Glen Clark reports last month we reported that the state of Hawaii, known for its beautiful beaches, tropical forests, gorgeous weather, and many other factions of paradise on Earth, was considering legislation that would allow the state to enter the names and information of all legal Hawaii gun owners into a federal data base.
On Thursday, the governor of Hawaii signed that controversial bill into law. The database will track those people, and if a resident gun owner gets arrested anywhere in the country for anything the FBI database will notify the Hawaii police.
Legal gun owners in Hawaii will now be seen as suspects.
Governor David Ige says this is about community safety and “responsible gun ownership.” He said it will help law enforcement protect Hawaii residents and visitors. He didn’t elaborate on exactly how that would be accomplished.
State Senator Will Espero and the Honolulu Police Department said it could be a model for other states to follow. But should legal gun owners be subject to law enforcement monitoring simply for practicing their Second Amendment rights?
“I don’t like the idea of us being entered into a database. It basically tells us that they know where the guns are, they can go grab them,” said state firearms instructor Jerry Ilo. “We get the feeling that Big Brother is watching us.”
And rightly so.
The NRA objected to the bill from the beginning, saying “Hawaii will now be treating owners of firearms as suspect and subject to constant monitoring.”
This law unfairly targets law-abiding citizens. Statistically, legal gun owners are not the perpetrators of crimes involving firearms. Rather than prevent any crime or make anyone safer, this law will merely allow the federal government to know which Hawaiian citizens legally own firearms.
The governor signed two other bills yesterday concerning gun control. One bars people convicted of stalking and/or sexual assault from owning guns. I’m good with that. They’ve been convicted of a crime.
The other gives police the authority to forcibly enter private homes and remove firearms and ammunition if the homeowner has been “disqualified from owning guns because of mental problems.” There were no details given about who has the authority to disqualify someone from gun ownership.
If a person is found by a doctor to be mentally unstable to the point of being a danger to himself or others, and that doctor declares that status to a judge, who issues a warrant, then perhaps the forcible removal of weapons could be justified.
But if due process is not required, then that law is unconstitutional. Not everyone with mental health issues is a danger to himself or others.
In Hawaii Big Brother is watching – with the direct help of the Hawaii state government.