2aHawaii
General Topics => Legal and Activism => Topic started by: robtmc on November 10, 2013, 12:00:25 PM
-
The answer may be buried in the statues somewhere, but clearly asked: If my wife were to use one of the handguns registered to me inside out house for defense, is that a major problem? Suppose if I am home, not an issue at all, but if I were away?
I know, the easy thing would be to get them all registered to both of us, which she is amenable to. Luckily she has her NRA cert and is not averse to being fingerprinted and all.
-
Rob, the lesser of two evils is joint registration like you said. If it is okay for your wife to have access to your firearms, joint registration shouldn't be a problem.
The problem of getting a husband and wife to joint register is time off from work. Atleast for me it is. I hope for your sake you choose the "lesser" of two evils.
-
One word: shotgun.
-
Can firearms be registered in a Revocable Trust?
-
One word: shotgun.
She has issues with pump action shotguns and needs far more practice.
She is a darn good shot with a handgun and has new confidence in ability to rack the slide on my bigger stuff now that I have shown her a new technique.
I suppose the question revolved around whether the law would see the handgun as never leaving my place of sojourn, and all that BS Since she lives here, almost seems like a gray area, but I do not trust zealous DA types.
Rob, the lesser of two evils is joint registration like you said. If it is okay for your wife to have access to your firearms, joint registration shouldn't be a problem.
Joint registration does seem like the safe choice, and would cover us if a hurricane hit and she needed to pack up without me here.
Reading over Tom G's relating going through the process of joint registration, one question remains: Does the wife have to go through the FBI fingerprint crap? Not mentioned.
Kona is not remotely like Honolulu as far as lines, parking, and such. Being a retired olde farte has advantages as well for time.
-
Good question, never really thought about this.
-
The answer may be buried in the statues somewhere, but clearly asked: If my wife were to use one of the guns registered to me inside out house for defense, is that a major problem? Suppose if I am home, not an issue at all, but if I were away?
I know, the easy thing would be to get them all registered to both of us, which she is amenable to. Luckily she has her NRA cert and is not averse to being fingerprinted and all.
As long as it was determined to be justifiable self defense, who the gun is registered to doesn't matter. There is a section in the HRS that allows firearms to be loaned to others for a short period of time as long as they are not prohibited from possessing them.
-
There is a section in the HRS that allows firearms to be loaned to others for a short period of time as long as they are not prohibited from possessing them.
Without a painstaking reread with a proctologist's eyepiece on, I thought that loan period was only for long guns, pistols strictly prohibited from even momentary loan.
-
As long as it was determined to be justifiable self defense, who the gun is registered to doesn't matter.
With all the Obunga worshippng DAs in Hawaii, I do not want to be the one to test that theory out, thank you.
-
Without a painstaking reread with a proctologist's eyepiece on, I thought that loan period was only for long guns, pistols strictly prohibited from even momentary loan.
This is why I recommended a shotgun. It seems ambiguous whether or not your scenario would be a problem in a self defense situation.
I'm not a lawyer, but in my personal opinion, if the firearm is stored properly (minors don't have unsupervised access), there's no law requiring you keep it away from responsible adults. If it is used for justified self defense, you didn't loan the gun to her ... she had access and used it against an attacker. I doubt either of you would be in trouble not having her name on the registration.
Having her on a joint registration does have advantages. If she decides to go practice without you, or if she decides to take it on a trip for protection while in another state, having her name on the registration gives you those options.
-
Edit for the title to be more specific about the handgun issue.
The 870 would likely be no issue other for her to operate.
-
Also interested in the OPs question and its a good one!
I have the guns I arrived on Oahu with that are joint registered, but the ones I've bought here are not joint registered. My wife hasn't taken all the required Hawaii classes, but has in other states along with a CCW permit
I was " told" that in a home self defense situation, we would be in trouble if my wife used a weapon that was not under joint registration. I find this hard to believe since its marital/household property and she is more than qualified to handle a weapon, BUT wouldn't want to test this theory with the HI laws.
Interested in more responses from those smarter in HI law than me.
-
I have covered this in class in multiple situations. There is a hawaii case with a person using a handgun in the home for offensive purposes but it was registered to another person in that home. The individual was ultimately charged with possession of an unregistered firearm. One could argue that it was a criminal act blah blah - but the fact is they basically found that he "possessed" the gun and it didn't belong to him.
If someone in your house uses a gun that is not registered to them - they can very likely (and easily) face criminal charges. Register your guns to all parties involved. lf I had children, I would attempt to tri-register (although the police won't allow it), but you can't challenge something that you haven't tried to get done later on. The likely hood of this happening would be small, especially if a female victim successfully defended her domain against an attacker. The political and media fallout from charging that individual would be bad. They would also have a pretty damn easy choice of evils defense in the case; I couldn't see a jury convicting anyone of that (under otherwise lawful circumstances).
-
I have covered this in class in multiple situations. There is a hawaii case with a person using a handgun in the home for offensive purposes but it was registered to another person in that home. The individual was ultimately charged with possession of an unregistered firearm. One could argue that it was a criminal act blah blah - but the fact is they basically found that he "possessed" the gun and it didn't belong to him.
If someone in your house uses a gun that is not registered to them - they can very likely (and easily) face criminal charges. Register your guns to all parties involved. lf I had children, I would attempt to tri-register (although the police won't allow it), but you can't challenge something that you haven't tried to get done later on. The likely hood of this happening would be small, especially if a female victim successfully defended her domain against an attacker. The political and media fallout from charging that individual would be bad. They would also have a pretty damn easy choice of evils defense in the case; I couldn't see a jury convicting anyone of that (under otherwise lawful circumstances).
I assume that specifically applies to handguns, as long guns can be "loaned"?
-
she should get her own handgun.
problem solved. :shaka:
-
she should get her own handgun.
problem solved. :shaka:
You see the irony in this proposed work-around? The same anti-gun law that restricts use of a handgun to registered owners would result in MORE guns in homes.
I love when the results of stupid laws are 180 degrees from the intended effect!!
-
You see the irony in this proposed work-around? The same anti-gun law that restricts use of a handgun to registered owners would result in MORE guns in homes.
I love when the results of stupid laws are 180 degrees from the intended effect!!
:thumbsup:
-
I assume that specifically applies to handguns, as long guns can be "loaned"?
I get what you are saying, and I would say yes. But, it might be hard to say that if you were deployed 2-3 months ago (you can only loan for a short period of time).
-
she should get her own handgun.
problem solved. :shaka:
But then YOU need to be on it =p!!!
-
I get what you are saying, and I would say yes. But, it might be hard to say that if you were deployed 2-3 months ago (you can only loan for a short period of time).
Based on that interpretation, she's already in trouble if she has access to the long guns while the husband is deployed longer than 15 days. How many military couples would that apply to here?
I think a simple, verbal "Yes, you can borrow the shotgun for the next two weeks," during the most recent morale call prior to the shooting would be sufficient evidence it was "on loan" and not in her "possession".
Alternatively, loaning the long gun to 2 adults on a rotating schedule every two weeks would negate the argument the loan exceeded the 15 day limit.
Stupid laws give way to stupid measures...
-
It would be nice to not have to dance around stupid laws with stupid tricks you know lol?
Yeah I don't think that anyone would get in trouble for a long gun (although they could run afoul of the law); I don't think the State would prosecute someone for a handgun used in the home for defensive purposes either, but that's just me (too much drama).
But, for those asking if they are "right" or "Wrong" -- I would go all in betting that you are sitting in the "wrong" category imo!
-
What does a law matter when it comes to your life? Id rather her use the gun then dead.
-
As Chris alluded to, there is the legal concept of "lesser evils." If you read thru the HRS Ch. 702 (I think it was 702...I don't recall the exact statue, and I don't have time to look it up right now) it uses the analogy of driving a vehicle without working lights at night. Under normal circumstances that would clearly be illegal. However, if there was a fire at your remote home and the only way to notify the authorities was to drive said vehicle at night, the courts would look at that action as the lesser of two evils.
That being said, it doesn't mean that you won't be charged with the crime of driving a vehicle at night without lights, just that the courts would have the option of weighing the totality of the circumstances to reach a judgement. In the stated case it would probably be unlikely that you'd be convicted. The same argument could be made with regards to using a handgun not registered to you in an otherwise legitimate self-defense situation. You run the same relative risks that the judge (or jury) would find favorably (or unfavorably) for you if you were charged with unlawful possession. And, I agree with Chris that given an unambiguous and clear need to use lethal force in self-defense, the public and political backlash from such a charge of unlawful possession would likely preclude you being prosecuted. However, if the circumstances were somewhat unclear (Think Deedy) or the public perception was mixed (think Travon Martin), the risk of charges and prosecution could increase....