Hawaii: Bill to put all gun owers into FBI database

[rickt]

I never heard of this database. Since I work in a school, I am wondering if I am already in there.

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.

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories ... abase.html

[catfish86]

SERIOUS due process issues with this. Essentially putting someone exercising a constitutional right on a watch list that others are not with no "process" other than having bought a firearm in the past.

[WY_Not]

How is that any different than putting teachers, nurses, etc that have done nothing wrong any different?

SERIOUS due process issues with this. Essentially putting someone exercising a constitutional right on a watch list that others are not with no "process" other than having bought a firearm in the past.

[WestonDon]

How is that any different than putting teachers, nurses, etc that have done nothing wrong any different?

SERIOUS due process issues with this. Essentially putting someone exercising a constitutional right on a watch list that others are not with no "process" other than having bought a firearm in the past.

There is no difference. The problem is that this database even exists in the first place.

[Brian D.]

Hawaii is also one of the cases where, when some avid but poorly informed pro-Second Amendment person says "WOO, concealed carry licenses available in all 50 states now!", they're missing a whole lot of fine print. Hawaii has rarely (if ever) issued a license to someone not connected to the Honolulu or state police. I believe one license was for the HPD armorer, a civilian employee, another was for maybe the police chief's sister or the like. If I ever met Tom Selleck I'd ask him if he was one of the chosen few, since he has owned a home there for a long time. Wouldn't be surprised if they DIDN'T give a carry license to 'Magnum P.I.', even though that show drove millions of dollars in tourism to the state.

[WY_Not]

Oh, I agree whole-heartedly on that. I just find it amusing and curious that people get so wound up about possibly putting firearms owners on a list yet putting nurses, teachers, etc on a list is no big deal. Either one should be equally offensive to anyone who puts any value on freedom and liberty.

How is that any different than putting teachers, nurses, etc that have done nothing wrong any different?

SERIOUS due process issues with this. Essentially putting someone exercising a constitutional right on a watch list that others are not with no "process" other than having bought a firearm in the past.

There is no difference. The problem is that this database even exists in the first place.

[JediSkipdogg]

Oh, I agree whole-heartedly on that. I just find it amusing and curious that people get so wound up about possibly putting firearms owners on a list yet putting nurses, teachers, etc on a list is no big deal. Either one should be equally offensive to anyone who puts any value on freedom and liberty.

I disagree. We fight about licenses and registrations for gun owners all the time. I never see anyone complain about registration and licensure for those in the medical field. In my opinion, once you agree to allowing a license or registration system, then you agree to allow that list to be monitored on a regular basis. I've really yet to hear anyone complain that a teacher or nurse has to be licensed for their profession.

[Brian D.]

Oh, I agree whole-heartedly on that. I just find it amusing and curious that people get so wound up about possibly putting firearms owners on a list yet putting nurses, teachers, etc on a list is no big deal. Either one should be equally offensive to anyone who puts any value on freedom and liberty.

I disagree. We fight about licenses and registrations for gun owners all the time. I never see anyone complain about registration and licensure for those in the medical field. In my opinion, once you agree to allowing a license or registration system, then you agree to allow that list to be monitored on a regular basis. I've really yet to hear anyone complain that a teacher or nurse has to be licensed for their profession.

There's no Constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to keep and bear chalk erasers or stethoscopes. Maybe that's the diference.

[WestonDon]

Are not most professional licensing/registrations state issued and state monitored? It's the Federal database thing that's got some of us cranked up.

[Chuck]

Oh, I agree whole-heartedly on that. I just find it amusing and curious that people get so wound up about possibly putting firearms owners on a list yet putting nurses, teachers, etc on a list is no big deal. Either one should be equally offensive to anyone who puts any value on freedom and liberty.

I disagree. We fight about licenses and registrations for gun owners all the time. I never see anyone complain about registration and licensure for those in the medical field. In my opinion, once you agree to allowing a license or registration system, then you agree to allow that list to be monitored on a regular basis. I've really yet to hear anyone complain that a teacher or nurse has to be licensed for their profession.

I quit teaching when they started requiring fingerprints to renew my teaching license
That was a line I wasn't going to cross
A few years later I gave up my fingerprints to exercise my constitutional right to self defense.

I don't even know how to describe the absurdity of that.
But that's the way it happened,,,,

[WY_Not]

That is the kind of crap I had in mind. Even just keeping track of who is current on their training and certs is not a government function. That can easily be done by a private organization. An individual should NOT need government permission to seek employment much less exercise a constitutionally guaranteed (not granted) right.

Oh, I agree whole-heartedly on that. I just find it amusing and curious that people get so wound up about possibly putting firearms owners on a list yet putting nurses, teachers, etc on a list is no big deal. Either one should be equally offensive to anyone who puts any value on freedom and liberty.

I disagree. We fight about licenses and registrations for gun owners all the time. I never see anyone complain about registration and licensure for those in the medical field. In my opinion, once you agree to allowing a license or registration system, then you agree to allow that list to be monitored on a regular basis. I've really yet to hear anyone complain that a teacher or nurse has to be licensed for their profession.

I quit teaching when they started requiring fingerprints to renew my teaching license
That was a line I wasn't going to cross
A few years later I gave up my fingerprints to exercise my constitutional right to self defense.

I don't even know how to describe the absurdity of that.
But that's the way it happened,,,,

[JediSkipdogg]

That is the kind of crap I had in mind. Even just keeping track of who is current on their training and certs is not a government function. That can easily be done by a private organization. An individual should NOT need government permission to seek employment much less exercise a constitutionally guaranteed (not granted) right.

I would agree for the most part but....who is responsible for paying those people? The government. Therefore, the government has a great interest in verifying the license of the individual and ensuring only certified people are doing the work. Keep in mind, one area of government where they allow public and private dealings is foster care. The quality control on foster care agencies was found to be much worse on the private side than the public side, if that's possible to believe. Education, well, private is better, but generally it's about 25% more per pupil than public. Public education I say the state needs to guarantee licensure and background checks, on private education, leave it up to the entity offering the education. After all, who is sued when something bad happens?

[WestonDon]

The database in question has nothing to do with licensing or certifications. It reports criminal activity exclusive of due process. You can be put into this database by submitting to a fingerprint based background check. Even private employers can receive a report.


There really is a "THEY"

[Javelin Man]

That is the kind of crap I had in mind. Even just keeping track of who is current on their training and certs is not a government function. That can easily be done by a private organization. An individual should NOT need government permission to seek employment much less exercise a constitutionally guaranteed (not granted) right.

I would agree for the most part but....who is responsible for paying those people? The government. Therefore, the government has a great interest in verifying the license of the individual and ensuring only certified people are doing the work. Keep in mind, one area of government where they allow public and private dealings is foster care. The quality control on foster care agencies was found to be much worse on the private side than the public side, if that's possible to believe. Education, well, private is better, but generally it's about 25% more per pupil than public. Public education I say the state needs to guarantee licensure and background checks, on private education, leave it up to the entity offering the education. After all, who is sued when something bad happens?

Good point. I taught for two years in a private school with an expired teaching certificate before the principal pointed it out to me. It also used to be you wouldn't get fingerprinted until you changed jobs, but now it's every time you renew your license.