Hawaii: Firearm Applicants need Doctor's Clearance to Carry ....yet another fascist scam

[Little-Acorn]

IM OK with the idea that states CAN impose stricter measures.

Then all you have to do is repeal the 2nd amendment, which forbids states (and the Fed) from doing it.

Let us know how that goes....

 

[Contumacious]

LIttle by little.

The Boling Frog Syndrome

 

[Steven_R]

There isn't a physician anywhere going to sign anything to that effect simply because of liability. They can't know that a patient of theirs won't have an unexpected psychotic break down the road or just use a gun in a crime or whatever. It's de facto ban by shifting the body saying no from government to a physician.

Is that really what we want in government? We can't do what we want, so we'll set the conditions so someone else will give us the results we want strictly out of fear of litigation?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

There isn't a physician anywhere going to sign anything to that effect simply because of liability. They can't know that a patient of theirs won't have an unexpected psychotic break down the road or just use a gun in a crime or whatever. It's de facto ban by shifting the body saying no from government to a physician.

Is that really what we want in government? We can't do what we want, so we'll set the conditions so someone else will give us the results we want strictly out of fear of litigation?

You're on to something in a way. That's why today, you see two or three doctors instead of one. If it's something they are not positive about, they send you to a specialist to rid themselves of the possible malpractice liability. Years ago you had one doctor and he took care of just about any problem you had.

 

[Contumacious]

There isn't a physician anywhere going to sign anything to that effect simply because of liability. They can't know that a patient of theirs won't have an unexpected psychotic break down the road or just use a gun in a crime or whatever. It's de facto ban by shifting the body saying no from government to a physician.

Is that really what we want in government? We can't do what we want, so we'll set the conditions so someone else will give us the results we want strictly out of fear of litigation?

A DE FACTO BAN INDEED.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Gun permit applicants denied over medical dispute

HPD officers are now handing out a memo to gun permit applicants that states a doctor must sign a note on official letterhead stating the individual "shall own, possess, or control any firearm or ammunition and has been medically documented to be no longer adversely affected by the addiction, abuse, dependence, mental disease, disorder or defect".


Of course the criminal element is excluded.


.

You forgot to cite where the Supreme Court struck down this law – absent such a citation, the measure is perfectly Constitutional, in no way manifesting as 'fascism.'

The thread premise does manifest hyperbolic idiocy, devoid of fact or merit, however.

 

[Lakhota]

A psychological evaluation by a certified competent professional should be required before receiving a gun permit in all states.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Gun permit applicants denied over medical dispute

HPD officers are now handing out a memo to gun permit applicants that states a doctor must sign a note on official letterhead stating the individual "shall own, possess, or control any firearm or ammunition and has been medically documented to be no longer adversely affected by the addiction, abuse, dependence, mental disease, disorder or defect".


Of course the criminal element is excluded.


.

Finnaly a state following the 1968 gun law.

If you don't like the 68 gun law either get rid of it, amend it or enforce it.

The 1968 "law" is a bold face USURPATION and of course is no law. Hopefully Hawaiians will find a way to circumvent the tyrannical edict.


.

They're at liberty to file suit in Federal court to seek relief, and have the law's constitutionality subject to judicial review.

Until such a ruling is forthcoming, however, the measure comports with the Second Amendment, de jura.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I'm pretty sure the Constitution doesn't read, "...the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...unless someone can't get a doctor's note."

Adjudicate as mentally incompetent or convicted of a crime. Everyone gets a day in court before they get their rights taken away.

That's for the courts alone to determine, not message board posters who are 'pretty sure.'

 

[Steven_R]

I'm pretty sure the Constitution doesn't read, "...the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...unless someone can't get a doctor's note."

Adjudicate as mentally incompetent or convicted of a crime. Everyone gets a day in court before they get their rights taken away.

That's for the courts alone to determine, not message board posters who are 'pretty sure.'

Which is why jury nullification exists, even if judges pretend it doesn't.

 

[2aguy]

Gun permit applicants denied over medical dispute

HPD officers are now handing out a memo to gun permit applicants that states a doctor must sign a note on official letterhead stating the individual "shall own, possess, or control any firearm or ammunition and has been medically documented to be no longer adversely affected by the addiction, abuse, dependence, mental disease, disorder or defect".


Of course the criminal element is excluded.


.

and we should do the same for voting.....and buying computers since sex trafficking and pedophiles use them.......and for writing in news papers.....

 

[2aguy]

Is stopping crazy people from getting a gun such an outrage !?

that isn't what this is for.......not one of the mass shooters would have been stopped by this....not even Sandy Hook. crazy people are not the problem with gun crimes...8,124 gun murders, and less than a hand full committed by nuts.

the next step is to sue any doctor that treated a mentally ill patient who does a mass shooting...then you can stop any doctor from signing any note for fear of being sued....

also...seeing a grief counselor...insomnia.....any reason will become a reason to deny someone their rights.

A woman has a baby...Post Pardem...no gun for her.....

You anti gunners will do anything to get rid of guns....

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What part of the GCA mandates a doctor's signature?
The measure is clearly unconstitutional.

The liberal fanatics are desperate to keep people believing that government is allowed to have any say in who is allowed own a gun.

Despite the 2nd amendment clearly banning govt from having any such say.

Wrong again, as usual.

The Second Amendment in fact recognizes the authority of government to determine who may or may not possess a firearm:

'Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
[...]
Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.'
[...]
There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment ’s right of free speech was not, see, e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Consequently, 'liberals' are not 'fanatics,' they are correct that in fact government may regulate firearms and their possession, and conservatives are once again wrong.

Indeed, it is most conservatives who are the fanatics, with their wrongheaded notion that the Second Amendment 'bans' government from making such a determination.

 

[2aguy]

A psychological evaluation by a certified competent professional should be required before receiving a gun permit in all states.

and we should do the same thing for computers...right? and cars, since alcoholism in a family tends to be passed down...so no cars for families with drug use or alcoholism in their history.............

 

[Wyatt earp]

Is stopping crazy people from getting a gun such an outrage !?

It depends on "crazy" if it is some woman who is on meds (a controlled substance) who is being stalked my answer is no, but according to the 68 law she could be denied.

 

[2aguy]

What part of the GCA mandates a doctor's signature?
The measure is clearly unconstitutional.

The liberal fanatics are desperate to keep people believing that government is allowed to have any say in who is allowed own a gun.

Despite the 2nd amendment clearly banning govt from having any such say.

Wrong again, as usual.

The Second Amendment in fact recognizes the authority of government to determine who may or may not possess a firearm:

'Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
[...]
Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.'
[...]
There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment ’s right of free speech was not, see, e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Consequently, 'liberals' are not 'fanatics,' they are correct that in fact government may regulate firearms and their possession, and conservatives are once again wrong.

Indeed, it is most conservatives who are the fanatics, with their wrongheaded notion that the Second Amendment 'bans' government from making such a determination.

and they are wrong......allowing 5 lawyers the ability to deny Rights is insane..........

the Comstitution is the
Supreme law of the land...not 5 lawyers..........

 

[2aguy]

Criminal behavior runs in families.....so we could focus on denying rights to members of whole families based on the actions of only one member. right? and Poverty....the left is constantly bitching about poverty creating crime...so anyone making less than the poverty rate or on Governmemt handouts should be denied access to guns......right?

wow....once you get going this is fun....no computers without a Doctors note clearing you of improper urges towards underage children...no access to cars for families with a history of drug or alcohol abuse....and no access to guns for people in poverty...since that allegedly leads to crime......

 

[2aguy]

What part of the GCA mandates a doctor's signature?
The measure is clearly unconstitutional.

The liberal fanatics are desperate to keep people believing that government is allowed to have any say in who is allowed own a gun.

Despite the 2nd amendment clearly banning govt from having any such say.

Wrong again, as usual.

The Second Amendment in fact recognizes the authority of government to determine who may or may not possess a firearm:

'Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
[...]
Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.'
[...]
There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment ’s right of free speech was not, see, e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Consequently, 'liberals' are not 'fanatics,' they are correct that in fact government may regulate firearms and their possession, and conservatives are once again wrong.

Indeed, it is most conservatives who are the fanatics, with their wrongheaded notion that the Second Amendment 'bans' government from making such a determination.

of course as a lefty you interpret " not unlimited" to mean totally prohibited unless lefty politicians desire it, and then it means only for police, soldiers ........and the security agents of the politically connected and wealthy.

 

[The Rabbi]

What part of the GCA mandates a doctor's signature?
The measure is clearly unconstitutional.

The liberal fanatics are desperate to keep people believing that government is allowed to have any say in who is allowed own a gun.

Despite the 2nd amendment clearly banning govt from having any such say.

Wrong again, as usual.

The Second Amendment in fact recognizes the authority of government to determine who may or may not possess a firearm:

'Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
[...]
Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.'
[...]
There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment ’s right of free speech was not, see, e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Consequently, 'liberals' are not 'fanatics,' they are correct that in fact government may regulate firearms and their possession, and conservatives are once again wrong.

Indeed, it is most conservatives who are the fanatics, with their wrongheaded notion that the Second Amendment 'bans' government from making such a determination.

That fails as an ipse dixit fallacy.

 

[MikeK]

LIttle by little.

The Boling Frog Syndrome

By the time they finish you will be permitted to keep a single-shot .22 rifle, chambered for short, which must be kept in a locked case, and which you may bear only to an authorized target range where the ammo used must be purchased there and either used or turned in.

That will conform with the Second Amendment and is not meant to be funny.