Is your company registered?

Maybe I missed it but which language would cover the registrations?

Here's the excerpt from SB2954:

SECTION 3.  Section 134-3, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is amended as follows:
     1.  By amending subsection (a) to read:
     "(a)  Every person arriving in the State who brings or by any other manner causes to be brought into the State a firearm of any description, whether usable or unusable, serviceable or unserviceable, modern or antique, shall register the firearm within five days after arrival of the person or of the firearm, whichever arrives later, with the chief of police of the county of the person's place of business or, if there is no place of business, the person's residence or, if there is neither a place of business nor residence, the person's place of sojourn.  A nonresident alien may bring firearms not otherwise prohibited by law into the State for a continuous period not to exceed ninety days; provided that the person meets the registration requirement of this section and the person possesses:
     (1)  A valid Hawaii hunting license procured under chapter 183D, part II, or a commercial or private shooting preserve permit issued pursuant to section 183D-34;

     (2)  A written document indicating the person has been invited to the State to shoot on private land; or

     (3)  Written notification from a firing range or target shooting business indicating that the person will actually engage in target shooting.

The nonresident alien shall be limited to a nontransferable registration of not more than ten firearms for the purpose of the above activities.
     Every person registering a firearm under this subsection shall be fingerprinted and photographed by the police department of the county of registration; provided that this requirement shall be waived where fingerprints and photographs are already on file with the police department.  The police department shall perform an inquiry on the person by using the [National Instant Criminal Background Check System] International Justice and Public Safety Network, including the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement query, the National Crime Information Center, and the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, pursuant to section 846-2.7 before any determination to register a firearm is made."
 
    2.  By amending subsection (b) to read:
     "(b)  Every person who acquires a firearm pursuant to section 134-2 shall register the firearm in the manner prescribed by this section within five days of acquisition.  The registration shall be on forms prescribed by the attorney general, which shall be uniform throughout the State, and shall include the following information:  name of the manufacturer and importer; model; type of action; caliber or gauge; serial number; and source from which receipt was obtained, including the name and address of the prior registrant.  If the firearm has no serial number, the permit number shall be entered in the space provided for the serial number, and the permit number shall be engraved upon the receiver portion of the firearm prior to registration.  All registration data that would identify the individual registering the firearm by name or address shall be confidential and shall not be disclosed to anyone, except as may be required [for]:
    (1)  For processing the registration [or as may be required by];

     (2)  For database management by the Hawaii criminal justice data center;

     (3)  By a law enforcement agency for the lawful performance of its duties; or [as may be required by]

     (4)  By order of a court."

     3.  By amending subsection (e) to read:
     "(e)  No fee shall be charged for the registration of a firearm under this section, except for a fee chargeable by and payable to the registering county for persons registering a firearm under subsection (a), in an amount equal to the fee [actually] charged by the [Federal Bureau of Investigation to the registering police department for a fingerprint check in connection with the registration.] Hawaii criminal justice data center pursuant to section 846-2.7.  In the case of a joint registration, the fee provided for in this section may be charged to each person."

NOTE:  i got a little lazy with the ramseyer, but you get the point.  i provided references and links to the law in the post you quoted.

The $13 is not for fingerpringing, that's the fee charged by the FBI for enrollment into rapback,

The HRD now says the fee is set by the HCJDC, and the law works them to charge a fee that is resonabel, so cost + processing costs (employee time, equipment maintainer ect....) $42 is actually lower then the the expected rate which was over $60

yes, i understand that the fee for the FBI fingerprinting is a different fee from the FBI fee for enrollment into rap back.  the statute previously said that the only fee required was a one-time fee equal to the amount actually charged by the FBI for fingerprinting (which i think was like $14 or $16).  that language has since been removed.

under the revised HRS section, the fee owed is equal to the amount charged by the HCJDC for the HCJDC's processing of requests.  the problem is that I'm not really sure what the $42 fee is comprised of.  I could guess at what things might be summed together to result in a $42 fee, but i don't have any more information than that.

I think that it would be ultra vires for the HCJDC to charge fees in excess of the fees listed in the HAR that i had previously provided a link for.  like i said earlier, HRS §846-2.7 is partially an enabling statute, but the HCJDC fees must still be set and noticed ("notice" in this case means legal notice) through HAR.  in other words, the HCJDC can charge those fees, or a combination of those fees listed in the HAR, but they can't start charging "processing costs" on a whim, and without first amending the HAR to reflect the same.

this is probably my fault for not saying this right off the bat, but the point that i've been trying to make this whole time is that this new law is pretty much a tax, and there doesn't seem to be any exceptions to it.

it has been famously said that "the power to tax is the power to destroy."  i can't think of a whole lot of other rights recognized under the Bill of Rights that are regularly taxed.  as an example, can you imagine the public uproar if the government required permitting and registration fees (or taxes) for exercise of the first amendment rights (e.g. freedom of speech, or the freedom of association)?  generally i can understand the rationale behind requiring registration, but taxation probably crosses the threshold into the realm of being unconstitutional.

edit:  i should probably add that this fee/tax has many other implications.  for example, think of the fees that are associated with the judiciary system (e.g. court fees).  when indigent parties want to access the court system, the Constitution requires that they be provided access.  so if an indigent person is below a certain threshold, that person's court fees will be waived.  in some sense this acts to increase the accessibility for all individuals regardless of their financial situation.

as a parallel back to our topic at hand, there doesn't seem to be exceptions to the HCJDC fees.  because of this, i would argue that the State has effectively made firearm ownership only available to the "rich" and, therefore, indigent persons have a clear financial barrier.  given that SCOTUS has recognized the Second Amendment as an individual right, and subsequently incorporated it though the Fourteenth, any kind of state taxation would probably be a clear infringement of that right.

of course you could argue that $42 isn't that much money at all, but money is valued differently to different people.  obviously "value" has some correlation to socio-economic status, but there is also some correlation to an individual's percentage of Pake blood.

Thank you for the analysis.  Where does the " for individuals applying for their first permit " come into play.  I know that the fee is probably a combination of certain fees charged by the HCJDC for background checks and research, however that quoted line has nothing to do with that fee.

Also, didn't see the reference that says that you need to pay that fee for registrations, since you already have a permit in hand, your back ground has already been checked, thus you are legal to own and posses a firearm.  I can see this might be a case for out of state firearms registrations, but I am speaking example persons that have a complete and valid rifle, or pistol,  permit from the city already in hand.

Just trying to understand.

the HCJDC fee is also under subsection (e) of HRS 134-3

Here's a link to the section, but note that, as of the time of this post, they haven't updated the website to reflect the change:  http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol03_Ch0121-0200D/HRS0134/HRS_0134-0003.htm

subsection (e) of HRS §134-3 was amended as follows:

subsection (e) to read:
     "(e)  No fee shall be charged for the registration of a firearm under this section, except for a fee chargeable by and payable to the registering county for persons registering a firearm under subsection (a), in an amount equal to the fee [actually] charged by the [Federal Bureau of Investigation to the registering police department for a fingerprint check in connection with the registration.] Hawaii criminal justice data center pursuant to section 846-2.7.  In the case of a joint registration, the fee provided for in this section may be charged to each person."


so going back to my earlier point, this seems more like a tax than anything else.  and the worst part about it is, the language could be interpreted to require the payment of the $42 fee for registration of EVERY gun, in which case it would definitely be a tax.

"(i)  No fee shall be charged for permits, or applications for permits, under this section, except for a single fee chargeable by and payable to the issuing county, for individuals applying for their first permit, in an amount equal to the fee [actually] charged by the [Federal Bureau of Investigation to the issuing police department for a fingerprint check in connection with that application or permit.] Hawaii criminal justice data center pursuant to section 846-2.7."

IF you already have a permit, why do you have to pay?

if you're wondering why you have to pay, it is because of the "under this section" clause.  the "reasonable fee" language is located in HRS §846-2.7

Question:  When is the Rap Back $42 fee charged?  is it charged when someone (1) applies for a handgun permit to acquire, (2) picks up the handgun permit to acquire, or (3) at the time of registration?

Not sure about that tg load in 308, but it's not uncommon for vintage rifle shooters to use pistol powder in rifle cartridges using cast lead bullets.
The usual method is to drop the powder and place a tuft of kapok in the shell to keep the miniscule powder charge pressed up to the primer.

Maybe that subsonic reduced load was for a suppressed bolt gun.

I didn't know that kapok was a good filler. That's some good info.

Macsak, you're not going to back me up here? We need to convince him that an HK VP9 is so much better than a Glock

The "However it makes an exemption for a self-defense use (legally justified)" would fall under  a different HRS  §703-304  Use of force in self-protection.

Also remember law enforcement have to abide by the same laws too, so if it was the case they would be charged with reckless endangering too.

while it is true that there is an exemption for the use of force (including deadly force) in a self-defense situation, the section you cited doesn't expressly allow for the use of firearms for self defense.  in other words, the term "deadly force" can apply to other means, such as knives or a baseball bat.  it's a little absurd when you think about it because this is basically like saying, "if someone shoots at you, you're welcome to throw as many knives as you want at them, but you aren't allowed to shoot back without criminal liability."

yes, it is true that law enforcement must play play similar rules however the law allows for exceptions where they are acting within their duty.

note that we are absolutely liable for every projectile that leaves the barrel of our firearms
and that any projectile that leaves our property is reckless endangering

i don't mean to argue with you Macsak, but i think you meant to say that intentionally discharging a firearm in a populated area (other than a target range) is reckless endangering, regardless of the circumstances.