2aHawaii
General Topics => General Discussion => Topic started by: changemyoil66 on December 14, 2023, 11:47:59 AM
-
https://reason.com/2023/12/08/prosecutors-agree-he-shot-a-man-in-self-defense-theyre-still-trying-to-put-him-in-prison/?fbclid=IwAR1PLQjzskTkJmXEjwDScDNqenM4II-5o017fUd_8_tRmVFDQVJPw3Wm8XA
Cliffnotes
Happened in NY
Shooter deemed usage was in self defense since his home was broken into and event caught on camera. Bad guy reached into his pocket, which had a taser in it.
Shooter charged for having a non-licensed firearm due to NY law
Shooter has no criminal history
Shooter may die in prison
But according to 1, this is constitutional cause he's getting "due process" and because SCOTUS hasn't ruled on the NY permitting scheme.
-
This could happen in HI because HI has registration of all firearms.
-
This could happen in HI because HI has registration of all firearms.
"Slightly" different penalties involved. NY can put him in prison for years. HI -- only up to 30 days.
HRS 134 says the penalty for having an unregistered firearm is a petty misdemeanor.
They also give you 5 days from notice of the violation before charging you and/or confiscating the firearm if the acquisition falls under 134-3(b).
(4) A crime is a petty misdemeanor if it is so designated in this Code or in a statute
other than this Code enacted subsequent thereto, or if it is defined by a statute other
than this Code that provides that persons convicted thereof may be sentenced to
imprisonment for a term not to exceed thirty days.
-
"Slightly" different penalties involved. NY can put him in prison for years. HI -- only up to 30 days.
HRS 134 says the penalty for having an unregistered firearm is a petty misdemeanor.
They also give you 5 days from notice of the violation before charging you and/or confiscating the firearm if the acquisition falls under 134-3(b).
And under the new HRS, one loses their 2a right for 20 years due to this being a firearm violation.
-
And under the new HRS, one loses their 2a right for 20 years due to this being a firearm violation.
Can you point to that in the statute, please?
-
SB1230, which hasn't been fully uploaded as a HRS134-7 yet.
"(b) No person who [is under indictment for, or has waived indictment for, or has been bound over to the circuit court for,] is being prosecuted for one or more charges for a felony, a crime of violence, a criminal offense relating to firearms, or an illegal sale or distribution of any drug in a court in this State or elsewhere, or who has been convicted in this State or elsewhere of having committed a felony, [or any] a crime of violence, a criminal offense relating to firearms, or an illegal sale or distribution of any drug shall own, possess, or control any firearm or ammunition [therefor]."
"(h) Any person who otherwise would be prohibited under subsection (b) from owning, possessing, or controlling a firearm and ammunition solely as a result of a conviction for a crime that is not a felony, and who is not prohibited from owning, possessing, or controlling a firearm or ammunition for any reason under any other provision of this chapter or under title 18 United States Code section 922 or another provision of federal law, shall not be prohibited under this section from owning, possessing, or controlling a firearm and ammunition if twenty years have elapsed from the date of the conviction."
-
SB1230, which hasn't been fully uploaded as a HRS134-7 yet.
"(b) No person who [is under indictment for, or has waived indictment for, or has been bound over to the circuit court for,] is being prosecuted for one or more charges for a felony, a crime of violence, a criminal offense relating to firearms, or an illegal sale or distribution of any drug in a court in this State or elsewhere, or who has been convicted in this State or elsewhere of having committed a felony, [or any] a crime of violence, a criminal offense relating to firearms, or an illegal sale or distribution of any drug shall own, possess, or control any firearm or ammunition [therefor]."
"(h) Any person who otherwise would be prohibited under subsection (b) from owning, possessing, or controlling a firearm and ammunition solely as a result of a conviction for a crime that is not a felony, and who is not prohibited from owning, possessing, or controlling a firearm or ammunition for any reason under any other provision of this chapter or under title 18 United States Code section 922 or another provision of federal law, shall not be prohibited under this section from owning, possessing, or controlling a firearm and ammunition if twenty years have elapsed from the date of the conviction."
There are cases being won that contested the removal of 2A rights for non-violent crimes regardless of what they related to. Others (Rahimi) are contesting removal of 2A rights for non-felony charges/convictions. I have a feeling that 20-year quashing of a civil right for an adminstrative infraction won't stand.
-
https://reason.com/2023/12/08/prosecutors-agree-he-shot-a-man-in-self-defense-theyre-still-trying-to-put-him-in-prison/?fbclid=IwAR1PLQjzskTkJmXEjwDScDNqenM4II-5o017fUd_8_tRmVFDQVJPw3Wm8XA
Cliffnotes
Happened in NY
Shooter deemed usage was in self defense since his home was broken into and event caught on camera. Bad guy reached into his pocket, which had a taser in it.
Shooter charged for having a non-licensed firearm due to NY law
Shooter has no criminal history
Shooter may die in prison
But according to 1, this is constitutional cause he's getting "due process" and because SCOTUS hasn't ruled on the NY permitting scheme.
It is because there are two separate laws at play. One law regarding firearm licensing and one law regarding use of lethal force. Those two are independent of each other which is why he could be cleared of one offense but charged with the other.
-
This could happen in HI because HI has registration of all firearms.
Not all firearms need to be registered in Hawaii.
https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol03_Ch0121-0200D/HRS013(d) Registration shall not be required for:
(1) Any device that is designed to fire loose black powder or that is a firearm manufactured before 1899;
(2) Any device not designed to fire or made incapable of being readily restored to a firing condition; or
(3) All unserviceable firearms and destructive devices registered with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives of the United States Department of Justice pursuant to Title 27, Code of Federal Regulations.4/HRS_0134-0003.htm
I have a black powder derringer that is not registered.
-
#objective
This is incorrect, not all firearms need to be registered in Hawaii.
https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol03_Ch0121-0200D/HRS013(d) Registration shall not be required for:
(1) Any device that is designed to fire loose black powder or that is a firearm manufactured before 1899;
(2) Any device not designed to fire or made incapable of being readily restored to a firing condition; or
(3) All unserviceable firearms and destructive devices registered with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives of the United States Department of Justice pursuant to Title 27, Code of Federal Regulations.4/HRS_0134-0003.htm
I have a black powder derringer that is not registered.
-
This is incorrect, not all firearms need to be registered in Hawaii.
https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol03_Ch0121-0200D/HRS013(d) Registration shall not be required for:
(1) Any device that is designed to fire loose black powder or that is a firearm manufactured before 1899;
(2) Any device not designed to fire or made incapable of being readily restored to a firing condition; or
(3) All unserviceable firearms and destructive devices registered with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives of the United States Department of Justice pursuant to Title 27, Code of Federal Regulations.4/HRS_0134-0003.htm
I have a black powder derringer that is not registered.
According to FOPA, no guns are allowed to be registered.
No such rule or regulation prescribed [by the Attorney General] after the date of the
enactment of the Firearms Owners Protection Act may require that records required
to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be
recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States
or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of
firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or disposition be established.
Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary's authority to inquire into the
disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation.
-
According to FOPA, no guns are allowed to be registered.
That would be nice
-
Not all firearms need to be registered in Hawaii.
https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol03_Ch0121-0200D/HRS013(d) Registration shall not be required for:
(1) Any device that is designed to fire loose black powder or that is a firearm manufactured before 1899;
(2) Any device not designed to fire or made incapable of being readily restored to a firing condition; or
(3) All unserviceable firearms and destructive devices registered with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives of the United States Department of Justice pursuant to Title 27, Code of Federal Regulations.4/HRS_0134-0003.htm
I have a black powder derringer that is not registered.
Thanks for nitpicking just because you feel the need for self gratification.
-
It is because there are two separate laws at play. One law regarding firearm licensing and one law regarding use of lethal force. Those two are independent of each other which is why he could be cleared of one offense but charged with the other.
Please show me where I said he was being charged for using lethal force. Thanks for nitpicking for something to make yourself sound good in your mind.
-
According to FOPA, no guns are allowed to be registered.
SCOTUS hasn't ruled on this, thus HI's registration is constitutional-someone here would say.
-
The no registration under FOPA only prevents the Feds from having a registry, or the prevents the Feds requiring the state to have a registry. It doesn't prevent states from creating their own registry. And military registration would fall under different rules.
Registration will eventually be overturned in the courts, but it'll be a long time from now.
-
Thanks for nitpicking just because you feel the need for self gratification.
So you said something incorrect and somehow instead of simply acknowledging the correct information you accuse me of doing it for self gratification? But if I you and Flapp do it, its totally justified? Stop being a hypocrite.
-
Please show me where I said he was being charged for using lethal force. Thanks for nitpicking for something to make yourself sound good in your mind.
Strawman. I never said you said he was being charged with using lethal force.
I am simply explaining how there are two separate laws at play in this case and that is why he still faces one charge even if exonerated of the other.
-
The no registration under FOPA only prevents the Feds from having a registry, or the prevents the Feds requiring the state to have a registry. It doesn't prevent states from creating their own registry. And military registration would fall under different rules.
Registration will eventually be overturned in the courts, but it'll be a long time from now.
You must be an amazing free diver if you can hold your breath that long!
-
So you said something incorrect and somehow instead of simply acknowledging the correct information you accuse me of doing it for self gratification? But if I you and Flapp do it, its totally justified? Stop being a hypocrite.
Thanks for nitpicking.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
Strawman. I never said you said he was being charged with using lethal force.
I am simply explaining how there are two separate laws at play in this case and that is why he still faces one charge even if exonerated of the other.
Goal post moving
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
Goal post moving
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
My pointing out your strawman is not moving a goalpost.
-
Thanks for nitpicking.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
I just gave readers the accurate version of the law, why does that bother you so much? I didn't insult you in any way yet you are so bothered you have to take us down this path.
-
My pointing out your strawman is not moving a goalpost.
Says the goalpost mover.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
I just gave readers the accurate version of the law, why does that bother you so much? I didn't insult you in any way yet you are so bothered you have to take us down this path.
Wow, pushing blame back now. Thanks for playing.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
Wow, pushing blame back now. Thanks for playing.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Well whose fault is it that you made an inaccurate statement?
-
Well whose fault is it that you made an inaccurate statement?
Here we go again. Thanks for proving my point.
-
Strawman. I never said you said he was being charged with using lethal force.
I am simply explaining how there are two separate laws at play in this case and that is why he still faces one charge even if exonerated of the other.
You are not a lawyer.
You show evidence of that fact frequently.
Stop trying to lecture us on the law, especially laws from other states. You are not the expert you pretend.
The case comes down to the intended victim being punished for choosing self defense over the state's cumbersome and prohibitive firearm possession laws. It's 100% 2A infringement circumstances.
He was in his own residence. The intruder was uninvited. The man defended himself and his family. The shooting was ruled justified.
To then DECIDE to charge him with a firearm infraction is nothing short of political and everyone with a brain knows this to be true.
Prosecutors have the discretion to charge or not. You seem to think they had no choice in the matter, because the law is the law.
The correct remedy would have been to confiscate the gun, since it was evidence anyway, and tell him to jump through the hoops if he gets another one.
All they did now is open him up to a wrongful death lawsuit by the CRIMINAL'S family on top of the years in prison.
Meanwhile, Hunter Biden, a prohibited purchaser who lied to obtain a firearm, is walking around free.
-
Here we go again. Thanks for proving my point.
What point? That if you make an incorrect statement you shouldn't be corrected but if I do I must grovel?
-
You are not a lawyer.
You show evidence of that fact frequently.
Stop trying to lecture us on the law, especially laws from other states. You are not the expert you pretend.
The case comes down to the intended victim being punished for choosing self defense over the state's cumbersome and prohibitive firearm possession laws. It's 100% 2A infringement circumstances.
He was in his own residence. The intruder was uninvited. The man defended himself and his family. The shooting was ruled justified.
To then DECIDE to charge him with a firearm infraction is nothing short of political and everyone with a brain knows this to be true.
Prosecutors have the discretion to charge or not. You seem to think they had no choice in the matter, because the law is the law.
The correct remedy would have been to confiscate the gun, since it was evidence anyway, and tell him to jump through the hoops if he gets another one.
All they did now is open him up to a wrongful death lawsuit by the CRIMINAL'S family on top of the years in prison.
Meanwhile, Hunter Biden, a prohibited purchaser who lied to obtain a firearm, is walking around free.
One does not need to be a lawyer to understand the basic distinction I pointed out.
You don't have a degree in being a snarky a-hole yet you play the role frequently.
The rest of your explanation, though accurate in my opinion, has nothing to do with my explanation. Focus.
My comment was about the application of the statute, your explanation is a moralistic one about how he shouldn't be punished for what he did. Are you unable to compartmentalize two different aspects of an incident?
-
What point? That if you make an incorrect statement you shouldn't be corrected but if I do I must grovel?
Thanks for continuing to prove my point.
-
You are not a lawyer.
You show evidence of that fact frequently.
Stop trying to lecture us on the law, especially laws from other states. You are not the expert you pretend.
The case comes down to the intended victim being punished for choosing self defense over the state's cumbersome and prohibitive firearm possession laws. It's 100% 2A infringement circumstances.
He was in his own residence. The intruder was uninvited. The man defended himself and his family. The shooting was ruled justified.
To then DECIDE to charge him with a firearm infraction is nothing short of political and everyone with a brain knows this to be true.
Prosecutors have the discretion to charge or not. You seem to think they had no choice in the matter, because the law is the law.
The correct remedy would have been to confiscate the gun, since it was evidence anyway, and tell him to jump through the hoops if he gets another one.
All they did now is open him up to a wrongful death lawsuit by the CRIMINAL'S family on top of the years in prison.
Meanwhile, Hunter Biden, a prohibited purchaser who lied to obtain a firearm, is walking around free.
What he's doing is adding in something that I already covered because in his mind, he wants to be right about something.
-
My comment was about the application of the statute, your explanation is a moralistic one about how he shouldn't be punished for what he did. Are you unable to compartmentalize two different aspects of an incident?
There is no need to explain the statue at all because he wasn't charged. Why don't you also explain how he wasn't charged for having a magazine that can hold more than 10rds. How about explain that he wasn't charged for having a SBR, suppressor, etc...
-
There is no need to explain the statue at all because he wasn't charged. Why don't you also explain how he wasn't charged for having a magazine that can hold more than 10rds. How about explain that he wasn't charged for having a SBR, suppressor, etc...
According to the article you posted they are trying to pursue charges so....
If you don't want a legal breakdown then just ignore it. No need to be a drama queen
-
According to the article you posted they are trying to pursue charges so....
If you don't want a legal breakdown then just ignore it. No need to be a drama queen
And what charge are they pursuing? Read my post above again, why not mention mag charge, SBR charge, suppressor charge, all of which aren't being charged, same with any non-self defense charge. Thanks for playing and refusing to admit you were adding in stuff not needed.
-
And what charge are they pursuing? Read my post above again, why not mention mag charge, SBR charge, suppressor charge, all of which aren't being charged, same with any non-self defense charge. Thanks for playing and refusing to admit you were adding in stuff not needed.
I didn't mention them because they are not relevant to the point I was making.
-
I didn't mention them because they are not relevant to the point I was making.
Why not?
-
Why not?
Because I was offering an explanation for why a shooting could be found legally justified while the individual could still be charged with a gun law violation with the gun used. It is a fair question to ask why he wasn't also charged with certain other gun crimes doesn't go to explain how use of force is a separate question from legal firearm.
If I was drunk driving and rammed someone with my car who was shooting innocent people my use of force could be found justified yet I still be charged with DUI. Asking why I wasn't cited for my expired safety check is a separate question.
-
Because I was offering an explanation for why a shooting could be found legally justified while the individual could still be charged with a gun law violation with the gun used. It is a fair question to ask why he wasn't also charged with certain other gun crimes doesn't go to explain how use of force is a separate question from legal firearm.
If I was drunk driving and rammed someone with my car who was shooting innocent people my use of force could be found justified yet I still be charged with DUI. Asking why I wasn't cited for my expired safety check is a separate question.
Goal post moving.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk