2aHawaii
General Topics => Legal and Activism => Topic started by: Falken Hawke on December 22, 2014, 01:16:55 PM
-
Went to register my personally manufactured single-shot AR lower as a pistol and was told a number of things that really indicates Firearms Division has not spoken with anyone about Firearms Laws.
First off, if anyone still doesn't believe registration is for future confiscation, I was specifically told my FIREARM, not just the lower, but FIREARM, WILL BE CONFISCATED should the laws be re-written to apply. I'll get back to this legal furball...
My registration is actually noted "Non-Transferable". As Hawaii has no laws concerning personally manufactured firearms, I can only assume they are applying laws which are not applicable or incorrectly applied. Grandfathered "Assault Pistols" are not transferable EXCEPT TO A LICENSED DEALER, under State Law. However, since I manufactured something that IS NOT an "Assault Pistol", this DOES NOT apply.
Also note that the State Law specifies 90 days for an Heir of an "Assault Pistol" to either SELL OR TRANSFER TO A LICENSED DEALER, destroy, or remove from the State said firearm. I was told it must be destroyed upon my passing. But again, I did not manufacture an "Assault Pistol".
Under Federal Law, personally manufactured firearms can not be made for the purpose of sale or distribution. The implication is that if an individual wished to manufacture firearms for resale, they must get a manufacturers license. The personally manufactured firearm can still be transferred by inheritance.
Getting back to re-writing of the definition of "Assault Pistol", keep in mind when the existing law took effect, existing registered firearms were grandfathered but the stipulation attached that they were not to be sold or transferred EXCEPT TO A LICENSED DEALER and if inherited, the Heir had 90 days to SELL OR TRANSFER TO A LICENSED DEALER, destroy, or remove from the State. Should the law actually be re-written to include "internal magazines" and/or omit the specification of "semi-auto", I would think it would break precedence moving to confiscate and destroy previously legal firearms. Also note that legally, a pistol can be made into a rifle. I would think a violation of the 2nd if this option is ignored should a previously legal firearm be confiscated.
Finally, my registration notes that the completed firearm must be submitted for inspection. I find it interesting that I have registrations for two receivers that do not have this note.
Inconsistency and the Legal world... what could possibly happen when those two mix?
-
Interesting
-
I don't fully understand what exactly you are trying to do so forgive me if my answers do not apply.
Now you said you manufactured the firearm, do you mean that you actually milled the parts or did you just assemble already made parts? As long as you aren't manufacturing for sale you are safe in the eyes of Hawaii law but I am not sure what federal laws may apply to making your own gun.
I am not sure how you would register an AR lower as a pistol though since in order to turn it into a pistol instead of a rifle you would essentially be creating an assault pistol. But if you throw on a rifle upper then it is a rifle. I don't think the law is clear when it comes to gun recievers that could be turned into a pistol or a rifle.
The assault pistol is prohibited from being brought into the state currently. Now if you create one by assembling parts or by making the parts yourself it may be that this would be considered to be bringing it into the state as you are essentially bringing it into existence.
-
I agree with the title.if that was you today I was standing next to you when signing your reg.I have a problem that HPD can't seem to answer
-
eyeeatingfish:
An individual has manufactured a firearm when they make the primary component to which all other parts are attached constituting a firearm, i.e. "Receiver". This applies whether the receiver is made from a chunk of metal or from an "80%".
Federal Law allows this provided it is not done for sale or distribution. Intent for sale or distribution requires a Manufacturer License. There is no State Law prohibiting individuals from manufacturing firearms.
In order to legally own an AR type pistol in Hawaii if not already owned and registered prior to 1992 it must not have characteristics defined by HRS 134-1. The two primary characteristics are "Semi-auto" and "accepts a detachable magazine". Note that my receiver is SINGLE SHOT, omitting both of the primary defining characteristics and therefore NOT categorized as an "Assault Pistol".
Also note that using a 16" barrel on a pistol does not make it a rifle. There is no definition in State Law for "Rifle". Federal Law defines "Rifle" as designed to be fired from the shoulder. Therefore, a pistol with a 16" barrel is a firearm. This is an important distinction with the ATF as a rifle with a barrel less than 16" is a "Short Barreled Rifle". This is another technicality that could lead to interesting cases if anyone looks hard enough.
Finally, on the Federal level, a "VIRGIN" receiver (one not previously built into a completed firearm, specifically, not a rifle) can be built into a pistol or rifle. Furthermore, a pistol can be built into a rifle (read, Carbine Kit).
JHanawahine:
I remember a number of people that was there. I was mostly being nosey trying to see what people were getting for Christmas :) Sorry to hear they couldn't answer your questions. I'm sure there's people who can at least inform you of the applicable laws if not a direct answer if you ask.
-
They have real legal counsel. That's what corporate counsel is for; they can also request interpretations from the State AG who will provide them.
What would be good is just go try to transfer it to someone else and see what they say / do.
-
eyeeatingfish:
An individual has manufactured a firearm when they make the primary component to which all other parts are attached constituting a firearm, i.e. "Receiver". This applies whether the receiver is made from a chunk of metal or from an "80%".
Federal Law allows this provided it is not done for sale or distribution. Intent for sale or distribution requires a Manufacturer License. There is no State Law prohibiting individuals from manufacturing firearms.
In order to legally own an AR type pistol in Hawaii if not already owned and registered prior to 1992 it must not have characteristics defined by HRS 134-1. The two primary characteristics are "Semi-auto" and "accepts a detachable magazine". Note that my receiver is SINGLE SHOT, omitting both of the primary defining characteristics and therefore NOT categorized as an "Assault Pistol".
Also note that using a 16" barrel on a pistol does not make it a rifle. There is no definition in State Law for "Rifle". Federal Law defines "Rifle" as designed to be fired from the shoulder. Therefore, a pistol with a 16" barrel is a firearm. This is an important distinction with the ATF as a rifle with a barrel less than 16" is a "Short Barreled Rifle". This is another technicality that could lead to interesting cases if anyone looks hard enough.
Finally, on the Federal level, a "VIRGIN" receiver (one not previously built into a completed firearm, specifically, not a rifle) can be built into a pistol or rifle. Furthermore, a pistol can be built into a rifle (read, Carbine Kit).
JHanawahine:
I remember a number of people that was there. I was mostly being nosey trying to see what people were getting for Christmas :) Sorry to hear they couldn't answer your questions. I'm sure there's people who can at least inform you of the applicable laws if not a direct answer if you ask.
My apologies, I missed the part where you mentioned that the Ar lower was single shot. I had never heard of a single shot AR before.
So you have to cycle the charging handle each time?
-
Fuck!
HPD making up their own laws as always.
They need to be sued again.
-
Funtimes:
I forgot about Corporate Counsel. Seems they're not being used enough or they aren't aware of any problems. I could see the latter given how often this would come up.
eyeeatingfish:
No apologies necessary. I can remove the gas system on the upper to require cycling the bolt or leave it and the spent cartridge would eject. There is no magazine (something Firearms couldn't seem to grasp...) so the bolt would lock back after ejecting the case. Since there is no cartridge loaded automatically after ejecting the empty case, this doesn't fall under the definition of "semi-auto".
Anyway, I did a bit more reading and found in the Federal Definitions that "Transfer" includes "dispose of". So does this mean I now have a non-disposable receiver? LOL :D
-
I like your concept. Please share pics when done.
-
without the gas, the bolt will remain locked.
one must physically extract the carrier to unlock the bolt. the bolt will not be held back without the magazine follower.
-
without the gas, the bolt will remain locked.
one must physically extract the carrier to unlock the bolt. the bolt will not be held back without the magazine follower.
The mag follower just pushes up on the bolt lock upon the last round being chambered. One could rig a permanent spring or some device to push up on the bolt catch, thereby locking the bolt open after firing a round.
-
eyeeatingfish:
No apologies necessary. I can remove the gas system on the upper to require cycling the bolt or leave it and the spent cartridge would eject. There is no magazine (something Firearms couldn't seem to grasp...) so the bolt would lock back after ejecting the case. Since there is no cartridge loaded automatically after ejecting the empty case, this doesn't fall under the definition of "semi-auto".
Anyway, I did a bit more reading and found in the Federal Definitions that "Transfer" includes "dispose of". So does this mean I now have a non-disposable receiver? LOL :D
If I had to guess their line of reasoning I would say the issue might be about the firearm being readily able to convert to an assault pistol. If the only thing you have to do is replace a part that was normally in the gun then did you really change anything? Is something permanently blocking the magwell? Essentially it seems you are taking a semi auto weapon and removing a part so that it doesn't function properly thereby making it not semi auto. Imagine if I had a full auto AR and glued a small dowel that blocked the selector switch from going to the full auto position. This essentially renders the gun semi auto only but is it really a semi auto only gun? All I would have to does whack the dowel piece off to return it to full auto capability. Does this make any sense?
-
While one could argue that the difference between semi-auto and auto in an AR type firearm is a small change in parts, the bottom line is it's illegal. To assume anyone would do something illegal because it's possible is Unconstitutional.
With that in mind, also consider that a lower receiver of an AR type firearm that has no provision for a magazine can't be easily modified to be either semi-auto or magazine fed, internally or externally, without extensive machining. It is actually easier to make a select-fire AR than it is to take my single-shot and make it semi-auto and/or magazine fed. Heck, you can fire any semi-auto AR type at auto fire rates with a "Slide-Fire" stock or better still, just by bump-firing.
Also, how is this different from SBR's, SBS's, or AOW's? Any one of these types of firearms can be made with simple tools or simple parts swaps. If fact, you can make an AOW by simply attaching a Vertical Fore Grip to a Glock. Just because I have a registered Glock doesn't mean I'm going to make an AOW so why would owning a registered AR type pistol mean I'm going to make an "Assault Pistol"? I'm sure there are many owners of shotguns that also own hacksaws. The really handy people even have files. That's all you need for a SBS, way easier to do than make my single-shot into an "Assault Pistol" and the specified AOW is by far the simplest firearm to make.
The problem in my opinion is there is too much of the mentality that if something illegal is possible, something must be done to deter it. I go back to my first statement, to assume anyone would do something illegal because it's possible is Unconstitutional. This is directly in line with gun laws affecting the law-abiding, not the criminal.
-
I think its posted in the other AR pistol thread but someone posted what the ATF definition of readily available or readily restored or something along those lines. ATF defines it by a time limit. 30 minutes I believe.
Look it up yourself for the specifics.
It was the thread where a AR pistol could not be registered because the magazine was secured by epoxy and hpd did not feel like that was good enough.
Also on a side note, I believe that was the thread where an officer in the firearms division made a comment/remark about "all these AR pistols being made/ registered and they might have to do something about it."
That might be your biggest problem hawk, you messing with their emotions.
-
"all these AR pistols being made/ registered and they might have to do something about it."
This statement that they allegedly made make no sense to me whatsoever... I mean, all the stuff that needs to be done to have a "legal" AR pistol, in Hawaii, makes the weapon utterly cumbersome and inconvenient to use. While it may be something cool to play with, I'd say, it is probably less dangerous than any other firearm available. The silliness continues.
-
If I had to guess their line of reasoning I would say the issue might be about the firearm being readily able to convert to an assault pistol. If the only thing you have to do is replace a part that was normally in the gun then did you really change anything? Is something permanently blocking the magwell? Essentially it seems you are taking a semi auto weapon and removing a part so that it doesn't function properly thereby making it not semi auto. Imagine if I had a full auto AR and glued a small dowel that blocked the selector switch from going to the full auto position. This essentially renders the gun semi auto only but is it really a semi auto only gun? All I would have to does whack the dowel piece off to return it to full auto capability. Does this make any sense?
Troll alert
-
I think its posted in the other AR pistol thread but someone posted what the ATF definition of readily available or readily restored or something along those lines. ATF defines it by a time limit. 30 minutes I believe.
Look it up yourself for the specifics.
It was the thread where a AR pistol could not be registered because the magazine was secured by epoxy and hpd did not feel like that was good enough.
Also on a side note, I believe that was the thread where an officer in the firearms division made a comment/remark about "all these AR pistols being made/ registered and they might have to do something about it."
That might be your biggest problem hawk, you messing with their emotions.
I have seen the other threads and it has been pointed out there as well that HPD does not seem to be using Counsel. I also saw the statement about HPD taking matters into their own hands regarding AR pistols being made. Police taking things into their own hands is exactly the kind of thing that could ultimately lead to public defiance against Law Enforcement and even the Government. It would not be wise for anyone in Law Enforcement to do something that could end that way.
Of course, there is the possibility that the statement was made in reference to actually using Corporate Counsel and/or the Attorney General's office. However, since there is still evidence to the contrary, I don't think this has happened.
Either way, it doesn't seem that this statement was made with a lot of intent behind it or that the intent is to suggest a draft for a Proposed Rule Change. The latter may be plausible based on my conversation regarding the possibility of confiscation should the Law be re-written to include internal magazines and/or omit the specification of semi-auto. Thinking about it, I guess that would qualify as dialogue between Firearms and Corp. Counsel or the AG wouldn't it? Heh, I take it back, I can deal with the way things are now... :D
Oh yeah, I also forgot to mention in my previous post that with or without a gas system, my pistol will always be a single-shot. The only difference is whether or not you pull the bolt back after a round is fired.
-
While one could argue that the difference between semi-auto and auto in an AR type firearm is a small change in parts, the bottom line is it's illegal. To assume anyone would do something illegal because it's possible is Unconstitutional.
With that in mind, also consider that a lower receiver of an AR type firearm that has no provision for a magazine can't be easily modified to be either semi-auto or magazine fed, internally or externally, without extensive machining. It is actually easier to make a select-fire AR than it is to take my single-shot and make it semi-auto and/or magazine fed. Heck, you can fire any semi-auto AR type at auto fire rates with a "Slide-Fire" stock or better still, just by bump-firing.
Also, how is this different from SBR's, SBS's, or AOW's? Any one of these types of firearms can be made with simple tools or simple parts swaps. If fact, you can make an AOW by simply attaching a Vertical Fore Grip to a Glock. Just because I have a registered Glock doesn't mean I'm going to make an AOW so why would owning a registered AR type pistol mean I'm going to make an "Assault Pistol"? I'm sure there are many owners of shotguns that also own hacksaws. The really handy people even have files. That's all you need for a SBS, way easier to do than make my single-shot into an "Assault Pistol" and the specified AOW is by far the simplest firearm to make.
The problem in my opinion is there is too much of the mentality that if something illegal is possible, something must be done to deter it. I go back to my first statement, to assume anyone would do something illegal because it's possible is Unconstitutional. This is directly in line with gun laws affecting the law-abiding, not the criminal.
I am jsut speculating on one line of reasoning. Chances are the HPD guys at firearms come across something every now and again which seems unique and they don't know how to take it. They could call corporation counsel but that might be of limited help trying to describe a particular gun modification over the phone to a lawyer who might have no gun knowledge. What is the alternative, they tell you to come back again in a week or worse yet they take your gun and wait for corporation counsel to make a decision? I agree that it can get kind of fuzzy on when and what parts added or subtracted make a gun legal or illegal. For example if you have a full auto AR but the bolt is removed, are you in violation of the law saying no full auto? With the bolt removed your gun is effectively unable to fire so do you possess a full auto AR or not?
Consider also that when you are registering the lower only they have no idea what upper you will attach it to so they don't know that your gun won't have the blowback system. And the lower could easily be put on a regular semi auto upper very readily although if you did then I guess it would just become a rifle then... I think perhaps that they might look at the gun how it was manufactured to fire and in that sense your AR was manufactured to be a semi auto even though you modified it. Similarly I would guess that a full auto AR15 without a bolt would still be considered legally a full auto AR15. This is just speculation though. EDIT: if we look for a parallel in the HRS we see that when it comes to firearms that are rendered inoperable, such as with a barell being permanently plugged, the HRS says that the firearm cannot be readily returned to firing capability. That might be a line of reasoning as well, still just speculation though. Maybe someone just has to go up to the window one day and really ask technical questions, for a better explanation.
I am still trying to understand exactly how your gun works though. So it has no gas blowback, is this something easily/quickly reinstalled?
As for the magwell, are you somehow permanently blocking it? I am guessing you aren't just leaving it open and claiming you won't put a mag in it.
-
at this point of the process we have to think back at the root of all these firearm laws - would a criminal go through all these steps? Nope. We legislated ourselves into a corner. Would a criminal use an AR pistol with all these modifications and hassles to load? Nope. Would they go back and forth with a law enforcement org. to ensure compliance with the law? Nope.
-
at this point of the process we have to think back at the root of all these firearm laws - would a criminal go through all these steps? Nope. We legislated ourselves into a corner. Would a criminal use an AR pistol with all these modifications and hassles to load? Nope. Would they go back and forth with a law enforcement org. to ensure compliance with the law? Nope.
Excellent point, perhaps the only point IMHO.
The government has given up worrying about criminals and focused their efforts on legal gun owners.
-
In the case of "if you have a full auto AR but the bolt is removed, are you in violation of the law saying no full auto? With the bolt removed your gun is effectively unable to fire so do you possess a full auto AR or not?", the ATF already addresses this:
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/national-firearms-act-firearms.html#conversion-parts-registration (https://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/national-firearms-act-firearms.html#conversion-parts-registration)
Q: Are parts which would convert a firearm into an NFA firearm subject to registration?
Yes. Examples:
An M-2 conversion kit (See also What is a “conversion kit?”);
Any part designed and intended solely and exclusively to convert a weapon into a machine gun. See “The types of firearms that must be registered in the National Firearm Registration and Transfer Record are defined in the NFA and 27 CFR, Part 479. What are some examples?” for examples.
Hawaii's law also covers this question based on the same concept but adds that the combination of parts to assemble a machine gun "must be in possession or under control of a single person":
HRS
§134-1 Definitions: ...
"Automatic firearm" means any firearm that shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily modified to shoot automatically more than one shot,
without a manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. This term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such firearm, any part
designed and intended solely and exclusively, or any combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a firearm into an automatic
firearm, and any combination of parts from which an automatic firearm can be assembled if the parts are in the possession or under the control of
a single person.
§134-8 Ownership, etc., of automatic firearms, silencers, etc., prohibited; penalties.
(a) The manufacture, possession, sale, barter, trade, gift, transfer, or acquisition of any of the following is prohibited: assault pistols, except as
provided by section 134-4(e); automatic firearms; rifles with barrel lengths less than sixteen inches; shotguns with barrel lengths less than eighteen
inches; cannons; mufflers, silencers, or devices for deadening or muffling the sound of discharged firearms; hand grenades, dynamite, blasting
caps, bombs, or bombshells, or other explosives; or any type of ammunition or any projectile component thereof coated with teflon or any other
similar coating designed primarily to enhance its capability to penetrate metal or pierce protective armor; and any type of ammunition or any projectile
component thereof designed or intended to explode or
segment upon impact with its target.
(b) Any person who installs, removes, or alters a firearm part with the intent to convert the firearm to an automatic firearm shall be
deemed to have manufactured an automatic firearm in violation of subsection (a).
-
In the case of "if you have a full auto AR but the bolt is removed, are you in violation of the law saying no full auto? With the bolt removed your gun is effectively unable to fire so do you possess a full auto AR or not?", the ATF already addresses this:
Yes you are in violation.
A full auto machine gun is a NFA registered item.
Removing all the parts does not change the machine gun to a non machine gun, legally.
-
Yes you are in violation.
A full auto machine gun is a NFA registered item.
Removing all the parts does not change the machine gun to a non machine gun, legally.
Precisely, and thank you Maui dog for the legal language. This is specifically spelled out for full auto but not for semi auto. However most crimes involving a firearm would probably still treat a firearm with missing parts as a firearm. I think that if the officer at the HPD window used this line of reasoning this is how he might have come to the reasoning that an AR15 with a part or two removed was still a semi auto firearm. Again, just speculating, it's possible he said to himself "I have no idea what this gun is so I am going to say no" though I hope that isn't the case.
-
An AR without a gas system is not classified as a Semi Auto under federal laws. HRS has no provision on how a firearm is manufactured.
Since HRS has a definition of a semi auto, the bolt action AR does not meet that criteria and under the present law as written.
HPD cant assume that it is illegal without due process, if they confiscate a firearm without an arrest, one must report that firearms as STOLEN immediately.
The build of a bolt action AR will require the barrel to be cut down and thus will not have a hole in the barrel to allow the gas block. obviously without that hole in the barrel it is impossible to "just install" a gas tube. The use of a tool to drill a hole is not " readily" convertible to fire semi auto. An example would be the same as drilling a few holes in a semi auto to convert it to allow the FA sear to be installed. Give me a drill press and 30min and i can do a hack job to convert any semi auto AR to FULL AUTO. ( I have personally done a AR conversion to FA under a SOT2 )
-
In the case of "if you have a full auto AR but the bolt is removed, are you in violation of the law saying no full auto? With the bolt removed your gun is effectively unable to fire so do you possess a full auto AR or not?", the ATF already addresses this:
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/national-firearms-act-firearms.html#conversion-parts-registration (https://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/national-firearms-act-firearms.html#conversion-parts-registration)
Quote
Q: Are parts which would convert a firearm into an NFA firearm subject to registration?
Yes. Examples:
An M-2 conversion kit (See also What is a “conversion kit?”);
Any part designed and intended solely and exclusively to convert a weapon into a machine gun. See “The types of firearms that must be registered in the National Firearm Registration and Transfer Record are defined in the NFA and 27 CFR, Part 479. What are some examples?” for examples.
If you need a concrete example: David Koresh was suspected of having such parts. Our public servants went to Waco to make sure we knew what was in store for us if they ever suspected us of violating any of their (intra-agency-made-up and changed-per-their-whim) rules.
-
An AR without a gas system is not classified as a Semi Auto under federal laws. HRS has no provision on how a firearm is manufactured.
Since HRS has a definition of a semi auto, the bolt action AR does not meet that criteria and under the present law as written.
HPD cant assume that it is illegal without due process, if they confiscate a firearm without an arrest, one must report that firearms as STOLEN immediately.
The build of a bolt action AR will require the barrel to be cut down and thus will not have a hole in the barrel to allow the gas block. obviously without that hole in the barrel it is impossible to "just install" a gas tube. The use of a tool to drill a hole is not " readily" convertible to fire semi auto. An example would be the same as drilling a few holes in a semi auto to convert it to allow the FA sear to be installed. Give me a drill press and 30min and i can do a hack job to convert any semi auto AR to FULL AUTO. ( I have personally done a AR conversion to FA under a SOT2 )
Ok, with that description I think I have a better picture of the gun in question and I would have to agree that it shouldn't be an issue.