All,

So I have searched for the term "silencer" on this site to clarify if the topic has already been debated.

According to {what I remember} Hawaii law, "Residents of Hawaii" are not legally allowed to own suppressors.  Roger that.  But when I fill out my form to not pay for my vehicle license plates, I'm considered a "Non-resident"... So if I'm a "non-resident", and there are no specific laws restricting "non-residents" from owning suppressors, why should I be restricted from owning one?
For clarification, I do own a suppressor, and the three threaded barrels for all three of my pistols, and I have been living on Oahu for a year.  But, I left my suppressor, three barrels, and several magazines back in the mainland.  And when I found out that the threaded barrels are technically legal (providing there aren't any more "features"), I was kinda pissed off that I was lied to.  Hell, when you get down to it, if you are a "legal resident" of Hawaii, but have a suppressor in another state, you're violating the Hawaii laws.. (remember, it doesn't specify that you CAN own one outside of Hawaii).  Just saying because military members are legally allowed to have more than one "legal residence", from what I remember --different than "home of record".

It seems pretty "convenient" that the law would recognize me as a non-resident for one law, but not the next. 

The only reason I bring this up, is that even in the $hitty state of California, you can legally own (and posses) an AR-15 that is considered "banned", but the caveat is that you must be a service-member stationed there, and also you must register the weapon annually (a $100 per weapon, annual fee), and you basically have to "store" it the whole time, never bringing it out.

It seems as though there's a "loophole"... nothing is specified for "non-residents". 
I am of course playing devil's advocate by asking, and also, I don't intend to, or have the money, to fight this legal process.

There should be an "exception to the rule" for military members, especially considering if the military requires a person to move here, and that their actual legal residence allows suppressors.  I personally would not have an issue with following a "registration" process that is unique to Hawaii, especially since the "permit" I have is a Federal one, which "should" be above the states rules.  The only issue there, is the old "they can add to, but not take away" bull$hit that actually doesn't make ANY sense whatsoever-- (I can't take $5 from you, but I can "add" a $5 charge... it's all in how you word it really).

Thanks for reading...

You cant have the suppressor in hawaii. Doesn't matter if you are a resident or not.

You may be able to have it when on base which is federal property but once you step outside those gates your just another joe blow with an illegal suppressor.

Let me add fuel to the fire, what if one was to become a resident to the Kingdom of Hawaii?  I see a few cars and trucks running around with these license plates.

I only brought the subject up, because from what I remember, the laws are written specifically for "residents of Hawaii"... so there technically IS a loophole, but of course, it would never work, because they would change it or claim that the "intention was for people that lived in Hawaii".  I am only making the point because there needs to be very specific writing in order to uphold a law.  If it's worded wrong, then it doesn't matter what was "intended", but only what's written.

Of course, I think that if you jump through the federal hoops, you should be able to have it.  Just like there should be a reciprocity for CCW's, and those should be given out, to those that qualify.

All,

So I have searched for the term "silencer" on this site to clarify if the topic has already been debated.

According to {what I remember} Hawaii law, "Residents of Hawaii" are not legally allowed to own suppressors.  Roger that.  But when I fill out my form to not pay for my vehicle license plates, I'm considered a "Non-resident"... So if I'm a "non-resident", and there are no specific laws restricting "non-residents" from owning suppressors, why should I be restricted from owning one?
For clarification, I do own a suppressor, and the three threaded barrels for all three of my pistols, and I have been living on Oahu for a year.  But, I left my suppressor, three barrels, and several magazines back in the mainland.  And when I found out that the threaded barrels are technically legal (providing there aren't any more "features"), I was kinda pissed off that I was lied to.  Hell, when you get down to it, if you are a "legal resident" of Hawaii, but have a suppressor in another state, you're violating the Hawaii laws.. (remember, it doesn't specify that you CAN own one outside of Hawaii).  Just saying because military members are legally allowed to have more than one "legal residence", from what I remember --different than "home of record".

It seems pretty "convenient" that the law would recognize me as a non-resident for one law, but not the next. 

The only reason I bring this up, is that even in the $hitty state of California, you can legally own (and posses) an AR-15 that is considered "banned", but the caveat is that you must be a service-member stationed there, and also you must register the weapon annually (a $100 per weapon, annual fee), and you basically have to "store" it the whole time, never bringing it out.

It seems as though there's a "loophole"... nothing is specified for "non-residents". 
I am of course playing devil's advocate by asking, and also, I don't intend to, or have the money, to fight this legal process.

There should be an "exception to the rule" for military members, especially considering if the military requires a person to move here, and that their actual legal residence allows suppressors.  I personally would not have an issue with following a "registration" process that is unique to Hawaii, especially since the "permit" I have is a Federal one, which "should" be above the states rules.  The only issue there, is the old "they can add to, but not take away" bull$hit that actually doesn't make ANY sense whatsoever-- (I can't take $5 from you, but I can "add" a $5 charge... it's all in how you word it really).

Thanks for reading...

Let me preface by stating I'm active duty Army with 22 years and have moved once or twice....

I get what you are saying to a certain extent, however dont believe that mlitary should be given special entitlements regarding state law.

We are non-residents for purposes of state taxation, not law. Just as you stated, you only have one home of record, but can can claim various states of residency as long as you meet the state requirements, again a state law. I see individuals doing this all the time for tax purposes ( Alaska comes to mind).

Federal laws are not meant to infringe on state laws. The form 4 you have makes your general possession of a surpressor legal( federal level), however not meant to trump state law and it won't.

Consider the flip side of your arguement; spice is legal in the state, but go ahead and smoke it while on active duty.

TRUST me I get your frustration and wish it would be simpler for military while moving, but its just the nature of the beast.

Look at it this way, there are sooo many more worse locations than Hawaii to be stationed.

Welcome to Hawaii and 2A

And good point about the "property"... yeah, technically, it couldn't even leave the airport (or what if I rented a permanent locker there!)
I wasn't even thinking of whether or not I was on a federal property or not...

Thanks for the replies.. and for the welcome to Hawaii.  Yes, this is a great duty station, (I really like my unit), and the weather is great.  I've managed to check off some "life-to do" boxes that I would never have been able to do.. for that I'm thankful.  You're right on the money about Federal/State regulations.. But you can see how frustrating it is, to say that state trumps federal, and I'm sure that there are "federal trumps state" scenarios too.
I'm just glad that I researched the laws before I moved; I'll keep my suppressor, (probably buy more too).

It doesn't matter anyway because your version of how the law is written is incorrect.

The law doesn't make any "resident" or "non-resident" references, only a general prohibition of said device.

§134-8  Ownership, etc., of automatic firearms, silencers, etc., prohibited; penalties. 
(a)  The manufacture, possession, sale, barter, trade, gift, transfer, or acquisition of any of the following is prohibited:  assault pistols, except as provided by section 134-4(e); automatic firearms; rifles with barrel lengths less than sixteen inches; shotguns with barrel lengths less than eighteen inches; cannons; mufflers, silencers, or devices for deadening or muffling the sound of discharged firearms

It doesn't matter anyway because your version of how the law is written is incorrect.

The law doesn't make any "resident" or "non-resident" references, only a general prohibition of said device.

§134-8  Ownership, etc., of automatic firearms, silencers, etc., prohibited; penalties.  (a)  The manufacture, possession, sale, barter, trade, gift, transfer, or acquisition of any of the following is prohibited:  assault pistols, except as provided by section 134-4(e); automatic firearms; rifles with barrel lengths less than sixteen inches; shotguns with barrel lengths less than eighteen inches; cannons; mufflers, silencers, or devices for deadening or muffling the sound of discharged firearms

But for those to be technically LEGAL (effective) it SHOULD say who it applies to... (otherwise, a resident of Arizona, who leaves their suppressor in AZ, visits Hawaii, is breaking the Hawaii law).  Because if it doesn't say who it applies to SPECIFICALLY, then it also doesn't say who it DOESN'T apply to, specifically.

A different example:  Blue lights that are not a piece of standard equipment on your vehicle is considered against the law here in HI.  The law says "upon your vehicle".. so with that vague wording, if I replace my car stereo, and the volume knob lights up blue, I'm in violation of the law.  It doesn't say "outside of vehicle", or "showing to the outside" or anything like that.. see what I mean?

But for those to be technically LEGAL (effective) it SHOULD say who it applies to... (otherwise, a resident of Arizona, who leaves their suppressor in AZ, visits Hawaii, is breaking the Hawaii law).  Because if it doesn't say who it applies to SPECIFICALLY, then it also doesn't say who it DOESN'T apply to, specifically.

Ok, so again based on "your interpretation" of the law, you are already guilty of a crime.

Please go immediately and turn yourself into your nearest police department for the appropriate punishment. 

Ok, so again based on "your interpretation" of the law, you are already guilty of a crime.

Please go immediately and turn yourself into your nearest police department for the appropriate punishment. 

I agree... LOL But I'm afraid that they would be too confused to understand the law.
I'm looking on the Hawaii Revised Statutes section to find the exact wording... specifically on who these laws apply to.  That would be the "smoking gun" that I'm referring to.

.

I agree... LOL But I'm afraid that they would be too confused to understand the law.
I'm looking on the Hawaii Revised Statutes section to find the exact wording... specifically on who these laws apply to.  That would be the "smoking gun" that I'm referring to.

If you have to think that much to justify your interpretation of the law, that normally means you are wrong.   

Our laws are poorly written, so you have to look for intent.  If you honestly believe the intent of the law as written is to apply only to people legally living here as "residents,"  why are there also similar rules for non-US-citizens living in Hawaii, visitors (place of sojourn), and people transitioning here?

The intent, in case you haven't guessed, is to discourage firearm ownership, to severely restrict how owners are allowed to use their firearms, and to outlaw ownership of specific types of guns, other weapons (stun guns), or accessories which the law makers deemed too dangerous for individual ownership or use.

If your interpretation fits that statement, then it is probably correct!   

If you have to think that much to justify your interpretation of the law, that normally means you are wrong.   

Our laws are poorly written, so you have to look for intent.  If you honestly believe the intent of the law as written is to apply only to people legally living here as "residents,"  why are there also similar rules for non-US-citizens living in Hawaii, visitors (place of sojourn), and people transitioning here?

The intent, in case you haven't guessed, is to discourage firearm ownership, to severely restrict how owners are allowed to use their firearms, and to outlaw ownership of specific types of guns, other weapons (stun guns), or accessories which the law makers deemed too dangerous for individual ownership or use.

If your interpretation fits that statement, then it is probably correct!   

Yup, I figured that out before I even left to come here!  I was originally thinking that there's no way a state would write a law so poorly written that it would not have included specific language as to identify residents vs. non-residents.  Like I said earlier, the Cali-gun law is at least honorable to those in uniform for their AR-15 rifles... In that retrospect, HI is worse than CA!

Personally, I would not test the law using possible "loop holes".   A felony is a serious offense and can affect you for the rest of your life.  I would not chance it.

Hey Pwrjunky. Look here bro, you are in hawaii, so i suggest you follow the rules PEPE. short barrel uppers you can get away, only if you don't weaponize it!!! Suppressor on the other hand!!! put it this way brother, " ill buy you a jumbo K Y jelly bottle and send it to you with a homemade shank, because you'll need it in FED PRISON!"

Before you all reply... re-read the FIRST post I read.. specifically the part where I said I don't intend to, nor have the money for legal reasons.  In addition, I also said I was asking as a devil's advocate..I wrote it to bring up a discussion of how the laws writing needs to be specific, and not so vague.

I already know, so I don't need anyone to keep saying "don't do it".. I'm already ahead of you all.  I'm only bringing it up to show that someone could read the way the law is written (the exact wording), and take it for what it literally means.  Because the law was written poorly, anybody that reads it could determine that they are not breaking the law, simply because of how poorly it's written.  But if someone were to do this, they would be in a world of hurt.

It's just frustrating to have my suppressor locked up, far far away.

most laws anywhere are vague..and subject to that slippery word "interpretation".I know someone who got a ticket for his alarm on his car for having a blue led blinking on his dash

Before you all reply... re-read the FIRST post I read.. specifically the part where I said I don't intend to, nor have the money for legal reasons.  In addition, I also said I was asking as a devil's advocate..I wrote it to bring up a discussion of how the laws writing needs to be specific, and not so vague.

I already know, so I don't need anyone to keep saying "don't do it".. I'm already ahead of you all.  I'm only bringing it up to show that someone could read the way the law is written (the exact wording), and take it for what it literally means.  Because the law was written poorly, anybody that reads it could determine that they are not breaking the law, simply because of how poorly it's written.  But if someone were to do this, they would be in a world of hurt.

It's just frustrating to have my suppressor locked up, far far away.

well Sir! If you already Know and claim that your ahead of us! Don't waste yours and OUR time with question you already know, I'm not trying to be a dick but were just trying to help you.