CMO, since you have studied this issue in great detail, is the underlying problem that HPD believes it can re-purpose the NICS application to perform criminal background checks for non-firearm possession? We can understand why the FBI would balk. To Hawaii citizens, this would constitute Impossibility, Frustration of Purpose, and Impracticability in the law, and allow us to sue the state. I am trying to offer the state an off ramp. Why don't they allow the sellers to use the state's eCrim system? At $5 a pop it is not cheap, but not exorbitant either. It's not perfect, as it would allow out-of-state crimes to go undetected. However, the failure/misrepresentation of the applicant could be a felony punishable by 2 years in prison.
https://ecrim.ehawaii.gov/ahewa/login.do;jsessionid=F2D892B6C4D25BD352A679F2C18307B6.hcjdcapp
I don't remember of hand what system HPD is trying to access, but it does require the FBI's involvement. Of which they said no. So the AG stated that HPD is doing it wrong in their brief. Same FBI in FOIA request stated no one is in their RAPBACK system. Even though we all paid for it and completed the form and is required by law to purchase a gun in HI.
The state needs no off ramp, they just have to abide by the law. I'm sure HPD has some kind of internal/state database that they can input someone/somethings info and get a report. So in your situation, HPD would run Firearms International and see what pops up. If there is nothing, then issue the permit to sell tasers. It's very simple, HPD is either trying their best to delay the process or incompetent. Or maybe both. And since they're a FFL, they also have to reg all guns with HPD, so they're already in some kind of data base with them as a FFL.
The sellers should use the ecrim system and just increase the price of a taser by $5, no big deal. But you have HPD telling certain sellers what to do, which is wrong by the way. And the sellers didn't read the law and never bucked back and stated that they're (HPD) is wrong to their face.
Then you have another store who's requiring the buyer to bring in their own ecrim check, which again means the store never read the law either.
So all in all, this is a cluster fuck cause people don't read. And the way it's written is very simple and not in legaleze.
But a light at the end of the tunnel is coming. The lawyer who represented Roberts vs. Connors (Shikada) is dealing with it. That's how we found out about HPD getting denied by the FBI and they're just sitting on it not knowing what to do next. So if HIFICO didn't inquire, then HPD would still be sitting on the background checks for sellers not knowing what to do until someone does something like how HIFICO did.
I hope that by the end of this month, the permits to sell are issued.
This brings me to my next vent about stores charging $150-200 for a class that isn't required by law. The law states "informational briefing", which should be 10 mins tops and free of charge. IMO, stores who charge for a "class" are just trying to capitalize on the situation. Should a class be taken, of course it has benefits, but it shouldn't be required to buy a taser. And we learned during covid that 1 cannot buy a handgun because no handgun safety classes were offered during lock down. People had to wait for the range to open again.
This is why we cannot order 1 from Amazon and the fact that Amazon would need a permit to sell as well.