2aHawaii
General Topics => General Discussion => Topic started by: ren on June 09, 2017, 06:21:36 PM
-
http://khon2.com/2017/06/09/men-arrested-with-gun-allegedly-stolen-from-security-guard-more-than-a-year-ago/ (http://khon2.com/2017/06/09/men-arrested-with-gun-allegedly-stolen-from-security-guard-more-than-a-year-ago/)
I can only guess more laws will bear on the rest of us who can't carry as part of our job
-
So does that mean that KHON has figured out the laws related to leaving a handgun in a parking lot?
-
The guard is lucky no one was shot with it.
It appears a gun owner whose gun is stolen is absolutely liable for all discharges of their firearm unless reported stolen or reasonably would not not know it was stolen before the discharge or could not reasonably report it stolen to police before the discharge.
Or unless discharge was legally justified.
H.R.S. 663-9.5
§663-9.5 Liability of firearm owners. (a) If a firearm discharges and the discharge of the firearm proximately causes either personal injury or property damage to any person, the owner of the firearm shall be absolutely liable for the damage.
(b) It shall be an affirmative defense to the absolute liability that the firearm was not in the possession of the owner.
(c) It shall be an affirmative defense to the absolute liability that:
(1) The firearm was taken from the owner's possession without the owner's permission; and
(2) The owner either:
(A) Reported the theft to the police prior to the discharge; or
(B) Despite the exercise of reasonable care:
(i) Had not discovered the theft prior to the discharge; or
(ii) Was not reasonably able to report the theft to the police prior to the discharge.
(d) This section shall not apply when the discharge of the firearm was legally justified.
(e) The absolute liability under subsection (a) shall not apply to the State or counties for the use of a firearm owned by the State or county, as applicable, and used by a law enforcement officer employed by the State or county, outside of the course and scope of employment as a law enforcement officer; provided that this section shall not be construed to relieve the State and counties from any other tort liability that may be applicable to the State or counties.
(f) The absolute liability under subsection (a) shall not apply to National Rifle Association certified firearms instructors during the course of providing firearms training or safety courses or classes at a firing range to persons seeking to acquire a permit for the acquisition of a pistol or revolver in accordance with section 134-2(g)(4); provided that this section shall not be construed to relieve a National Rifle Association certified firearms instructor from any other tort liability that may be applicable. [L 1994, c 204, §1; am L 2008, c 129, §1; am L 2012, c 301, §1]
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol13_Ch0601-0676/HRS0663/HRS_0663-0009_0005..htm
I am not a lawyer.
-
Sooo, I leave my gunin my car and it gets stolen, I lie about it missing and am able to cover it up for nearly a year due to my position of "duty and responsibility" and only admit it had been stolen in March after my supervisor noticed it missing.
"now, I can sleep good."
:wtf:
I see no mention if this guy still has his job of armed security officer. :wacko:
-
If it were anyone of us we'd be arrested for place to keep.
-
The guard is lucky no one was shot with it.
It appears a gun owner whose gun is stolen is absolutely liable for all discharges of their firearm unless reported stolen or reasonably would not not know it was stolen before the discharge or could not reasonably report it stolen to police before the discharge.
Or unless discharge was legally justified.
H.R.S. 663-9.5
§663-9.5 Liability of firearm owners. (a) If a firearm discharges and the discharge of the firearm proximately causes either personal injury or property damage to any person, the owner of the firearm shall be absolutely liable for the damage.
(b) It shall be an affirmative defense to the absolute liability that the firearm was not in the possession of the owner.
"(b) It shall be an affirmative defense to the absolute liability that the firearm was not in the possession of the owner."
An affirmative defense to a civil lawsuit or criminal charge is a fact or set of facts other than those alleged by the plaintiff or prosecutor which, if proven by the defendant, defeats or mitigates the legal consequences of the defendant's otherwise unlawful conduct.
If i understand that correctly, The owner would not be liable if they were not in possession of the firearm.
-
If it were anyone of us we'd be arrested for place to keep.
I dont think they would get a conviction on it tho, The law is very vague, overly broad and some might say unconstitutional.
-
How was the serial # still on it?
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
-
I dont think they would get a conviction on it tho, The law is very vague, overly broad and some might say unconstitutional.
Yeah, but would they pull the permits and ban him from future permits? Can't do his job without it.
-
How was the serial # still on it?
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
...
Glocks got sn all over the place.
-
Yeah, but would they pull the permits and ban him from future permits? Can't do his job without it.
May issue is unconstitutional , without a conviction they couldn't deny him any permit.
-
May issue is unconstitutional , without a conviction they couldn't deny him any permit.
I've never been convicted of anything and they deny me a license. Just because it's "unconstitutional" (obviously) doesn't mean they can't do it. (How many years has it been now? The recently retired police chief of Hawaii County told me that as far as he knew no license had EVER been issued in Hawaii County.) And it's hard for me to imagine a SCOTUS decision clear and unambiguous enough for the lying tyrants that are Hawaii government not to obstruct the exercise of the rights to keep, and especially bear, for many many more years to come... even if we got an affirmative decision from SCOTUS that open carry is the right and "may issue" is unconstitutional. As we see in one Hawaii amicus brief to the Ninth Circuit they argue that everywhere outside the home where any member of the public "may" be is a "sensitive place" (a designation of SCOTUS referring to a federal building or courthouse or school) and thus no carry would be allowed even if they were required to issue licenses... there would literally be no place except on private property (where one has permission of the owner) where one could bear.
Please tell me something that will cheer me up on this subject AND withstand critical scrutiny (i.e. no fairytales). :shaka:
-
I've never been convicted of anything and they deny me a license. Just because it's "unconstitutional" (obviously) doesn't mean they can't do it. (How many years has it been now? The recently retired police chief of Hawaii County told me that as far as he knew no license had EVER been issued in Hawaii County.) And it's hard for me to imagine a SCOTUS decision clear and unambiguous enough for the lying tyrants that are Hawaii government not to obstruct the exercise of the rights to keep, and especially bear, for many many more years to come... even if we got an affirmative decision from SCOTUS that open carry is the right and "may issue" is unconstitutional. As we see in one Hawaii amicus brief to the Ninth Circuit they argue that everywhere outside the home where any member of the public "may" be is a "sensitive place" (a designation of SCOTUS referring to a federal building or courthouse or school) and thus no carry would be allowed even if they were required to issue licenses... there would literally be no place except on private property (where one has permission of the owner) where one could bear.
Please tell me something that will cheer me up on this subject AND withstand critical scrutiny (i.e. no fairytales). :shaka:
I was actually talking about permit to acquire, i misread the original statement.
-
I work there part time and used to be full time there. There have been many guns lost in the past due to people breaking in to cars this isnt the first time it has happened. And yes he was fired along with another person sucks they were both good guys just got caught up if a bad situTion.
-
I work there part time and used to be full time there. There have been many guns lost in the past due to people breaking in to cars this isnt the first time it has happened. And yes he was fired along with another person sucks they were both good guys just got caught up if a bad situTion.
I'm amazed that people still leave valuables in their car even for a few minutes. You should check out stolen stuff Hawaii facebook page. It all starts with " I know that I shouldn't leave my purse in my car but, I did and someone bashed my window and stole it". And if you're on their FB page, you know how often that happens. *facepalm
-
I'm amazed that people still leave valuables in their car even for a few minutes. You should check out stolen stuff Hawaii facebook page. It all starts with " I know that I shouldn't leave my purse in my car but, I did and someone bashed my window and stole it". And if you're on their FB page, you know how often that happens. *facepalm
....
We had 3 cars broken into across the street from my work. Yesterday.
-
....
We had 3 cars broken into across the street from my work. Yesterday.
Little lunchtime side job ? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
I'm amazed that people still leave valuables in their car even for a few minutes. You should check out stolen stuff Hawaii facebook page. It all starts with " I know that I shouldn't leave my purse in my car but, I did and someone bashed my window and stole it". And if you're on their FB page, you know how often that happens. *facepalm
Purse? People leave kids in cars unattended!
I don't even leave coins out where they can be plainly seen!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I'm amazed that people still leave valuables in their car even for a few minutes. You should check out stolen stuff Hawaii facebook page. It all starts with " I know that I shouldn't leave my purse in my car but, I did and someone bashed my window and stole it". And if you're on their FB page, you know how often that happens. *facepalm
they kicked me out of it for telling people what the law says about stuff people were posting, To many people would get upset because what they believed wasent in the law.
-
they kicked me out of it for telling people what the law says about stuff people were posting, To many people would get upset because what they believed wasent in the law.
Sounds familiar...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
they kicked me out of it for telling people what the law says about stuff people were posting, To many people would get upset because what they believed wasent in the law.
OMG! You mean SSH is full of narrow-minded, gun-loving, ultra-right-wing Conservatives who shut you down if you say things they don't agree with?
No way it was tolerant, Socialist-Democrat-Liberal types. They respect differing viewpoints way too much!
[/sarcasm] :rofl:
-
they kicked me out of it for telling people what the law says about stuff people were posting, To many people would get upset because what they believed wasent in the law.
Thats interesting because i so the same and the owner michael is pro 2a. But i just staye hrs stuff, not give my personal opinion to avoid conflicts.
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
-
Thats interesting because i so the same and the owner michael is pro 2a. But i just staye hrs stuff, not give my personal opinion to avoid conflicts.
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
I think it was mainly from me pointing out that no matter how many people think its ok to steal fruit growing over a sidewalk, it doesnt make it not a crime.