Last week the House and Senate devoted hours to hearings on 18 gun bills, but a measure that would lift some restrictions on how protective orders are enforced was deferred.
House Bill 2710 was deferred Thursday following much debate during a joint hearing of the Public Safety, Veterans, and Military Affairs and the Judiciary committees. It would have permitted a “law enforcement officer to search a person convicted of violating certain temporary restraining orders or protective orders, including the person’s motor vehicle and the person’s residence, for firearms without obtaining a search warrant if the law enforcement officer has reason to believe acts of abuse, malicious property damage, or harassment by the person are imminent.”
The bill also specified that if a firearm was seized it could not be used for a subsequent conviction if the original search lacked probable cause.
Jerry Hanel, 69, who allegedly killed Honolulu Police Department officers Tiffany Enriquez and Kaulike Kalama, and his landlord, 77-year-old Lois Cain, on Jan. 19 was under a court order that banned him from having firearms or ammunition. Police never executed a search warrant at 3015 Hibiscus Drive to confirm that Hanel was complying with the weapons ban.
“They didn’t have probable cause. That’s why they couldn’t go in,” said Rep. Joy San Buenaventura (D, Puna-Pahoa), who was a sponsor of House Bill 2710.
More than 110 pages of written testimony were submitted, and most of it was negative. Hawaii Rifle Association Board Member Brandon Leong submitted testimony against the measure, saying it failed to offer “due process” and the “U.S. Constitution requires law enforcement to get a warrant in order to conduct a search.”
Andrew Namiki Roberts, with the Hawaii Firearms Coalition, also submitted testimony against the bill, saying that a police officer wishing to search another property should have to obtain a warrant from a court.
“This bill does not even require a suspicion that a firearm is in the accused’s possession,” Roberts said. “The law also allows for the seizure of another person’s property because of the criminal actions of someone else, and they must prove themselves worthy of having their property returned.”
However, attorney Ellen Godbey Carson supported the measure, saying “the bill’s provisions are only triggered when there has already been judicial process in issuance of a TRO or other protective order. When such an order has been violated and the police believe substantial harm is imminent, the balance of interests favors the community being safeguarded from violence.”
The Domestic Violence Action Center also supported the measure saying, “This may be an important improvement to the system’s current failures to seize firearms when they are present, hidden, unregistered — but available.”
RELATED STORIES:
>> Court orders banning firearms possession are hard to enforce
>> Senate committee OKs curb on gun magazines
