Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

TexasTowelie

(116,765 posts)
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 05:45 AM Apr 2016

Hawaii bill would allow gun seizure after hospitalization for mental health issues

HONOLULU - Hawaii gun owners are speaking out against a bill they say would allow police to take their guns without due process.

State lawmakers moved forward Wednesday 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.

Read more: http://democratsforever.freeforums.net/thread/6106/hawaii-allow-seizure-after-hospitalization

4 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Hawaii bill would allow gun seizure after hospitalization for mental health issues (Original Post) TexasTowelie Apr 2016 OP
Who has the power to deem a person mentally ill? JonathanRackham Apr 2016 #1
No, it doesn't have to fit a gun nut's definition. nt flamin lib Apr 2016 #2
Where I live, people only see "emergency hospitalization," fullautohotdog Apr 2016 #3
Good with me. JonathanRackham Apr 2016 #4

JonathanRackham

(1,604 posts)
1. Who has the power to deem a person mentally ill?
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 12:38 PM
Apr 2016

Are all mental illnesses equal?

What happens if a person is misdiagnosed?

What happens if a doctor has an agenda?

To be an effective law they have to revisit the issue and fine tune it to protect the civil rights of the person at risk. The concept is good but the application is too broad brushed and could actually deter persons in need of mental health help from seeking help. I have a fly fishing friend who is deeply depressed and also a hunter, his depression makes him a bit of a loaner and got him his divorce many years ago. 30+ years we've been tying flies together and he's gone hunting. He's of no danger to anyone or himself. He's just very dark and quiet in his moods. Depressed yes, dangerous no. He's 82 this year, worked all his life and in better shape than most of the population 30 years younger. To take away his firearms based upon the above described law would devastate him. For the most part all's he wants is to be left alone, that is not a crime.

The law needs to be tuned and refined.

fullautohotdog

(90 posts)
3. Where I live, people only see "emergency hospitalization,"
Sat Apr 2, 2016, 01:30 PM
Apr 2016

Which this law is about, when they are a threat to themselves or others. Usually that determination is reached because they tell the cops "I'm going to blow my brains out" or "I'm going to shoot you." Here's how it works: 1) Person says something threatening violence, 2) somebody calls the cops who investigate, 3) cops ask judge to have person checked out.

Unless your moody friend threatens to kill himself or others, he'd be fine under this law.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control Reform Activism»Hawaii bill would allow g...