I did just that when Hawaii Free Press (a conservative news website) had an article listing gun-related bills being discussed in the Hawaii state legislature.
I rarely have time to attend legislative meetings, so I send some online testimony via http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/
Well, some reporter from the Associated Press (yes, a national press agency) found my quote,
and not only was it posted in the article (which has been posted in newspapers in various cities), the facebook post advertising that article in the Star-Advertiser had my quote on it!
And my quote being quoted?
"Gun Owners object to bill allowing seizure of weapons from mentally ill."
“Doing something about gun violence doesn’t make it OK to take someone’s gun possession rights away without due process,” Pablo Wegesend said in opposition to the bill.
Now, when a statement becomes public, I tend to clarify myself just in case someone wants to twist my words.
So in response, I posted this in the comments related to that article!
OK, my quote was an online testimony, didn't expect to see it displayed prominently, but I stand by what I said about due process! Anyone who loses a right has the right to question the authorities, who sometimes make mistakes (sometimes on purpose).
Authorities should prove beyond a reasonable doubt before taking anyone's rights away!
If someone is proven to be too dangerous to have a gun, he/she is too dangerous to be out of jail. But that has to be proven through a legal process in which the accused gets to question the accuser!
I'm not saying we should automatically believe an accused person begging for his/her rights, but we shouldn't automatically believe a law enforcement authority either!
You want to talk about the "dangers of the mentally ill?" What exactly does that mean anyways?
Being "mentally ill" doesn't mean you are dangerous!
Here are some great comments to that Star Advertiser article in which I was quoted!
comment from "choyd"
The question is what defines mentally ill? Furthermore, someone who is mentally ill is not necessarily a threat to others or themselves.
I understand the intent behind this bill, and unlike Winston, I don’t think we should be arming the mentally deranged, but mentally ill does not equate to mentally deranged. Having a friend who talks to imaginary friends but otherwise isn’t a threat to anyone having his right to firearms taking away would be trampling of civil rights. But, someone who is clearly a danger to others and themselves should have their firearm rights at least temporarily suspended.
and another comment
HawaiiCheeseBall says:An emergency hospitalization does no necessarily mean a persons is a threat to him/herself or other. There are many reasons for emergency hospitalizations. However, the proposed law does not seem unreasonable. You do not want someone going through a psychotic episode having access to a gun, that’s a recipe for disaster. The main thing is that the law and accompanying administrative rules spell out the conditions that must be present before a firearm can be confiscated, and a reasonable process for the return of the firearm to the owner.
Again, I have to make myself clear, I am NOT saying everyone should go out and get a gun!
I am NOT saying we should give "slaps on wrists" for someone who committed a dangerous act!
I am NOT saying that we shouldn't take gun violence seriously!
I am NOT saying we shouldn't any threats seriously!
I am just asking that any confiscation (whether it's guns, cars, whatevers) by a legal authority should be done with due process!
I am just asking that anyone who is facing confiscation should have the right to question his/her accusers!
I hope my quote (being more public and more viral than I expected) will at least get the lawmakers to implement due process procedures before taking away any individual's rights and property!
