In the article, "large-capacity magazines are banned".
It's worse than that. Standard capacity magazines are banned. 
My neutered PPQ magazines are hungry for more ammo!
1. Very few mainland businesses, news sources and "gun rights" writers get all the Hawaii laws correct. Who can blame them? What a pile of irrational illogical garbage. One site I looked at today listed (pages) of their disclaimers about shipping various kinds of items to various states. Hawaii included (amongst the laundry list of "assault pistols", etc.) no shipping "of magazines over 10 rounds". How many times have I seen that? Some will change their policy if you send them the actual law that states that that restriction only applies to handgun magazines. Some don't have the time to bother researching and don't want the liability so they keep the policy.
2. I brought up the issue of "standard capacity" with Senator Gabbard before last session when he agreed to submit a bill changing the handgun magazine capacity to greater than 10. He suggested 15, but I pointed out that many handguns (e.g. some Glocks) come with standard capacity magazines holding 17 rounds. One of my arguments was that some online sellers sell used "police trade-ins" at at very reasonable prices, making higher quality firearms more financially feasible for Hawaii residents. Those come with 17 round magazines and the sellers are usually not interested or able to substitute 10 round magazines, and if you don't get any magazines with the gun it's no longer a "bargain", as having to purchase new 10-round mags brings the price nearly up to that of a new gun. He agreed. 17 rounds it was. No committee chair would give it a hearing.
What do we expect from a state that argues in court that because Heller said "The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,
or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings", that that means that everywhere that the public may be, i.e. everywhere outside their home, may lawfully be ruled "sensitive" and therefore a ban on any kind of carry is constitutional. I'm not kidding. That's what they wrote.
The "other side" is off the rails too, given that the preceding sentence to the above is "For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues." Thus do NRA and SAF lawyers claim over and over again in court that a state can ban open carry in favor of concealed carry. And they wonder why they lose and then lose at asking for cert at SCOTUS?
End of rant. For now.
