I KNOW that no one participating in this forum does anything illegal, but this is just in case one of us happens to know someone who might even think about it... probably best to disarm before the ambulance arrives. My question re this case is: if he was picked up in his home by the ambulance personnel (the article vaguely implies by "transported" that perhaps it was by ambulance rather than a private vehicle...), where he would have been legally armed... especially if he was incapacitated in some way either mentally or physically... how liable is he for "inadvertently" carrying outside his home when he didn't do so "of his own volition"? Just asking. I know that obviously the cops who arrested and charged him view him as guilty, but I mean in terms of a legal defense in court.

Man charged with firearm offenses after having two loaded handguns at hospital

A 56-year-old Kurtistown man is in police custody charged today, (April 4), with a variety of firearm offenses.

Hawaiʻi Island Police arrested Randolph Lee Yates after he was transported to the hospital on a medical issue, and found to be in possession of two loaded handguns.

As part of the protocol at the hospital security personnel utilized a metal detector commonly referred to as a “wand” to check Yates. During the check, security personnel were alerted to the potential of a large metal object. A safety check was performed that lead to the discovery of two loaded handguns. One of the handguns was found to have the serial numbers that identify the gun to be scratched off the weapon.

Police, after conferring with the office of the prosecuting attorney, charged the man with two counts of altering of identification marks, two counts of registration mandatory, permit to acquire, place to keep a firearm, two counts carrying or possessing a loaded firearm on a public highway.

Yates is being held on $13,500.00 bail pending a court appearance tomorrow, (April 5).

Each case is going to have its own nuances and circumstances.

In this one, they charged him for not having applied for permits and not registering, but not being a prohibited possessor.

The other charges of "place to keep" and "loaded firearm on a public highway" are easy to beat if he was transported without having a chance to leave them at home.  Intentions have to be considered in finding guilt.

Also, if it's discovered he's not eligible to possess firearms, he can skate on the permit and registration charges. The Supreme Court ruled that the state can't force someone who can't legally own a gun to register them due to their 5th amendment rights to not incriminate oneself.

And, while they charged him with "place to keep," they didn't get him for violating the "Licenses to Carry" statute. I wonder if that's because they know it's unconstitutional?

Removing the serial number seems like the sketchiest issue. Stolen firearm?

He's obviously not attempting to comply with the state's gun laws.  Groveler?   

Agree with Flapp.  The places to keep was probably an add on charge due to scratching off the serial numbers.

The problem would be getting your legal guns back if you're not in RAPBACK.  Does 1 have to enroll to get their confiscated property returned to them?

Also it's always a good idea to not leave anything questionable lying around.  If the police come into your home for what ever reason (shit happens), anything in sight can be subject to review.  They are not allowed to open a safe if the call doesn't warrant it (probable cause).  Not that anyone here has anything of question.

Reminds me of the NY magazine case.  Guy is employed to armor car service and allowed to carry more than 7 rounds in his mag while working.  He was going home (done with work) and got pulled over.  Cop was checking his gun and ammo into evidence and he had a standard mag topped off.  He was charged for each round over 7.  Now he probably did this a lot, but got caught this time due to what ever reason why he got pulled over.

Each case is going to have its own nuances and circumstances.

In this one, they charged him for not having applied for permits and not registering, but not being a prohibited possessor.

The other charges of "place to keep" and "loaded firearm on a public highway" are easy to beat if he was transported without having a chance to leave them at home.  Intentions have to be considered in finding guilt.

Also, if it's discovered he's not eligible to possess firearms, he can skate on the permit and registration charges. The Supreme Court ruled that the state can't force someone who can't legally own a gun to register them due to their 5th amendment rights to not incriminate oneself.

And, while they charged him with "place to keep," they didn't get him for violating the "Licenses to Carry" statute. I wonder if that's because they know it's unconstitutional?

Removing the serial number seems like the sketchiest issue. Stolen firearm?

He's obviously not attempting to comply with the state's gun laws.  Groveler?   

Dang! I did not think anybody outside of BI people read my comments!
It wasn't me and I'm pretty sure it is a federal offense to grind off serial
numbers which I would never do.  I have this thing about stolen guns as
my father lost quite a few in a burglary.  I lost all of mine when I  was drunk
and gambling one night a while back.  When I want to go bird hunting, my cousin
in Idaho Fed exes  me one I left with him. I ship it back after the weekend.
Hawaii laws FU!

Each case is going to have its own nuances and circumstances.

In this one, they charged him for not having applied for permits and not registering, but not being a prohibited possessor.

The other charges of "place to keep" and "loaded firearm on a public highway" are easy to beat if he was transported without having a chance to leave them at home.  Intentions have to be considered in finding guilt.

Also, if it's discovered he's not eligible to possess firearms, he can skate on the permit and registration charges. The Supreme Court ruled that the state can't force someone who can't legally own a gun to register them due to their 5th amendment rights to not incriminate oneself.

And, while they charged him with "place to keep," they didn't get him for violating the "Licenses to Carry" statute. I wonder if that's because they know it's unconstitutional?

Removing the serial number seems like the sketchiest issue. Stolen firearm?

He's obviously not attempting to comply with the state's gun laws.  Groveler?   

If he got them in state without a permit he can skate on the registration one as well. 

Also remember jury nullification.  If I was on the jury I'd consider what the constitution says for this case, not made up state laws