiture.
 

·
Member Georgia Carry
Joined
·
11,904 Posts
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."
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top