2aHawaii
General Topics => Legal and Activism => Topic started by: Aegis808 on March 26, 2013, 05:43:23 AM
-
under FOPA it made it illegal for the United States and any state to hold records on firearms. so why hasn't anyone filed against the state about this before?
18 U.S.C.
United States Code, 2011 Edition
Title 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 44 - FIREARMS
Sec. 926 - Rules and regulations
No such rule or regulation prescribed 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 dispositions be established.
-
I'm definitely not an expert on this, but it looks like FOPA only affects federal law, not state and local laws.
-
but wouldn't this fall under federal control seeing as states still have to follow and respect fopa(unless you are new york) when it comes to people bringing firearms from out of state?
-
but wouldn't this fall under federal control seeing as states still have to follow and respect fopa(unless you are new york) when it comes to people bringing firearms from out of state?
Nope... It's up to the individual state if they choose to apply more regulation on firearms. Falls under the 14th amendment.
-
Ok I will play devils advocate here and say that my CC license from AZ should be honored here then?
-
"No such rule or regulation prescribed AFTER the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act."
Im thinking maybe the "after" in the above section means that no new registration rules could be enacted, but ones already in place could remain? idk im not a lawyer
-
Ok I will play devils advocate here and say that my CC license from AZ should be honored here then?
no one's CC license is honored here.
i dont even think visiting cops and the like get those official rights.
-
no one's CC license is honored here.
i dont even think visiting cops and the like get those official rights.
Out of state cops can carry in all 50 states under LEOSA
-
Out of state cops can carry in all 50 states under LEOSA
ok, well, the law, as written, which was obviously written before the act, said they couldnt.
-
"No such rule or regulation prescribed AFTER the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act."
Im thinking maybe the "after" in the above section means that no new registration rules could be enacted, but ones already in place could remain? idk im not a lawyer
well firearms registration in hawaii was started after fopa was passed.
-
well firearms registration in hawaii was started after fopa was passed.
well, if all this is true, maybe this should be our next goal after we get a decision on the Concealed Carry.
-
i thought that they could only carry if on the job. wasnt that the whole thing they were saying about that federal agent killed that guy in honolulu. he wasnt supposed to even have been armed because the conference was over?
-
i thought that they could only carry if on the job. wasnt that the whole thing they were saying about that federal agent killed that guy in honolulu. he wasnt supposed to even have been armed because the conference was over?
Leo will tell you they always on the clock.
-
So I checked with some people, but I'm not sure how reliable this info is. LEO can carry 24/7 in the state they work in, but if in another state and not currently "on a case in which they are actively working" they are concidered like civilians. For example HI has no CC a police officer from another state who would have no jurisdiction here, comes here on vacation, he can't walk around with a gun. But like I say I concidered my source a good source of info but I wouldn't take it to the bank. If anyone can find out for sure I'd like to know because I wondered the same thing.
-
So I checked with some people, but I'm not sure how reliable this info is. LEO can carry 24/7 in the state they work in, but if in another state and not currently "on a case in which they are actively working" they are concidered like civilians. For example HI has no CC a police officer from another state who would have no jurisdiction here, comes here on vacation, he can't walk around with a gun. But like I say I concidered my source a good source of info but I wouldn't take it to the bank. If anyone can find out for sure I'd like to know because I wondered the same thing.
See http://ag.hawaii.gov/cjd/law-enforcement-index-page/ (http://ag.hawaii.gov/cjd/law-enforcement-index-page/) and check out the Hawaii take on LEOSA
-
If you are not on official duty with your governmental law enforcement agency and you are carrying a concealed firearm pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 926B, you are not considered a “law enforcement officer” in the State of Hawaii. The Hawaii Revised Statutes will be applied to you as if you were a “civilian” with no law enforcement powers.
-
Thanks for the link
-
If you are a LEO with 24/7 arrest powers you can carry off duty in any state. You don't have to be there for business. You can carry on vacation if you choose. 24/7 arrest powers is just that, 24/7. There are some people that only have 8hour carry. They are not allowed to carry off duty. Don't get confused between rent a cops and actual cops.
-
So does one need to become a cop to ccw legally in Hawaii?
-
So does one need to become a cop to ccw legally in Hawaii?
Biggest baddest gang in Hawaii.
-
So does one need to become a cop to ccw legally in Hawaii?
Yep... Looks that way, and with the current political viewpoint I don't think they will be allowing civilian CCW in Hawaii anytime soon...
-
No if you go to the link and read it there are like seven criteria and you need to meet them all if you are out of state to CC I just highlighted to one that pertained to what I wanted to know. So if you are not actively working a case you are not permitted to carry on vacation in hawaii. Quoted directly from government page. So if hawaii law says it is not permitted how can you say it's legal?
-
No if you go to the link and read it there are like seven criteria and you need to meet them all if you are out of state to CC I just highlighted to one that pertained to what I wanted to know. So if you are not actively working a case you are not permitted to carry on vacation in hawaii. Quoted directly from government page. So if hawaii law says it is not permitted how can you say it's legal?
Sorry, you don't know what you are talking about!!! If you are a LEO you can carry concealed in all 50 states. No restrictions, on vacation, off duty, don't matter. Every LEO carry a commission card from their agency, department. On that commission card it states something like " this person is a LEO of whatever department with all powers and authority of police officers including the powers of arrest and right to carry concealed. It's either going to reference a state or federal law.
-
No if you go to the link and read it there are like seven criteria and you need to meet them all if you are out of state to CC I just highlighted to one that pertained to what I wanted to know. So if you are not actively working a case you are not permitted to carry on vacation in hawaii. Quoted directly from government page. So if hawaii law says it is not permitted how can you say it's legal?
Not true. Law enforcement officers can carry 24/7 anywhere they may go, with few exceptions (like airlines, although some do allow it). Federal agents can generally, from what I have seen, carry on an airline.
-
Not true. Law enforcement officers can carry 24/7 anywhere they may go, with few exceptions (like airlines, although some do allow it). Federal agents can generally, from what I have seen, carry on an airline.
True, when I visited Hawaii a couple of times in the past, have brought a work gun since Fed LEO's can fly armed. Regards of that, LEOSA applies anyway. Hawaii complains about it but they haven't prosecuted anyone for carrying under the act. Hawaii claims you must register your firearm with them, but they can't enforce that for a number of reason, here are 3 off the top of my head...
1. LEOSA permits short barreled rifles and shotguns, Hawaii can't compel registration since they can't register short barreled long arms in HI.
2. What Hawaii calls "assault pistols" are legal under federal law, therefore, they are legal for LEOSA carry.
3. Hawaii prohibits some classes of people from possessing firearms, yet some of the provisions conflict with LEOSA and are null and void since they are legal under LEOSA and federal law.
-
True, when I visited Hawaii a couple of times in the past, have brought a work gun since Fed LEO's can fly armed. Regards of that, LEOSA applies anyway. Hawaii complains about it but they haven't prosecuted anyone for carrying under the act. Hawaii claims you must register your firearm with them, but they can't enforce that for a number of reason, here are 3 off the top of my head...
1. LEOSA permits short barreled rifles and shotguns, Hawaii can't compel registration since they can't register short barreled long arms in HI.
2. What Hawaii calls "assault pistols" are legal under federal law, therefore, they are legal for LEOSA carry.
3. Hawaii prohibits some classes of people from possessing firearms, yet some of the provisions conflict with LEOSA and are null and void since they are legal under LEOSA and federal law.
I would think Hawaii's 10 round limit for handgun magazines would be a factor as well.
-
True, when I visited Hawaii a couple of times in the past, have brought a work gun since Fed LEO's can fly armed. Regards of that, LEOSA applies anyway. Hawaii complains about it but they haven't prosecuted anyone for carrying under the act. Hawaii claims you must register your firearm with them, but they can't enforce that for a number of reason, here are 3 off the top of my head...
1. LEOSA permits short barreled rifles and shotguns, Hawaii can't compel registration since they can't register short barreled long arms in HI.
2. What Hawaii calls "assault pistols" are legal under federal law, therefore, they are legal for LEOSA carry.
3. Hawaii prohibits some classes of people from possessing firearms, yet some of the provisions conflict with LEOSA and are null and void since they are legal under LEOSA and federal law.
You are only exempt where the law exempts you. LEOSA does not exempt you if it's not a duty issued gun, and required for duty.
-
You are only exempt where the law exempts you. LEOSA does not exempt you if it's not a duty issued gun, and required for duty.
Chris,
This is incorrect. LEOSA applies to "concealed firearms" except for machine guns, suppressors, or destructive devices.
18 USC 926(b) requires that you be authorized to carry "a firearm" in the course of employment.
This is why Federal Bureau of Prison Officers can carry off duty. They only qualify with shotguns (rifles depending on position) ;however, since they meet the requirement of qualifying, they can carry any firearm concealed off duty except for machineguns, silencers, or destructive devices.
This was tested in the Drew Peterson case. One if his charges was possessing a short barrled shotgun (illegal in Illinois), the state had to drop that charge because LEOSA allowed him to carry short barrled firearms.
-
I would think Hawaii's 10 round limit for handgun magazines would be a factor as well.
This has never been litigated. No one knows what would happen; however, legislative intent would be brought into questions and one of the failed amendments for LEOSA back in 2004 was to not cover 10+ round mags, and it failed.
Secondly, it is probable that the same logic of People v Gale (California) would prevail. This case said magazines are a core component of a firearm and are inclusive with a firearm.
But no one knows what would happen. My work pistol holds 12 rounds and I've carried that in Hawaii. For my personal guns. I would not bring a standard capacity mag to Hawaii until this issue is sorted out.
I do want to bring one pistol to Hawaii and register it since that would count as being "licensed" to possess. This way I would be exempt from the federal gun free schools act.
-
Chris,
This is incorrect. LEOSA applies to "concealed firearms" except for machine guns, suppressors, or destructive devices.
18 USC 926(b) requires that you be authorized to carry "a firearm" in the course of employment.
This is why Federal Bureau of Prison Officers can carry off duty. They only qualify with shotguns (rifles depending on position) ;however, since they meet the requirement of qualifying, they can carry any firearm concealed off duty except for machineguns, silencers, or destructive devices.
I'm not sure how we got to mixing a police officer being issued a gun in the course of duty, with off-duty carry under a federal law. As an officer, in IL, he was exempt from their law. What's that got to do with Federal Law? He didn't mount a federal defense.
Who is letting BoP carry off-duty? I don't really see where they have the statutory powers of arrest, which is a required element for the federal statute. Further, they are supposed to qualify with the gun they are carrying -- sounds like someone is getting a hookup lol!
-
Found their powers:
http://www.handgunlaw.us/documents/FBOP-LEOSAMemo.pdf (http://www.handgunlaw.us/documents/FBOP-LEOSAMemo.pdf)
From what I can tell though, nothing would exempt you from restrictions on firearms etc., unless it was issued by the agency. My CA friends say that they are not allowed to have restricted guns regardless of their status.
-
Found their powers:
http://www.handgunlaw.us/documents/FBOP-LEOSAMemo.pdf (http://www.handgunlaw.us/documents/FBOP-LEOSAMemo.pdf)
From what I can tell though, nothing would exempt you from restrictions on firearms etc., unless it was issued by the agency. My CA friends say that they are not allowed to have restricted guns regardless of their status.
Can you point me to what section of 18 USC 926(b) says that it must be agency issued?
Being that Federal Prisons are not issued handguns and their agency does not "allow" them to carry, yet they still have been able to carry after court rulings out of New York, after rulings by the MSBP, and after a DOJ memo was released.
LEOSA expert Steve McMannion testified at the Drew Peterson case. He was not allowed to possess a short barrled shotgun under Illinois law, not even as a cop except for limited on duty exemptions, yet they had to drop the gun charge because LEOSA allows for short barrled rifles and shotguns to be carried.
You're CA friends appear to be wrong (this is why it's never wise to ask a cop about the law :) ). I recommend they download Steve McMannion's seminar materials from his website for $10 found at www.hr218leosa.com (http://www.hr218leosa.com)
-
I'm not sure how we got to mixing a police officer being issued a gun in the course of duty, with off-duty carry under a federal law. As an officer, in IL, he was exempt from their law. What's that got to do with Federal Law? He didn't mount a federal defense.
I addressed the Peterson case in the comment above. LEOSA expert attorney Steve McMannion testified and forced the state to drop their SBR charge against him due to LEOSA. If you are interested, you can read about it here at this link
http://legalpublication.blogspot.com/2008/06/should-drew-peterson-move-to-dismiss.html (http://legalpublication.blogspot.com/2008/06/should-drew-peterson-move-to-dismiss.html)
Who is letting BoP carry off-duty? I don't really see where they have the statutory powers of arrest, which is a required element for the federal statute. Further, they are supposed to qualify with the gun they are carrying -- sounds like someone is getting a hookup lol!
BOP has arrest authority under 18 USC 3050.
No one has to qualify with the gun they are carrying. 926c requires qualifying with a firearm "of the same type". 926b has blanket coverage if "authorized to carry a firearm".... "a firearm" means any firearm and not "a firearm they are authorized to carry"
-
Can you point me to what section of 18 USC 926(b) says that it must be agency issued?
Being that Federal Prisons are not issued handguns and their agency does not "allow" them to carry, yet they still have been able to carry after court rulings out of New York, after rulings by the MSBP, and after a DOJ memo was released.
LEOSA expert Steve McMannion testified at the Drew Peterson case. He was not allowed to possess a short barrled shotgun under Illinois law, not even as a cop except for limited on duty exemptions, yet they had to drop the gun charge because LEOSA allows for short barrled rifles and shotguns to be carried.
You're CA friends appear to be wrong (this is why it's never wise to ask a cop about the law :) ). I recommend they download Steve McMannion's seminar materials from his website for $10 found at www.hr218leosa.com (http://www.hr218leosa.com)
He had an AR-15 according to the five different reports I have read at this point. So from what I am seeing he didn't get out from the LEOSA act, he got out because he was a SWAT member and was issued a gun? I'm trying to see where LEOSA saved the Day, but I am having difficulty finding it? Do you know where this short barrel shotgun being presented, or was it a rifle?
re my CA friends wrong: I don't speak to police officers about the law (generally, and I didn't here); I consult with individuals who defend people wrongly arrested for gun crimes, leaders in other 2A groups, and more specifically "firearm" attorneys. I want nothing more than to be able to tell people when they travel (LEO etc.) that they can bring whatever guns they want to Hawaii, but I know this is not the truth for CA/NJ. Cops in CA are supposed to have bullet buttons on their AR-15's if they are not running them featureless, unless it's a duty gun (and then it doesn't matter).
re agency issued: 134-1/2/3/8 etc. doesn't apply to anything issued by a federal agency.
1. LEOSA permits short barreled rifles and shotguns, Hawaii can't compel registration since they can't register short barreled long arms in HI.
They can. As 134-8 does not apply to many individuals who would have them. That doesn't mean though, if you are retired and have LEO status, that you can have a SBR / Shotgun, or do not register. All firearms have to be registered if they are not property of a federal agency (134-8). You are not exempt from that, as the LEOSA only applies to carrying. If you are retired, you can't come into Hawaii carrying 11+ round magazines. I mean hell, New York mistakenly prohibited all magazines over seven rounds lol!
2. What Hawaii calls "assault pistols" are legal under federal law, therefore, they are legal for LEOSA carry.
Assault pistols are excluded from law enforcement under 134-8 (through exemptions), so none of that applies if they are LEO.
3. Hawaii prohibits some classes of people from possessing firearms, yet some of the provisions conflict with LEOSA and are null and void since they are legal under LEOSA and federal law.
This from what I can tell has never been litigated. But I could certainly see a resident alien or american national challenging it. Not because it is void under LEOSA, but because it's void under other parts of the constitution (14th Amendment).
Much of this falls into the area where the State likely doesn't want to enforce it, nor do they care. Doesn't do them much good to be seen going around arresting Law enforcement, and most boys in blue - won't arrest their out of state counterparts. Additionally, most people don't understand the law, pre-emption, or any other legal stuff, and guys will just say "Federal law says i can do this!" And then the officers are like, "Well.... uh... yeah fuck this I got better stuff to do!"
-
He had an AR-15 according to the five different reports I have read at this point. So from what I am seeing he didn't get out from the LEOSA act, he got out because he was a SWAT member and was issued a gun? I'm trying to see where LEOSA saved the Day, but I am having difficulty finding it? Do you know where this short barrel shotgun being presented, or was it a rifle?
re my CA friends wrong: I don't speak to police officers about the law (generally, and I didn't here); I consult with individuals who defend people wrongly arrested for gun crimes, leaders in other 2A groups, and more specifically "firearm" attorneys. I want nothing more than to be able to tell people when they travel (LEO etc.) that they can bring whatever guns they want to Hawaii, but I know this is not the truth for CA/NJ. Cops in CA are supposed to have bullet buttons on their AR-15's if they are not running them featureless, unless it's a duty gun (and then it doesn't matter).
re agency issued: 134-2 / 3 etc. doesn't apply to anything issued by a federal agency.
They can. As 134-8 does not apply to many individuals who would have them. That doesn't mean though, if you are retired and have LEO status, that you can have a SBR / Shotgun, or do not register. All firearms have to be registered if they are not property of a federal agency (134-8). You are not exempt from that, as the LEOSA only applies to carrying. If you are retired, you can't come into Hawaii carrying 11+ round magazines. I mean hell, New York mistakenly prohibited all magazines over seven rounds lol!
Assault pistols are excluded from law enforcement under 134-8 (through exemptions), so none of that applies if they are LEO.
3. Hawaii prohibits some classes of people from possessing firearms, yet some of the provisions conflict with LEOSA and are null and void since they are legal under LEOSA and federal law.
This from what I can tell has never been litigated. But I could certainly see a resident alien or american national challenging it. Not because it is void under LEOSA, but because it's void under other parts of the constitution (14th Amendment).
Much of this falls into the area where the State likely doesn't want to enforce it, nor do they care. Doesn't do them much good to be seen going around arresting Law enforcement, and most boys in blue - won't arrest their out of state counterparts. Additionally, most people don't understand the law, pre-emption, or any other legal stuff, and guys will just say "Federal law says i can do this!" And then the officers are like, "Well.... uh... yeah fuck this I got better stuff to do!"
The nuances of Hawaii law provide for many exemptions; however, there are still preempted factors.
For example, my agency hires at 18 years of age. Hawaii can't register a gun for anyone under 21.
New York requires pistol registration and there is no way for a non-resident to do so, yet even they admit LEOSA trumpts that. In fact, coast guard members and Federal Prison members have beat every charge of not having a NY Pistol license.
I agree that the magazine issue is unclear due to a lack of litigation. Even California admits that non residents can bring "assault weapons" into the state under LEOSA. Same for the Taurus Judge (legal firearm under federal law but banned in CA for being a "short barrled shotgun").
One Calguns member is an Arizona Deputy who brings a short barrled rifle into California, he even got the ATF to sign of on his Form 10 because he explained to them that it's a LEOSA covered firearm.
When I'm retired, I will be sure to qualify with an AR style rifle and a pump action shotgun as well as with pistols and revolvers so they are LEOSA compliant. Hopefully by then mag restrictions will be shot down in court.
Check your PM.
-
For example, my agency hires at 18 years of age. Hawaii can't register a gun for anyone under 21.
The age requirement is only in 134-2(permit to acquire), not 134-3 (registration). So this makes me wonder since I'm not sure what would happen if say a service member or other individual moved here and brought a gun. They don't (or shouldn't) have meet 134-2 since they already possess it.
-
Move to the appropriate place or start a new thread on this if warranted.
So why doesn't FOPA make state registration illegal?
From Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986
“No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment [emphasis added] 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 dispositions be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary's 1+ authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation.”
One could only hope they would follow this reasoning...
A February 1982 report by a Senate subcommittee that studied the Second Amendment concluded:
"The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner."
-
Move to the appropriate place or start a new thread on this if warranted.
So why doesn't FOPA make state registration illegal?
From Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986
“No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment [emphasis added] 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 dispositions be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary's 1+ authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation.”
One could only hope they would follow this reasoning...
A February 1982 report by a Senate subcommittee that studied the Second Amendment concluded:
"The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner."
Been a while since I read FOPA, but it only applied to Federal records and I couldn't find anything in there which made it apply to the States. The Federal government cannot give firearms records to the States is what the quoted section means. Nothing says the State cannot create and store their own records. There are constitutional limits on what the Federal Government can force State Governments to do. CCW Reciprocity law is one of those things that is made by stretching laws to get around constitutional limits on the Federal Government.
-
So does one need to become a cop to ccw legally in Hawaii?
Yep, all my cop friends carry off duty. Gym shorts, holster sagging them, printing like crazy. My mom who is a retired sheriff also carried when she traveled.
-
Been a while since I read FOPA, but it only applied to Federal records and I couldn't find anything in there which made it apply to the States. The Federal government cannot give State's firearms records is what the quoted section means. Nothing says the State cannot create and store their own records. There are constitutional limits on what the Federal Government can force State Governments to do. CCW Reciprocity law is one of those things that is made possibly by stretching laws to get around constitutional limits on the Federal Government.
For me and my limited brainpower :shake:, I took the or any State or any political subdivision thereof portion to mean that States could not enact registration schemes after the date of enactment (1986). The same FOPA allows residents from any state to purchase long guns in any other state (as long as the purchased firearm is legal in the residents state). By that same vein, if states or municipalities had a practice in place prior to the FOPA enactment, it would remain valid until repealed. I learned that while back in Vegas and the Clark County "Blue Cards" (registration) were legal as that was in effect from the 1940's thus legal. Glad they repealed that and the 3 day waiting period for handguns.
-
Why is it that everyone pro gunnignores the first line of FOPA
(a) The Attorney General may prescribe only such rules and regulations as are necessary to carry out the provisions of this chapter, including—
As long as the AG is not telling the state to make a registration. The states are free to make their own
-
Why is it that everyone pro gunnignores the first line of FOPA
(a) The Attorney General may prescribe only such rules and regulations as are necessary to carry out the provisions of this chapter, including—
As long as the AG is not telling the state to make a registration. The states are free to make their own
Actually the states are not allowed to make their own, they are specifically prohibited from making one. Now they can ban classes of firearms, calibers and so on, but they cannot make any registration scheme after May 19, 1986, UNLESS, they already had one in place. Did Hawaii have gun registration in place by law prior to that date? If yes then we are just SOL and will have to live with it. If not, then we have standing to contest it along with any other violation of FOPA. But just as NYC violates FOPA, its difficult to fight the man with deep pockets and holds the key to the jail cells.
Please educate me if I am incorrect.
:shaka:
Entire section -
§ 926. Rules and regulations
(a) The Attorney General may prescribe only such rules and regulations as are necessary to carry out the provisions of this chapter, including—
(1) regulations providing that a person licensed under this chapter, when dealing with another person so licensed, shall provide such other licensed person a certified copy of this license;
(2) regulations providing for the issuance, at a reasonable cost, to a person licensed under this chapter, of certified copies of his license for use as provided under regulations issued under paragraph (1) of this subsection; and (3) regulations providing for effective receipt and secure storage of firearms relinquished by or seized from persons described in subsection (d)( 8 ) or (g)( 8 ) of section 922.
No such rule or regulation prescribed 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 dispositions be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary’s 1 authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation.
{This paragraph defines the limits of rules and regulations of 926(a) for registration and is stand alone, not a subsection of this or any other paragraph}
(b) The Attorney General shall give not less than ninety days public notice, and shall afford interested parties opportunity for hearing, before prescribing such rules and regulations.
(c) The Attorney General shall not prescribe rules or regulations that require purchasers of black powder under the exemption provided in section 845(a)(5) of this title to complete affidavits or forms attesting to that exemption.
(Added Pub. L. 90–351, title IV, § 902, June 19, 1968, 82 Stat. 234; amended Pub. L. 90–618, title I, § 102, Oct. 22, 1968, 82 Stat. 1226; Pub. L. 99–308, § 106, May 19, 1986, 100 Stat. 459; Pub. L. 103–322, title XI, § 110401(d), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2015; Pub. L. 107–296, title XI, § 1112(f)(6), Nov. 25, 2002, 116 Stat. 2276.)
REFERENCES IN TEXT
The date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act, referred to in subsec. (a), is the date of enactment of Pub. L. 99–308, which was approved May 19, 1986.
AMENDMENTS
2002—Subsecs. (a) to (c). Pub. L. 107–296 substituted ‘‘Attorney General’’ for ‘‘Secretary’’.
1994—Subsec. (a)(3). Pub. L. 103–322 added par. (3).
1986—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 99–308, § 106(1)–(4), designated existing provision as subsec. (a), and in subsec. (a) as so designated, in provision preceding par. (1) substituted ‘‘may prescribe only’’ for ‘‘may prescribe’’ and ‘‘as are’’ for ‘‘as he deems reasonably’’, and in closing provision substituted provision that no rule or regulation prescribed after May 19, 1986, require that records required under this chapter be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or political subdivision thereof, nor any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions be established and that nothing in this section expand or restrict the authority of the Secretary to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation for provision that the Secretary give reasonable public notice, and afford an opportunity for a hearing, prior to prescribing rules and regulations. Subsecs. (b), (c). Pub. L. 99–308, § 106(5), added subsecs. (b) and (c).
-
So does one need to become a cop to ccw legally in Hawaii?
Basically.
There was a case a few years ago where a Hawaii businessman resident shot someone in stadium park. Turned out he had some type pf reserve status as an officer in another state even though he wasn't an active police officer.
-
Actually the states are not allowed to make their own, they are specifically prohibited from making one. Now they can ban classes of firearms, calibers and so on, but they cannot make any registration scheme after May 19, 1986, UNLESS, they already had one in place. Did Hawaii have gun registration in place by law prior to that date? If yes then we are just SOL and will have to live with it. If not, then we have standing to contest it along with any other violation of FOPA. But just as NYC violates FOPA, its difficult to fight the man with deep pockets and holds the key to the jail cells.
Please educate me if I am incorrect.
:shaka:
Entire section -
§ 926. Rules and regulations
(a) The Attorney General may prescribe only such rules and regulations as are necessary to carry out the provisions of this chapter, including—
(1) regulations providing that a person licensed under this chapter, when dealing with another person so licensed, shall provide such other licensed person a certified copy of this license;
(2) regulations providing for the issuance, at a reasonable cost, to a person licensed under this chapter, of certified copies of his license for use as provided under regulations issued under paragraph (1) of this subsection; and (3) regulations providing for effective receipt and secure storage of firearms relinquished by or seized from persons described in subsection (d)( 8 ) or (g)( 8 ) of section 922.
No such rule or regulation prescribed 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 dispositions be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary’s 1 authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation.
{This paragraph defines the limits of rules and regulations of 926(a) for registration and is stand alone, not a subsection of this or any other paragraph}
(b) The Attorney General shall give not less than ninety days public notice, and shall afford interested parties opportunity for hearing, before prescribing such rules and regulations.
(c) The Attorney General shall not prescribe rules or regulations that require purchasers of black powder under the exemption provided in section 845(a)(5) of this title to complete affidavits or forms attesting to that exemption.
(Added Pub. L. 90–351, title IV, § 902, June 19, 1968, 82 Stat. 234; amended Pub. L. 90–618, title I, § 102, Oct. 22, 1968, 82 Stat. 1226; Pub. L. 99–308, § 106, May 19, 1986, 100 Stat. 459; Pub. L. 103–322, title XI, § 110401(d), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2015; Pub. L. 107–296, title XI, § 1112(f)(6), Nov. 25, 2002, 116 Stat. 2276.)
REFERENCES IN TEXT
The date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act, referred to in subsec. (a), is the date of enactment of Pub. L. 99–308, which was approved May 19, 1986.
AMENDMENTS
2002—Subsecs. (a) to (c). Pub. L. 107–296 substituted ‘‘Attorney General’’ for ‘‘Secretary’’.
1994—Subsec. (a)(3). Pub. L. 103–322 added par. (3).
1986—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 99–308, § 106(1)–(4), designated existing provision as subsec. (a), and in subsec. (a) as so designated, in provision preceding par. (1) substituted ‘‘may prescribe only’’ for ‘‘may prescribe’’ and ‘‘as are’’ for ‘‘as he deems reasonably’’, and in closing provision substituted provision that no rule or regulation prescribed after May 19, 1986, require that records required under this chapter be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or political subdivision thereof, nor any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions be established and that nothing in this section expand or restrict the authority of the Secretary to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation for provision that the Secretary give reasonable public notice, and afford an opportunity for a hearing, prior to prescribing rules and regulations. Subsecs. (b), (c). Pub. L. 99–308, § 106(5), added subsecs. (b) and (c).
I don't fully understand legal notes on laws but here is the Hawaii state law on this.
https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol03_Ch0121-0200D/HRS0134/HRS_0134-0003.htm
On the bottom notes it says
[L 1988, c 275, pt of §2; am L 1994, c 204, §4; am L 1999, c 217, §2; am L 2007, c 9, §7; am L 2013, c 254, §2; am L 2016, c 108, §3]
If 1988 is the oldest date mentioned under this law does that mean this is when it was first passed? It might be that the state started it after the 1986 year mentioned in the federal law.
Unless maybe there was some law prior that already required registration?
-
I think London808 explained it clearly.
-
I think London808 explained it clearly.
I explained it how my lawyer explained it to me.
-
I explained it how my lawyer explained it to me.
I understand what it says but the Federal Government is prohibited from making a registry. Rapback and the state using that as a defacto registry at the Federal level needs to be challenged.
-
I understand what it says but the Federal Government is prohibited from making a registry. Rapback and the state using that as a defacto registry at the Federal level needs to be challenged.
The problem is that unless the AG ordered them to do so then its not a violation of FOPA.
-
The problem is that unless the AG ordered them to do so then its not a violation of FOPA.
I would see it as a violation of the federal statute of creating a owners list at the federal level.
Hawaii fine. Federalno.
Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk