Gun owners object to bill allowing seizure of weapons from mentally ill
STAR-ADVERTISER / JUNE 19, 2010
A target shooter chambers a round in the semi-automatic handgun at the Koko Head shooting range.
State lawmakers moved forward with a bill to force gun owners to immediately surrender firearms after undergoing an emergency hospitalization for mental health issues. The proposed law would require police to give gun owners written notice to immediately surrender all firearms. But if gun owners fail to do so, the chief of police could seize all firearms and ammunition.
Under the bill, guns would be held in police custody until the person is medically cleared of conditions or until the guns were sold by the owner.
Supporters say getting firearms out of a mentally ill person’s hands as quickly as possible is critical to preventing dangerous situations. The Hawaii County Prosecutor’s office and the Honolulu Police Department were in support of the bill, saying it wouldn’t give any additional authority to the police, but would instead close a loophole that allows Hawaii residents to keep their guns for 30 days after being deemed mentally ill.
“Currently, even in the most volatile situations, county police officers are prohibited from immediately recovering a firearm from an owner who is suffering from mental illness,” said Maj. Richard Robinson of the Honolulu Police Department.
The proposed law was largely opposed by gun owners who say it could violate constitutional rights.
“Doing something about gun violence doesn’t make it OK to take someone’s gun possession rights away without due process,” Pablo Wegesend said in opposition to the bill.
Don't miss out on what's happening!
Stay in touch with top news, as it happens, conveniently in your email inbox. It's FREE!
Daniel Reid, state liaison for the National Rifle Association, said the bill ignores due process because it doesn’t require a judicial order, and instead takes away a constitutional right simply for receiving medical treatment.
National experts say Hawaii has some of the strictest gun laws in the country. State data shows less than 1 percent of applications to register firearms in Hawaii were denied in 2014, about 18 percent of which were denied for mental health reasons.
46 responses to “Gun owners object to bill allowing seizure of weapons from mentally ill”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Let’s see how the people feel that are objecting when one of these mentally ill people kill someone they love. No one mentally ill or with a criminal record should own a gun!
Exactly. These gun owners and their rights are the very ones causing a lot of violence. And a lot of them aren’t of sane mind.
You’re a serious Kool-Aid drinker. Spouting information like it was factual, only serves to demonstrate your myopic focus on the absurd.
peanutgallery: I totally agree with you (along with many others, I’m sure.). lokela needs to do some serious studying as to who and what kinds of persons are causing these types of violence. Naïve comments like his are a cancer digging into our 2nd amendment rights.
The question is what defines mentally ill? Furthermore, someone who is mentally ill is not necessarily a threat to others or themselves.
I understand the intent behind this bill, and unlike Winston, I don’t think we should be arming the mentally deranged, but mentally ill does not equate to mentally deranged. Having a friend who talks to imaginary friends but otherwise isn’t a threat to anyone having his right to firearms taking away would be trampling of civil rights. But, someone who is clearly a danger to others and themselves should have their firearm rights at least temporarily suspended.
We good on this one choydee. Either the SA article as written is incomplete or the bill is flawed. The question is not only “what” defines mentally ill but also “who” and “how”. I would say the intentions are good.
Honestly, I think we should focus more on dealing with the irresponsible trash who own firearms and practice virtually no safety practices. A firearm is just an item. It’s the person using it that determines the issue.
This is going to sound radical, but if, IMO if someone passes annual strict psychological tests and annual safety and security inspections, they should be allowed to have almost anything they want. RPG? Sure. Barret 50 cal? Sure. Full auto rifles? Sure. Even possibly automatic shotguns. Weapons in the hands of responsible and mentally stable people aren’t an issue any more than a city bus is in the hands of a stable bus driver.
It is just that we have questionable processes on who can buy and even more questionable safety and storage education. IMO, the discussion focuses WAY too much on the items and far too little on the people. If people simply stored their weapons properly (aka not in cars), the number of stolen weapons being illegally sold would drop as well.
Once again, irresponsible people are screwing it up for everyone else. Firearms require a great amount of responsibility and as someone who grew up with them, I see far too many gun owners failing to meet that expectation.
Agreed choydee! A gun in itself is not evil nor is a vehicle. Yet they both kill due to incompetence, negligence, and corruption. Prosecute the perpetrators not the object.
Actually, saveparadise, we have to prevent people who are irresponsible from getting such items in the first place. We need less regulation of the item itself and more regulation of who can buy them.
IMO, it’s not so much that we have too many firearms, it’s that we have too many trash owners and too many trash people wanting to own them.
Anyone who’s grown up with firearms knows fellow firearm owners who shouldn’t be allowed to have firearms for various reasons, including mental health as well as gross irresponsibility. Like that gun toting fanatic in Texas who was shot in the back by her kid because of intolerably poor firearm storage. A RESPONSIBLE owner doesn’t store loaded pistols in the backseat of a car.
Our problem is not firearms. Our problem is people.
True story…crazy friend walks into family party with gun. Yells at the whole family saying this is what you want huh? To kill myself!! Most family just leaves, leaving one of them to talk him down. Eventually he calms down and cops let him go because they said he was “just crazy.” He’s still roaming the streets and this was within 6 months in honolulu. Watch out.
Mahalo fasteddie, A case like this would be classic. Given time this person may (or did) calm down. How would this new law be put into effect? The cops act at a time when he is suicidal and guess what? They push him over the edge trying to make a “lawful” confiscation and he starts shooting at everyone and then kills himself. Did the new law work? Will it work? Purely hypothetical but not that far fetched from real life.
Public safety issue.
these gun owners who object must be mentally ill.
If the government can keep re-defining “mentally ill” it’s pretty easy to see where this is going. For example, some say all military veterans returning from the Middle East have some degree of PTSD…the Feds have been targeting these guys for years. If you are deliberately trying to disarm the populace you start with the people who are best trained to use weapons.
An emergency hospitalization does no necessarily mean a persons is a threat to him/herself or other. There are many reasons for emergency hospitalizations. However, the proposed law does not seem unreasonable. You do not want someone going through a psychotic episode having access to a gun, that’s a recipe for disaster. The main thing is that the law and accompanying administrative rules spell out the conditions that must be present before a firearm can be confiscated, and a reasonable process for the return of the firearm to the owner.
Agree with you, lots of veterans fall into this category. If they suffer from PTSD, sometimes doctors misdiagnose and use wrong treatment-usually drugs. When they see another doctor, medication is removed, guy is normal. Had a wounded warrior working for me that was like that, doctors at Tripler kept giving him medication. Moved to Walter Reed, took him off, normal Now works for DHS.
I think veterans fall into this category. If they suffer from PTSD, sometimes doctors misdiagnose and use wrong treatment-usually drugs. When they see another doctor, medication is removed, guy is normal. Had a wounded warrior working for me that was like that, doctors at Tripler kept giving him medication. Moved to Walter Reed, took him off, normal Now works for DHS. In Hawaii he could never get a gun at all.
I am an NRA member and very Pro-Gun but even I agree that guns should be taken from people LEGALLY diagnosed as a danger to themselves and to society. If people check into a hospital for acute mental health issues, I think that perhaps a 72 hour confiscation of firearms would be a reasonable compromise that is in the best interests of the public and the patient.
It is nice to hear a gun owner who is rational and is willing to make a reasonable compromise.
The unintended consequence would be a further stigmatization of mental illness and those people suffering from it. What’s the big deal about that you say? Look no further than the recent Germanwings tragedy for an example of how a (probably justifiable) fear of jeopardizing his career led an ultimately suicidal pilot to not avail himself of all the mental health resources he could have. I can easily see some gun owners exhibiting a similar reluctance to seek out mental health services if by doing so, they forfeit their personal property for an indefinite period. Think about it: if we’re genuinely concerned about the mentally ill harming themselves and others, then the prudent thing to do is to impound, in addition the guns, all automotive vehicles in the person’s household (for no one here would approve of a “crazy” person hurtling around in a two-ton hunk of steel, correct?). One could even make the case that minor children residing in the same household should be forcibly relocated indefinitely for their own safety. From most of the “Yeah, good idea. Let’s do it” sentiments expressed here, I’m left with the impression many folks just haven’t thought about the practical application of such a scheme. What, just to highlight one issue, do you do about households where two or more members are gun owners and just one of them requires emergency mental health hospitalization? If we’re seriously intent on preventing a reasonably intelligent – but mentally ill – adult from accessing a firearm, then would not the entire household’s collection of guns need to be indefinitely removed? After all, we’re not intent here on just locking a cat or dog from a food pantry are we? Until lawmakers in this state can demonstrate they have the wisdom to craft a workable plastic bag control law, they should table such gun control schemes for, yes, an indefinite period.
“If we’re seriously intent on preventing a reasonably intelligent – but mentally ill – adult from accessing a firearm, then would not the entire household’s collection of guns need to be indefinitely removed?”
“The entire household’s collection of guns”
Interesting presupposition here. I don’t know too many households that possess armories.
“Interesting presupposition here. I don’t know too many households that possess armories.
It’s almost certainly true. There are a large number of registered firearms in Hawaii but per capital ownership is very low, suggesting that the large number of weapons are largely in the hands of a relative few people, aka, armories.
Wow! Hanabata has a good point. Many of us have small arsenals. Some under lock and some just hidden for possible self protection….but accessible to others in the household. So who is to determine whether the mentally ill person should be subject to a mental hospital rather than remove every gun in the house of a legal firearm owner?
HanabataDays, if a quibbling remark about the definition of “collection” is your best contribution to this discussion, then perhaps you need to sit back and reflect on what number of items can define a collection. Last I understood it, an “armory” too can be big or small. And whether you care to believe it or not, there’s every chance a nearby neighbor of yours possesses a collection (maybe as few as two or three) of those wicked guns.
I’m also an NRA member and Pro-Gun and agree with you to a point. My concern is very much in line with CHOYD’s comment above. The definition of mentally ill as a criteria to confiscate guns can be a convoluted one, as exampled by liberals and conservatives interpreting our own constitution to their own purpose. Pohaku96744’s experience above is just one example of how an individual case can be mishandled.
You used the term “legally.” This implies due process, and this bill does not account for that.
“Legally” is more and more becoming merely a reflection of the latest media generated frenzy.
Let’s try the other tack by taking guns out of the hands of open-carry types and giving them to the pupules. Most of us live such boring lives, let’s get a little excitement going here!
Okay,I’m game. Lets, as a social experiment, try exactly that. So where should we store all the guns, ammo and related accessories confiscated from all the uniformed HPD and other uniformed law enforcement personnel here in Hawaii?
Delta, He is joking. Pupule is a Hawaiian word for crazy.
You actually thought disarming uniformed law enforcement here was a serious proposal? For real? Wow. It was a response to HanabataDays making a manini remark about arming the crazy people here.
Besides the mentally ill we should not allow those on the no fly list or those connected with any terrorist activity or members of terrorist organizations to possess firearms. These are the classes of people who have proven to be very dangerous with firearms.
The so-called “No Fly List” contains the names of many individuals who haven’t been convicted of actual crimes. Do you mean to suspend their rights as well?
You know there are toddlers on that no fly list right?
Not a great list to curtail civil rights on. Just sayin’
choyd, a lot of people believe in the infallibility of government generated lists. If the No Fly List contained an entry for the Easter Bunny you can bet that a few folks would be watching out for him (or her, as the Easter Bunny lays eggs if I’m not mistaken). At least Tempmanoa did not refer to the Terrorist Watch List; at least a million suspects’ names reside there.
What is more amusing DeltaDag, is the people who believe in the infallibility of government power in the FBI-Apple case don’t trust the government at all with their firearm rights.
That makes no sense. IMO, the far right has so many inconsistent beliefs that they have to engage in mental gymnastics every day.
Does this apply to the Military on the island? There are a lot of Service Members under treatment for PTSD. Many of Services members that left service or retired from service receive VA benefits because of PTSD. PTSD is treatable but not curable.
If they are taking anti-psycotic medication, probably apply.
As less than 10% of the adult population in the U.S. has served or plans to serve in the armed forces, a good chunk of the remaining 90% likely don’t care squat about their rights.
Its not that difficult to find an anti gun doctor, and soon enough that one will be hired to be the official who determines who gets their property lifted by the cops and who doesn’t. Once the law is passed it will be all too easy to inflict the anti gun lobby upon society. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
I don’t think their intentions are good at all.
All this discussion and it boils down to one thing “Public Safety”.
Lot of good comments on this subject today. We all agree about public safety and giving law enforcement the tools they need to save lives. For all intents and purposes we need this law or one similar to be tried, tested, and amended if need be. Yes, I own more than one firearm.
At least no one here has yet foolishly stated, “If this law could save only one life. . .” The day ain’t done yet though.
It doesn’t matter if you like our or not, if you she with it or not, or if you understand it or not, the fact is, in 2008 SCOTUS proclaimed that possessing a firearm for self protection is a fundamental constitutionally protected civil right (see Helker opinion written by Scalia). To deprive anyone of such a right, the government must demonstrate a compelling state interest, with substantive and procedural due process protections for the defendant. This means judges, lawyers, courtrooms, clerks, evidence, testimony, crossź examination, the right against self-incriminating, and a burden of proof on the state (probably still be “clear and convincing”). Forthwith, the least restrictive alternative will be required, likely meaning temporary custody of firearms for defendants only while they remain actively ill and dangerous.
Or the courts could ignore Heller for a while until a defendant challenges loss of gun rights, then this will be clear, or Heller will be overturned.
Sorry for the typos.