2aHawaii
General Topics => Legal and Activism => Topic started by: 2aHawaii on September 06, 2011, 03:46:39 AM
-
This was just brought to my attention and I'm surprised I hadn't seen it before. The following is the definition for an "assault pistol":
"Assault pistol" means a semiautomatic pistol which accepts a detachable magazine and which has two or more of the following characteristics:
(1) An ammunition magazine which attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;
(2) A threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward hand grip, or silencer;
(3) A shroud which is attached to or partially or completely encircles the barrel and which permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the second hand without being burned;
(4) A manufactured weight of fifty ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded;
(5) A centerfire pistol with an overall length of twelve inches or more; or
(6) It is a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; but does not include a firearm with a barrel sixteen or more inches in length, an antique pistol as defined in this section or a curio or relic as those terms are used in 18 United States Code §921(16) or 27 Code of Federal Regulations 178.11.
I have always overlooked the detachable magazine part and looked directly for two offending features. However, the detachable magazine part could be a very important part. California gets around any detachable magazine issues by having a bullet button (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=46802) installed.
Now my question to you is do you know anyone that has tried interpreting the law this way?
Actually that brings me to another question. Does anyone know the process for trying to get an opinion on whether something is legal or not?
-
I know of one person in Hawaii who has a registered single shot AR pistol lower, dunno how the rest of the build has turned out though.
-
CA has the benefit of case law and an AG who gave way to the bullet button. The feds recently pulled some crap with the gun runner stuff and put out something on bullet buttons and reporting. Basically said they are detachable I think.
I'm down to try and register an MP5 lol.
-
CA has the benefit of case law and an AG who gave way to the bullet button. The feds recently pulled some crap with the gun runner stuff and put out something on bullet buttons and reporting. Basically said they are detachable I think.
I'm down to try and register an MP5 lol.
The bullet button on a AR pistol is one step away from one on your full size AR. Do not give them ideas.
-
I don't really care about bullet buttons one way or the other. They're easily removable, and I gar-un-damn-tee you that if they become a Hawaiian requirement, my rifle (when I get one) will only wear it to the range and back.
-
This was just brought to my attention and I'm surprised I hadn't seen it before. The following is the definition for an "assault pistol":
"Assault pistol" means a semiautomatic pistol which accepts a detachable magazine and which has two or more of the following characteristics:
(1) An ammunition magazine which attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;
(2) A threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward hand grip, or silencer;
(3) A shroud which is attached to or partially or completely encircles the barrel and which permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the second hand without being burned;
(4) A manufactured weight of fifty ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded;
(5) A centerfire pistol with an overall length of twelve inches or more; or
(6) It is a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; but does not include a firearm with a barrel sixteen or more inches in length, an antique pistol as defined in this section or a curio or relic as those terms are used in 18 United States Code §921(16) or 27 Code of Federal Regulations 178.11.
I have always overlooked the detachable magazine part and looked directly for two offending features. However, the detachable magazine part could be a very important part. California gets around any detachable magazine issues by having a bullet button (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=46802) installed.
Now my question to you is do you know anyone that has tried interpreting the law this way?
Actually that brings me to another question. Does anyone know the process for trying to get an opinion on whether something is legal or not?
Checking legality would be calling HPD about the model and getting their input. Quite possibly they would have no idea in which case talk to Martha(?) at Young Guns because I've been there before when HPD has called her to ask if something was legal/illegal.
-
Checking legality would be calling HPD about the model and getting their input. Quite possibly they would have no idea in which case talk to Martha(?) at Young Guns because I've been there before when HPD has called her to ask if something was legal/illegal.
And this is exactly what is wrong with HPD (management and policies). Honestly, who is Martha? She is not someone who should be making laws or determining the legality of a firearm. When HPD has a question, that is what the Attorney general is for.
-
And this is exactly what is wrong with HPD. Honestly, who is Martha? She is not someone who should be making laws or determining the legality of a firearm. When HPD has a question, that is what the Attorney general is for.
+1 :o ??? :o
-
Checking legality would be calling HPD about the model and getting their input. Quite possibly they would have no idea in which case talk to Martha(?) at Young Guns because I've been there before when HPD has called her to ask if something was legal/illegal.
And this is exactly what is wrong with HPD (management and policies). Honestly, who is Martha? She is not someone who should be making laws or determining the legality of a firearm. When HPD has a question, that is what the Attorney general is for.
The older gal at Young Guns (name is probably wrong then). HPD asked her because she knows the laws and knows the pistol models. A lot of the desk guys at HPD are not gun guys and have no idea what model is being talked about. Rather than hop on a computer and check out what people are talking about, they probably find it easier to just call her as she knows what's being referred to.
-
Checking legality would be calling HPD about the model and getting their input. Quite possibly they would have no idea in which case talk to Martha(?) at Young Guns because I've been there before when HPD has called her to ask if something was legal/illegal.
And this is exactly what is wrong with HPD (management and policies). Honestly, who is Martha? She is not someone who should be making laws or determining the legality of a firearm. When HPD has a question, that is what the Attorney general is for.
The older gal at Young Guns (name is probably wrong then). HPD asked her because she knows the laws and knows the pistol models. A lot of the desk guys at HPD are not gun guys and have no idea what model is being talked about. Rather than hop on a computer and check out what people are talking about, they probably find it easier to just call her as she knows what's being referred to.
and this is still so wrong.
-
"The prosecution rests."
Defense present your case,
"Martha said it was legal."
-
"The prosecution rests."
Defense present your case,
"Martha said it was legal."
This.
You read my mind. Learn your job.
There is no excuse for LEO not to know the laws...especially since their job is to enforce them.
For LEO working at a FIREARMS REGISTRATION UNIT, this is especially bothersome.
"Martha" does not get to interpret laws.
-
Didn't someone get their Ruger 10/22 Charger confiscated; and YG sold it? Or was it someplace else. I forget...
Any way, I guess Martha said that one is no good. ::)
-
"The prosecution rests."
Defense present your case,
"Martha said it was legal."
This.
You read my mind. Learn your job.
There is no excuse for LEO not to know the laws...especially since their job is to enforce them.
For LEO working at a FIREARMS REGISTRATION UNIT, this is especially bothersome.
"Martha" does not get to interpret laws.
The guys at the desk are certainly going to make mistakes. I had to explain to them that my H&K SR9 was not a 76.2 mm firearm.................not that I wouldn't mind having a 3" cannon..........
-
Yeah the point is there is a person who gets paid to tell people what the law is -- that is the Attorney General. When an agency, or government official has a question, it is his duty to answer their question. That answer is legally binding.
-
This law bothers me almost as much as the "may issue" law.
"(6) It is a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm"
Really? Does this somehow make it more dangerous than any other semiautomatic firearm? Wait, nevermind- numbers 1-6 are all equally retarded.
-
I think the #6 requirement is more or less another clarification towards no SBR's.
The officials at the police department here on Maui are pretty on the spot with what's legal and what isn't. If something comes to the department they tend to know right away if it's legal and if they don't know what it is, they will Google any information on it to see if it meets any of the 6 requirements.
Personally I still want to bring in a lot of the firearms on that list; like HK SP89 or a Draco. I don't think I'd go for the idea of a bullet button, the more "visible" restrictions that get put on, means we'd just be labeled as another California and we'd see more and more sellers doing the "NO SALES TO CA OR HI"; as an avid gunbroker buyer, you see that on almost every seller. As mentioned before in an older thread, I would much rather prefer paying an extra registration fee to bring in said assault pistols.
-
This law bothers me almost as much as the "may issue" law.
"(6) It is a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm"
Really? Does this somehow make it more dangerous than any other semiautomatic firearm? Wait, nevermind- numbers 1-6 are all equally retarded.
That is messed up..... "(23) It is a small version of a TANK." :rofl:
"(83) It is a semiautomatic version of a Gatling Gun,,and it also is called a gun..." :crazy:
"(95) Only we can protect our family...no no not you...only us" :-\
ps: Those are not actual rulez and regulations ;D
-
i guess it would fall into this thread but what if i own a AR-15 pistol but only register the lower and keep the upper separate but still in my home?
-
i guess it would fall into this thread but what if i own a AR-15 pistol but only register the lower and keep the upper separate but still in my home?
Hmmm, that's a good question. Does the state ever charge for constructive intent or is that only a federal thing?
-
as far as i can discern, and i am by no means a lawyer, i'm not allowed to own a rifle with a barrel under 16" but an AR upper by it self isn't considered a firearm so really what's to stop me from buying out of state and bringing it back to HI while only registering the lower?
-
as far as i can discern, and i am by no means a lawyer, i'm not allowed to own a rifle with a barrel under 16" but an AR upper by it self isn't considered a firearm so really what's to stop me from buying out of state and bringing it back to HI while only registering the lower?
Nothing. Nothing is stopping you from buying it (upper) off the net out here. The second you put it on a lower you are in violation.
The question I have is why bother while here? You can't shoot it or possesses them as a complete firearm in this state.
-
well i guess being allowed to have part of it is the first step to being allowed to have all of it.
-
well i guess being allowed to have part of it is the first step to being allowed to have all of it.
Or the first step in not allowing short uppers here.
-
as far as i can discern, and i am by no means a lawyer, i'm not allowed to own a rifle with a barrel under 16" but an AR upper by it self isn't considered a firearm so really what's to stop me from buying out of state and bringing it back to HI while only registering the lower?
well i guess being allowed to have part of it is the first step to being allowed to have all of it.
Uhmmm NO. You can have the short barrel and you can have it installed on an upper. BUT it all stops being parts IF you possess a lower that will accept it. Forget about HRS...just set it aside as "in addition to" crap, because you'll have bigger issues to deal with. Having all the parts to complete is a violation of NFA rules and punishable with a fine up to a $250,000 and 10 years in a Federal Penitentiary. *Unless you've got the forms on file and paid for a stamp. Which you can not get living in Hawaii. Based on that, there's nothing to interpret and nothing to ask 'Martha' about...it's Federal Law.
You don't have to (and shouldn’t) take my word on this. There's case law regarding this matter and many have been successfully prosecuted for parts.
-
Constructive possession can screw ya!
-
Constructive possession can screw ya!
It sure can.
-
i guess it would fall into this thread but what if i own a AR-15 pistol but only register the lower and keep the upper separate but still in my home?
Hmmm, that's a good question. Does the state ever charge for constructive intent or is that only a federal thing?
The thing about constructive possession is that you need to give them a reason to enter your home to make the case against you. Similar example is the 30 round AR mag issue, reading the law verbatim you could be prosecuted for using them since there are AR pistols in the world. However, it is highly unlikely you will catch a charge for an AR magazine unless youve already committed a crime with the firearm it was inserted into, especially if the firearm was a illegally possessed "assault pistol."
-
i guess it would fall into this thread but what if i own a AR-15 pistol but only register the lower and keep the upper separate but still in my home?
Hmmm, that's a good question. Does the state ever charge for constructive intent or is that only a federal thing?
The thing about constructive possession is that you need to give them a reason to enter your home to make the case against you. Similar example is the 30 round AR mag issue, reading the law verbatim you could be prosecuted for using them since there are AR pistols in the world. However, it is highly unlikely you will catch a charge for an AR magazine unless youve already committed a crime with the firearm it was inserted into, especially if the firearm was a illegally possessed "assault pistol."
You could say the same thing about a stash of meth; I still wouldn't recommend having it.
-
Thinking about it further, we wouldn't get much out of removing the assault pistol ban without getting the magazine capacity law out of the way too, and that one seems set in stone.
-
Hello Hawaii.
Interesting thread you have here. We might have something that could fly in HI. We have been building AR pistols for a while now, but recently we received ATF approval for an AR pistol with a forward vertical grip, WITHOUT the need for NFA paperwork. The XO-26 is NOT an AOW. Interestingly enough, the feds stated that it was not a pistol, not a rifle, not an AOW, but rather just a "firearm." That being said, I believe your state law would define it as a pistol since the barrel length is 11.5" long.
That brings up concerns about the Hi Assault Pistol ban. We have a couple of physical characteristics that have allowed us to build these for Ca sales. The first characteristic is a bullet button. I realize that Hi has not ruled one way or another on this characteristic. I think it may be worth while to submit a sample to your state DOJ to render an opinion (if they do that sort of thing.)
Secondly, our Ca models must ship with a "sled" installed. This device is a delrin plug inserted in the magazine well (and locked in place by the bullet button.) With this sled installed, the pistol is effectively a single shot pistol. It is a long story to explain it, but this is done for transfer purposes in Ca and can be removed by the consumer legally. Since the firearm is marketed as a "Self Extracting Single Shot Pistol," we think that it might have viability in HI. The model on the lower even reads "SE-SSP," !!!
Any thoughts?
Also, what state 2a attorney do you recommend? I have a feeling I might need one. :D
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
We have some stuff in works on this already. The problem is CA has developed a definition for a fixed magazine. We, as of right now (subject to change in the relatively near future) do not have this yet. I can say that it is be worked on through some avenues. As far as 2A attorneys, we don't really have that many here. Kevin O'grady is the only state NRA attorney.
I would be willing to try and register one though if some sort of arrangement could be worked out as a test case.
-
Thanks for the referral. I will contact him.
Test cases are great so long as it doesn't involve actual physical possession in Hi prior to a determination by a court or government body. The last thing we want to see is anyone saddled with civil or criminal penalties for simply possessing one of our products. Do you have a legal mechanism to achieve standing to petition your courts or governing body without actually importing it?
Obviously it's much easier to first try to contact the appropriate regulatory powers to seek an interpretation. ...anyone got Martha's phone number. :crazy:
Starting next month, our rep will be visiting Hi shops with our rifles. Hopefully the pistols will follow after we figure out the details.
-
BTT any new information? I would think that with a bullet button everything would be good to go. If I need a tool to disassemble my magazine from my pistol then how is it considered detachable? I define it as a fixed mag until I unfix it with a tool. Lol :D
-
Unfortunately no new information. We basically need someone within the state that would be willing to see if it could be registered with a single shot sled and a bullet button.
-
Unfortunately no new information. We basically need someone within the state that would be willing to see if it could be registered with a single shot sled and a bullet button.
Sent you a PM.
-
can I get a PM with some info? i want to call HPD and talk about the description and utilize the correct and legal term for a 'bullet button' as a 'Mag Lock' but will wait for advice.
-
ok I jumped the gun and called anyway.
Definition
Reference §HRS 134-1
"Assault pistol" means a semiautomatic pistol which accepts a detachable magazine and which has two or more of the following characteristics:
(1) An ammunition magazine which attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;
(2) A threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward hand grip, or silencer;
(3) A shroud which is attached to or partially or completely encircles the barrel and which permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the second hand without being burned;
(4) A manufactured weight of fifty ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded;
(5) A centerfire pistol with an overall length of twelve inches or more; or
(6) It is a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm;
but does not include a firearm with a barrel sixteen or more inches in length, an antique pistol as defined in this section or a curio or relic as those terms are used in 18 United States Code §921(16) or 27 Code of Federal Regulations 178.11.
I was told that the magazine had to be permanant by the female who took my call and I do not see that in the description of an Assault Pistol. Do they get to make up the law as they go in Hawaii? I told her that I needed a 'tool' to detach the magazine and she said then it is detachable. So, I asked her what it takes to make weapons full auto and she said it may need some special parts and 'tools'. I don't know what to think anymore...
-
since we are on the topic:
Is a 30 round magazine for HK94 carbine legal to have in Hawaii???
-
First a question then I will give my best answer on the point of the button in question.
So if this product did allow people to bypass the magazine detachable from outside the pistol grip what firearms would be allowed now that are not currently allowed? THe ruger 10/22 charger pistol is the only one that comes to mind but I have to admit I am no firearms expert. What other firearms would be allowed?
Here is my answer from someone in the LEO field.
I do not think this button would allow one to bypass the 1st section considering magazines outside of the pistol grip. After all the first rule does not say anything about detachable. Now if we look at the initial definition that says the rules apply to a semi auto with a detachable magazine we can see that if we make the magazine non detachable then we never run into the problem of it being a possible assault pistol.
So the question comes down to whether the button makes the magazine non detachable. I would say that the magazine would still be considered detachable since it is relatively easy to remove the magazine. Now the law is not explicit so this is kind of a gray area. So I think we would need to look at the intent of the legislature when the law was passed. I don't know the actual discussion on the issue so I will do my best to speculate. They probably wanted to restrict firearms that had some significant capability of shooting people rapidly, essential a pistol meant to assault someone, civilian or police. So if a product like this made you need a "tool" to remove the magazine but it could still be done rapidly then I do not think they would consider it to be allowed. However if the product made the magazine take some time and effort to remove the magazine to the point that the pistol would not be such a danger if used to shoot large numbers of people then perhaps they would consider it to be allowed.
If we look at blackpowder pistols we can see they do not need to be registered. They can still be deadly but the amount of time needed to reload and shoot again in a tactical situation make them obviously a poor choice in a gunfight.
So ultimately I would think that if the product requires a "tool" to detach the magazine but the magazine could still be detached rapidly and replaced rapidly that the firearm would not be exempt from the assault pistol rules.
Feel free to disagree or ask for clarification etc.
-
so if a bullet button is good to go and will allow a ar-pistol then you could just permanently add a beta mag to it....would just be a pain to load.
-
this talk of purposefully gimping our firearms just for some range toys is madness. What happens when they decide that all out firearms should have bullet buttons?
-
I see what you guys mean...but a qtip properly placed in the trigger group can make weapon run full auto (tried and tested in Iraq). Thing is, we know full auto is not allowed so we don't do it. I agree that it is capable of being reloaded in a firefight but not as simple as dropping the mag with a push of a button.
I no longer want to cause an issue with this on your boards so I'll suppress my case when it comes to my pistol. I'll give up my arms to preserve yours.
-
Hooah!
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
First a question then I will give my best answer on the point of the button in question.
So if this product did allow people to bypass the magazine detachable from outside the pistol grip what firearms would be allowed now that are not currently allowed? THe ruger 10/22 charger pistol is the only one that comes to mind but I have to admit I am no firearms expert. What other firearms would be allowed?
Here is my answer from someone in the LEO field.
I do not think this button would allow one to bypass the 1st section considering magazines outside of the pistol grip. After all the first rule does not say anything about detachable. Now if we look at the initial definition that says the rules apply to a semi auto with a detachable magazine we can see that if we make the magazine non detachable then we never run into the problem of it being a possible assault pistol.
So the question comes down to whether the button makes the magazine non detachable. I would say that the magazine would still be considered detachable since it is relatively easy to remove the magazine. Now the law is not explicit so this is kind of a gray area. So I think we would need to look at the intent of the legislature when the law was passed. I don't know the actual discussion on the issue so I will do my best to speculate. They probably wanted to restrict firearms that had some significant capability of shooting people rapidly, essential a pistol meant to assault someone, civilian or police. So if a product like this made you need a "tool" to remove the magazine but it could still be done rapidly then I do not think they would consider it to be allowed. However if the product made the magazine take some time and effort to remove the magazine to the point that the pistol would not be such a danger if used to shoot large numbers of people then perhaps they would consider it to be allowed.
If we look at blackpowder pistols we can see they do not need to be registered. They can still be deadly but the amount of time needed to reload and shoot again in a tactical situation make them obviously a poor choice in a gunfight.
So ultimately I would think that if the product requires a "tool" to detach the magazine but the magazine could still be detached rapidly and replaced rapidly that the firearm would not be exempt from the assault pistol rules.
Feel free to disagree or ask for clarification etc.
The reality is that the magazine is NOT detachable with a bullet button device installed. The magazine is effectively only "Attachable." The same magazine used on a differently equipped firearm is both attachable and detachable. However, if the legislature had written the phrase "Attachable" instead of "Detachable" into the law, then I think there would be absolute ban on the product. Given that they did not, I would suggest that it should be legal. Admittedly, I am not an attorney, and I am not intimately familiar with the laws of your state. (...California's laws are tough enough to keep track of...)
BTW, there are many EBPs out there: Dracos, PTR 91s, and of course AR pistols and XO-26s.
-
this talk of purposefully gimping our firearms just for some range toys is madness. What happens when they decide that all out firearms should have bullet buttons?
Well it is possible, but who knows if it is feasible. This is something we are trying to avoid. This issue is being looked at and ideas have been tossed out to a variety of people involved. We will have an answer, but I don't know when.
-
This is why I'm all about it lol
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
The reality is that the magazine is NOT detachable with a bullet button device installed. The magazine is effectively only "Attachable." The same magazine used on a differently equipped firearm is both attachable and detachable. However, if the legislature had written the phrase "Attachable" instead of "Detachable" into the law, then I think there would be absolute ban on the product. Given that they did not, I would suggest that it should be legal. Admittedly, I am not an attorney, and I am not intimately familiar with the laws of your state. (...California's laws are tough enough to keep track of...)
BTW, there are many EBPs out there: Dracos, PTR 91s, and of course AR pistols and XO-26s.
I would still be inclined to think that the firearm would be considered illegal if the modification allowed easy magazine. An initial loading is probably not what the state legislature was thinking about when they implemented the law. They were most likely targeting pistols that had large magazines and were capable of quick reloads. Therefore this button device which would still be relatively quick to change magazines would likely not make the firearm still considered to have a detachable magazine. If you had to undo two screws to take out the magazine then I would think there is a decent chance that it would not be considered a detachable magazine.
There are always gray areas, for example you cannot put a vertical grip on a pistol (at least that is what I have been told is a violation of some federal law) So what if instead of putting a vertical grip I just happen to mount an L shaped flashlight that I could inadvertently hold onto? Am I violating the law, technically it is a flashlight and not a grip but in practical use it acts as a grip.
-
There are always gray areas, for example you cannot put a vertical grip on a pistol (at least that is what I have been told is a violation of some federal law) So what if instead of putting a vertical grip I just happen to mount an L shaped flashlight that I could inadvertently hold onto? Am I violating the law, technically it is a flashlight and not a grip but in practical use it acts as a grip.
Use a AFG from Magpul. AtF Says its not a v grip!
-
There are always gray areas, for example you cannot put a vertical grip on a pistol (at least that is what I have been told is a violation of some federal law) So what if instead of putting a vertical grip I just happen to mount an L shaped flashlight that I could inadvertently hold onto? Am I violating the law, technically it is a flashlight and not a grip but in practical use it acts as a grip.
Funny you should happen to use that as an example... Last year Franklin Armory received permission from ATF-FTB to build AR pistols WITH a forward vertical grip as NON-NFA firearms. The XO-26 is a non-AOW. (To prove it, the letter is posted on our website.) In general you are correct though... Unless certain criteria are met, it is illegal (not gray) to install a secondary vertical grip on a pistol. Infantry H2 is correct. You can also use a Magpul AFG on any AR pistol. Someone has posted a letter on line for that as well.
-
Funny you should happen to use that as an example... Last year Franklin Armory received permission from ATF-FTB to build AR pistols WITH a forward vertical grip as NON-NFA firearms. The XO-26 is a non-AOW. (To prove it, the letter is posted on our website.) In general you are correct though... Unless certain criteria are met, it is illegal (not gray) to install a secondary vertical grip on a pistol. Infantry H2 is correct. You can also use a Magpul AFG on any AR pistol. Someone has posted a letter on line for that as well.
I see I will have to check that out. I must admit I do not know the details about the vertical grip on a pistol ban, I have only heard about it in firearms stores. That and I do not understand exactly why the x0-26 counts as a pistol when it basically looks like a short barreled rifle with a buffer tube instead of a stock.I pretty much am only familiar with Hawaii laws.
Interestingly HAwaii law says a shotgun has to have an 18 inch barrel but there is no state law defining what a shotgun is. Pistols that shoot the .410 shells are allowed though.
The magpul angled foregrip would not fit on most pistols though.
Interesting to find a rep from your company on a Hawaii forums though!
-
Got an email from the deputy DA any legal guys want to interpret this nonsense?
-
Post it up
-
Got an email from the deputy DA any legal guys want to interpret this nonsense?
Email it to me:
Chris@Thehdf.org
We are working on this project for almost four months now, we just need people to hold out a bit longer before they go turning leaves. Don't want any forethought into this before we give them what want them to see.
-
if the law stated that it accepts a 'attachable' magazine or
'attachable/detachable' or even better, stated if it 'accepts a
magazine' it is considered an assault pistol, I wouldn't feel as if I
needed to pursue further. but with a 'bullet button/mag lock' it can
accept a non-detachable magazine unless removed during disassembly.
-
I really wish you would have waited, or at least contacted some of the gun rights groups here. This letter most likely just botched an entire project we have been working on since the start of this thread. Now we have to work on additional methods and information to correct this issue. Thank you for giving the AG an opportunity to define any magazine that can be removed from a firearm, by whatever means, as a detachable magazine. /facepalm.
-
Hey, I came here asking questions and the responses I've gotten were remarks about the use of an AR Pistol and it's novelty status as well as the fact that no one knows if the theory of the Bullet Button is good to go because no one has tested it. If one question as vague as mine (which I'm sure has been asked before) really botched up your project, I am sorry. It just seemed no one is testing or asking the question, I was going to contact the AG prior to finding 2AHawaii but I thought I would inquire here first. We're on the same team, sorry I informed you. I did contact the legal side of my question and got a solid 'we don't know but it's being looked at' as a response but never told to stay away. Utilize the 'interpretation' in writing against them since the terminology doesn't validate the written law.
Is there anything written describing a detachable magazine? Is the screen your looking at detachable from its housing (tools and time)? Can you detach your cell phone from the charger (push of a button)?
If the law was written to prevent fast reloads then how do you evaluate the questions above.
Detachable: designed to be unfastened or disconnected without damage
With that screen in the housing, it's not detachable, because the only way to get it out it undamaged is to use tools which takes time.
-
And with the whole 14.5 in barrel thing, the law states you must have 16" oal barrel, but if you 'permanently attach' by means of pin and weld a muzzle device meeting the 16" oal, you're good to go.
They knew what they were doing when writing the laws, it's just the perception of those who are interpreting. Just like that whole 'Martha' character in other threads.
-
Hey, I came here asking questions and the responses I've gotten were remarks about the use of an AR Pistol and it's novelty status as well as the fact that no one knows if the theory of the Bullet Button is good to go because no one has tested it. If one question as vague as mine (which I'm sure has been asked before) really botched up your project, I am sorry. It just seemed no one is testing or asking the question, I was going to contact the AG prior to finding 2AHawaii but I thought I would inquire here first. We're on the same team, sorry I informed you. I did contact the legal side of my question and got a solid 'we don't know but it's being looked at' as a response but never told to stay away. Utilize the 'interpretation' in writing against them since the terminology doesn't validate the written law.
If you read the whole thread you would have seen.
We have some stuff in works on this already. ... I can say that it is be worked on through some avenues. [And,] I would be willing to try and register one though if some sort of arrangement could be worked out as a test case.
And then there was:
This issue is being looked at and ideas have been tossed out to a variety of people involved. We will have an answer, but I don't know when.
So first, in your own words you "jumped the gun and called" the Honolulu Police Department, whom we are trying to avoid at all costs, because they are not supposed to give legal advice or interpretations of the law to people. And received a crap definition, which should be expected. You then backed off when we thought you were getting crazy, and said "I no longer want to cause an issue with this on your boards so I'll suppress my case when it comes to my pistol. I'll give up my arms to preserve yours." Which, to me, would not really suggest you were about to fire off letter to the AG office. The real problem is that you didn't accompany that letter with any of the legal assistance they would need to even provide you the definition you wanted. If you think that they would just respond with what you wanted, without it being spoon fed to them, you are horribly mistaken. So now they have this idea of what a detachable magazine 'should' be, and we have to totally reconfigure that. Essentially, the slate is not completely fresh, which hurts us.
For us, it is always easier to convince someone of something when they have no knowledge of it, than to try and convince them that what they thought initially is just completely wrong.
Also, I'm sorry we were not able to answer your question fast enough; we can't really just disclose everything we are working on. As an organization, moves like that just are not very feasible. Loose lips sinks ships.
-
And with the whole 14.5 in barrel thing, the law states you must have 16" oal barrel, but if you 'permanently attach' by means of pin and weld a muzzle device meeting the 16" oal, you're good to go.
They knew what they were doing when writing the laws, it's just the perception of those who are interpreting. Just like that whole 'Martha' character in other threads.
They copy other states. Reading the constitutional convention and the enactment sessions of these laws, these guys have no clue wtf they were doing.
-
Honolulu Police Department, whom we are trying to avoid at all costs, because they are not supposed to give legal advice or interpretations of the law to people.
HPD gives legal advice all the time but that aside when there is a gray area a lot of people don't want to give a solid yes or no, they don't want to have to explain their actions or get in trouble if someone does not like their decision. If you try to get a solid answer you will probably find people telling you to contact some other office. The question could bounce back and forth between HPD and the prosecutors since prosecutors get to decide whether to press charges but the police department is supposed to be the experts on firearms. I have not seen this button in person so it is hard to give a professional opinion but there is definitely potential for it to be denied depending on how easy it is to detach the non detachable magazine.
Patrol officers do have to face decisions in gray areas quite often and have to interpret the law and enforce it correctly. Consider this real life scenario. The legislature passes a law that is actually unconstitutional, police arrest for it, and prosecutors prosecute for it. The arrested person then appeals and some higher court says that the law was unconstitutional to begin with and should not have been made or enforced. The legislature is immune and so is the prosecutors. The police however are not and can be sued. So the legislators and prosecutors can tell the police the law is good to go but officers without legal degrees are still supposed to somehow recognize that the law should not be enforced since it is unconstitutional. Therefore I would argue that police officers absolutely have to interpret the law and when someone asks about a law I try to explain it in detail and not just tell them the plain wording. If I tell someone the justifications for using deadly force but do not elaborate this person may use it in such a way that the prosecutors will go after them for it they get screwed.
A responsible officer, if presented with a questionable circumstance with no immediate answer, should not arrest but document. I do not think that HPD would arrest you if you showed up trying to register the weapon, at least I would not but I am not a supervisor. You might have a grumpy officer who hates guns tell you no but then have a pro gun officer who tells you yes.
The ruger 10/22 charger pistol is technically an assault pistol but it slipped through the cracks for a while. Did someone at the firearms dept know it filled the definition technically but allow it since in truth the assault pistol ban was not meant to combat such a firearm, or were they just not paying attention? I am not sure how that one happened.
-
HPD gives legal advice all the time but that aside when there is a gray area a lot of people don't want to give a solid yes or no, they don't want to have to explain their actions or get in trouble if someone does not like their decision. If you try to get a solid answer you will probably find people telling you to contact some other office. The question could bounce back and forth between HPD and the prosecutors since prosecutors get to decide whether to press charges but the police department is supposed to be the experts on firearms. I have not seen this button in person so it is hard to give a professional opinion but there is definitely potential for it to be denied depending on how easy it is to detach the non detachable magazine.
Patrol officers do have to face decisions in gray areas quite often and have to interpret the law and enforce it correctly. Consider this real life scenario. The legislature passes a law that is actually unconstitutional, police arrest for it, and prosecutors prosecute for it. The arrested person then appeals and some higher court says that the law was unconstitutional to begin with and should not have been made or enforced. The legislature is immune and so is the prosecutors. The police however are not and can be sued. So the legislators and prosecutors can tell the police the law is good to go but officers without legal degrees are still supposed to somehow recognize that the law should not be enforced since it is unconstitutional. Therefore I would argue that police officers absolutely have to interpret the law and when someone asks about a law I try to explain it in detail and not just tell them the plain wording. If I tell someone the justifications for using deadly force but do not elaborate this person may use it in such a way that the prosecutors will go after them for it they get screwed.
A responsible officer, if presented with a questionable circumstance with no immediate answer, should not arrest but document. I do not think that HPD would arrest you if you showed up trying to register the weapon, at least I would not but I am not a supervisor. You might have a grumpy officer who hates guns tell you no but then have a pro gun officer who tells you yes.
The ruger 10/22 charger pistol is technically an assault pistol but it slipped through the cracks for a while. Did someone at the firearms dept know it filled the definition technically but allow it since in truth the assault pistol ban was not meant to combat such a firearm, or were they just not paying attention? I am not sure how that one happened.
Most of the point you are missing is they are allowed to interpret the law, just like you, but they need to keep that interpretation to themselves. If someone calls me asking for the "legalities of statute x" or if "xxxx situation is legal or authorized" my answer is I am not a lawyer, please contact one who is authorized to practice law. Especially on something 'grey.'
Ruger 10/22 with certain features (i.e. titanium barrel) is legal. With other features, such as the cheap stock barrel it is not. One drops it below the 50 ounces, the other keeps it above it.
-
What would happen if I showed up from CA with my 4473 paperwork and tried to register it with my bullet button in and a 10 rounder? I'd let them fuss with it until they they said they can't get the magazine out of course.
But what's the worst case scenario? Would the keep it as evidence? Or let me send it back to CA?
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VseNzVcIjtc&feature=youtube_gdata_player
-
What would happen if I showed up from CA with my 4473 paperwork and tried to register it with my bullet button in and a 10 rounder? I'd let them fuss with it until they they said they can't get the magazine out of course.
But what's the worst case scenario? Would the keep it as evidence? Or let me send it back to CA?
Well if you did something like that, please at least inform the gun rights groups who would need to help out afterwards so we can at least record it lol. You should have 30 days to surrender to an FFL, or they might be able to confiscate it there.
Send it home for now man, we are working very steady on this - it's not in the closet, it's not a 'shelved' project. It's something we have been focusing on for almost four months.
-
WILCO. Any help you need, let me know. I recommend the CalGuns Foundation as they have fought this already.
-
Patrol officers do have to face decisions in gray areas quite often and have to interpret the law and enforce it correctly. Consider this real life scenario. The legislature passes a law that is actually unconstitutional, police arrest for it, and prosecutors prosecute for it. The arrested person then appeals and some higher court says that the law was unconstitutional to begin with and should not have been made or enforced. The legislature is immune and so is the prosecutors. The police however are not and can be sued. So the legislators and prosecutors can tell the police the law is good to go but officers without legal degrees are still supposed to somehow recognize that the law should not be enforced since it is unconstitutional. Therefore I would argue that police officers absolutely have to interpret the law and when someone asks about a law I try to explain it in detail and not just tell them the plain wording. If I tell someone the justifications for using deadly force but do not elaborate this person may use it in such a way that the prosecutors will go after them for it they get screwed.
You are incorrect. The police are immune from prosecution if they arrest someone who subsequently, thru legal action, has the law nullified for whatever reason. It's called Qualified Immunity and as long as the officer was acting as a reasonable, similarily situated officer would, and within the policies, procedures or common practice of that department, he cannot be sued.
Now, if an officer tried to arrest you for something he knew, or should have known, was unconstitutional or deemed invalid, then he could have a problem. And even at that, unless that indescretion raises to a high level, or is based on something like a civil rights violation, it is more likely than not that the employing agency will be sued rather than the officer in his individual capacity.
-
You are incorrect. The police are immune from prosecution if they arrest someone who subsequently, thru legal action, has the law nullified for whatever reason. It's called Qualified Immunity and as long as the officer was acting as a reasonable, similarily situated officer would, and within the policies, procedures or common practice of that department, he cannot be sued.
Now, if an officer tried to arrest you for something he knew, or should have known, was unconstitutional or deemed invalid, then he could have a problem. And even at that, unless that indescretion raises to a high level, or is based on something like a civil rights violation, it is more likely than not that the employing agency will be sued rather than the officer in his individual capacity.
Let me see if I can find the case to illustrate my example. Well I am not sure if I can find the specific instance but here is how it was explained to me about 6 years ago. A group was passing out religious flyers, I think they were Hare Krishnas. The city enacted a law outlawing the hand billing and someone was arrested and charged. The appeal went up and the person passing out flyer was acquitted, who then turned around and tried to sue but was only able to sue the police for violation of his civil rights. I wish I could find the specific case but I am not sure if I know which one it is at this point. The point was made that police are expected to know that you cannot arrest someone for a 1st amendment right even if the law said to and only they (police department) were liable. In truth this type of instance is not that common. Most cases of laws that have some flaws don't involve something as obvious or as serious as violating someone's constitutional rights.
However police are definitely not always immune just because they are doing their job in good faith. Some laws like good Samaritan laws do however protect police. Domestic violence laws here in Hawaii protect police officers from false arrest as long as they are doing their job in good faith because the law requires officers to arrest in certain situations, it actually takes away any discretion.
Qualified immunity does offer some protection but it is not a trump card, there is that clause of "reasonableness"
-
What would happen if I showed up from CA with my 4473 paperwork and tried to register it with my bullet button in and a 10 rounder? I'd let them fuss with it until they they said they can't get the magazine out of course.
But what's the worst case scenario? Would the keep it as evidence? Or let me send it back to CA?
You could always call the firearms division and ask. I am fairly certain with the amount of military members coming in firearms that are not legal in Hawaii are brought in and I do not believe they are confiscated immediately and the person arrested. A friend called them about an unregistered firearm he found in a closet that he got from his uncle. He was told that even though he is technically over the 2 day registration requirement they weren't going to catch him on it in that type of circumstance. Even if the laws here are unreasonable the people at the firearms department are not always so unreasonable.
I think they would make you attempt to sell it. Just call them and ask but be vague. Say something like you brought over a firearm with certain specifications that you discovered were illegal in Hawaii and ask what you have to do to correct it.
-
Most of the point you are missing is they are allowed to interpret the law, just like you, but they need to keep that interpretation to themselves. If someone calls me asking for the "legalities of statute x" or if "xxxx situation is legal or authorized" my answer is I am not a lawyer, please contact one who is authorized to practice law. Especially on something 'grey.'
I believe an officer could certainly be liable if he gave some obviously incorrect legal advice but I am not aware of anything that would prohibit an officer from giving an opinion on something that was not clearly spelled out. I am trying to think of another example to compare to firearms laws but nothing with the same gray area is coming to mind. An officer definitely makes judgement calls which could sometimes be considered interpretation perhaps.
Nothing in state law defines a shotgun. Blue lights on non police vehicles are illegal but is purple too close? What is unreasonable noise? Etc.
-
Let me see if I can find the case to illustrate my example. Well I am not sure if I can find the specific instance but here is how it was explained to me about 6 years ago. A group was passing out religious flyers, I think they were Hare Krishnas. The city enacted a law outlawing the hand billing and someone was arrested and charged. The appeal went up and the person passing out flyer was acquitted, who then turned around and tried to sue but was only able to sue the police for violation of his civil rights. I wish I could find the specific case but I am not sure if I know which one it is at this point. The point was made that police are expected to know that you cannot arrest someone for a 1st amendment right even if the law said to and only they (police department) were liable. In truth this type of instance is not that common. Most cases of laws that have some flaws don't involve something as obvious or as serious as violating someone's constitutional rights.
However police are definitely not always immune just because they are doing their job in good faith. Some laws like good Samaritan laws do however protect police. Domestic violence laws here in Hawaii protect police officers from false arrest as long as they are doing their job in good faith because the law requires officers to arrest in certain situations, it actually takes away any discretion.
Qualified immunity does offer some protection but it is not a trump card, there is that clause of "reasonableness"
Please do. You state that an officer was "sued" but that lends little to your argument as anyone at anytime can be sued for anything. It is not the fact that you are sued, it is the fact that you did not have a judgement entered against you that really matters. I can sue you for painting you house green, but I would never prevail in court.
Here's the basic doctrine:
A public official performing a discretionary function enjoys qualified immunity in a civil
action for damages, provided his or her conduct does not violate clearly established federal statutory
or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457
U.S. 800, 818 (1982). The immunity is "immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability."
Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985).
Furthermore, an officer acting on advice of, in accordance with a superior or attorney is futher insulated from civil actions:
...the fact of the consultation and the purport of the advice obtained should be factored into the totality of the circumstances and considered in determining the officer's entitlement to qualified immunity. Whether advice obtained from a prosecutor prior to making an arrest fits into the totality of circumstances that appropriately inform the qualified immunity determination is a question of first impression in this circuit. In Suboh v. Dist. Atty's Office of Suffolk Dist., 298 F.3d 81 (1st Cir.2002), we noted the question but had no occasion to answer it. See id. at 97. In dictum, we implied that if an officer seeks counsel from a prosecutor anent the legality of an intended action and furnishes the latter the known information material to that decision, the officer's reliance on emergent advice might be relevant, for qualified immunity purposes, to the reasonableness of his later conduct. . .Other courts, however, have spoken authoritatively to the issue. [collecting circuit cases] . . . .We agree with our sister circuits and with the implication of the Suboh dictum that there is some room in the qualified immunity calculus for considering both the fact of a pre-arrest consultation and the purport of the advice received. As a matter of practice, the incorporation of these factors into the totality of the circumstances is consistent with an inquiry into the objective legal reasonableness of an officer's belief that probable cause supported an arrest. It stands to reason that if an officer makes a full presentation of the known facts to a competent prosecutor and receives a green light, the officer would have stronger reason to believe that probable cause existed. And as a matter of policy, it
makes eminently good sense, when time and circumstances permit, to encourage officers to obtain an informed opinion before charging ahead and making an arrest in uncertain circumstances. . . .
In the instance you cite (handing out flyers) the officer was probably convicted because he knew, or should have known, that such activities were Constutionally protected. That is where the "qualified" comes into play.
We caution, however, that the mere fact that an officer secures a favorable pre-arrest opinion from a friendly prosecutor does not automatically guarantee that qualified immunity will follow. Rather, that consultation comprises only one factor, among many, that enters into the totality of the circumstances relevant to the qualified immunity analysis. . . The primary focus continues to be the evidence about the suspect and the suspected crime that is within the officer's ken. In considering the relevance of an officer's pre-arrest consultation with a prosecutor, a reviewing court must determine whether the officer's reliance on the prosecutor's advice was objectively reasonable. . . Reliance would not satisfy this standard if an objectively reasonable officer would have cause to believe that the prosecutor's advice was flawed, off point, or otherwise untrustworthy. . . Law enforcement officers have an independent duty to exercise their professional judgment and can be brought to book for objectively
unreasonable mistakes regardless of whether another government official (say, a prosecutor or a magistrate) happens to compound the error. . .
In the vast majority of cases where officers use the Qualified Immunity defense, they are successful. That is not to say that all actions of the police are protected. As you say, there is a "reasonablness" standard, as well as other issues to be considered.
Cited material from:
SECTION 1983: QUALIFIED IMMUNITY
Karen M. Blum (kblum@suffolk.edu)
Suffolk University Law School
Research Date: February 1, 2006
http://www.njd.uscourts.gov/atty/3dCirqual06.pdf (http://www.njd.uscourts.gov/atty/3dCirqual06.pdf)
-
"does not violate clearly established statutory...." could this be related to the description of an assault pistol with a mag lock?
-
"does not violate clearly established statutory...." could this be related to the description of an assault pistol with a mag lock?
I am not sure if you are asking this of me or not, but I really have no idea what you are asking...
-
What would happen if I showed up from CA with my 4473 paperwork and tried to register it with my bullet button in and a 10 rounder? I'd let them fuss with it until they they said they can't get the magazine out of course.
But what's the worst case scenario? Would the keep it as evidence? Or let me send it back to CA?
worst case scenario: They confiscate your firearm and arrest you for importing an illegal firearm.
Probably won't happen like that, but it could....
-
Any news?
-
Any news?
The news is Hawaii is trying to ban guns and get rid of lots of shit. This is not a good time to bring up new things in regards to laws, or for us to go asking people to put these things in writing. We won't be happy with the results.
-
Got it.
-
Got it.
Yeah it's a really bad time. Our senators are helping sponsor legislation, local politicians are on record on how civilians "don't need these magazines", and we are having under cover meetings to further gun control. Our ice is thin right now lol.
-
Yeah here in CA we just fought the SB249. Yet another battle but the war isn't over. I'm still moving to HI in May 2013 so I'm trying to wait as long as I can before I sell my AR Pistols and what not.
-
Yeah here in CA we just fought the SB249. Yet another battle but the war isn't over. I'm still moving to HI in May 2013 so I'm trying to wait as long as I can before I sell my AR Pistols and what not.
Yeah. My buddy Brandon Combs pretty much helped fight that whole thing there by forming the StopSB249 group and really hitting it hard on the grass roots. It was this campaign, and more Senator Leeland Yee's gun ban efforts, that our politicians were helping support. (Not just in CA, but on a Federal level as well).