Alright, so let’s have some fun, with a question:  Are you allowed to carry, display or use a unloaded pistol in Hawaii, for any reason?

A link to the statutes is here.

Let us start first with the relevant carry portion of Hawai’i law.  HRS § 134-9 states:  (c)  No person shall carry concealed or unconcealed on the person a pistol or revolver without being licensed to do so under this section or in compliance with sections 134-5(c) or 134-25.

So we know,  just from reading this, that unless we have a concealed firearms permit, are in compliance with section 134-25 or 134-5(c), or have some sort of other statutory exemption – we cannot.

As of right now we are prohibited from carrying, because we don't have a license. So let us see if any relief is granted from 5-(c).
HRS 134-5 (c) states:

 

A person may carry unconcealed and use a lawfully acquired pistol or revolver while actually engaged in hunting game mammals, if that pistol or revolver and its suitable ammunition are acceptable for hunting by rules adopted pursuant to section 183D-3 and if that person is licensed pursuant to part II of chapter 183D.  The pistol or revolver may be transported in an enclosed container, as defined in section 134-25 in the course of going to and from the place of the hunt, notwithstanding section 134-26. (134-26 does not apply, as it relates to possession of a loaded firearm on a public highway -FT)
 

So we now know, that under 134-5(c), we must:

• be engaged in hunting;
• have acceptable ammunition; and
• be licensed in accordance with 183D-3.

In part 134-5(a) there is an exemption that removes the requirement for a permit – if the person is target shooting. However, it appears part (A) only applies to rifle and shotguns for target shooting – not pistols.

Moving on. HRS 134-25, the second exemption to carrying a concealed or unconcealed firearm, states the following:

   a)  Except as provided in sections 134-5 and 134-9, all firearms shall be confined to the possessor's place of business, residence, or sojourn; provided that it shall be lawful to carry unloaded firearms in an enclosed container from the place of purchase to the purchaser's place of business, residence, or sojourn, or between these places upon change of place of business, residence, or sojourn, or between these places and the following:

(2)  A target range;

So we know that, we should confine it to our business, residence or sojourn. However, it is lawful to carry a firearm in an enclosed container – from and to one of the previously mentioned areas.

Section (b) of this statute states:

Any person violating this section by carrying or possessing a loaded or unloaded pistol or revolver shall be guilty of a class B felony. [L 2006, c 66, pt of §1].

There are no other relevant statutes that would provide any exemptions to these policies.

Can a person shoot on a target range, carry a gun in a holster, or utilize a pistol for target shooting?

Can 134-25 be read to allow you to un-case, handle, or carry those handguns once you have reached the destinations that you are allowed to carry in-between?

Can you even carry a loaded firearm within your home?

I fixed your links. That's why it shows I edited your post.

One of the questions that always bothered me was what constitutes a "place of sojourn"?

After reading your post, I feel like I'm part of a jury and you just convinced me that it is not legal to carry a loaded pistol or revolver anywhere except hunting. As IANAL, the wording in those statutes (134-23, 24, and 25) always seem very confusing. What are other peoples' thoughts?

One of the questions that always bothered me was what constitutes a "place of sojourn"?

TLDR version:  A physical structure where you stay over night.

“Place of sojourn” was defined in the instruction given to the jury as “a place to live temporarily as on a visit;  place to stay for a while.”   “Residence” was not defined in the instructions.   After jury deliberations began, the jury foreperson forwarded Jury Communication No. 1, consisting of the following two questions, to the trial judge:  (1) “What is the legal definition of residence?” and (2) “Can a vehicle legally be considered a sojourn or residence?”   In response to the two questions, the trial judge and counsel had the following discussion:

[THE COURT]:  The Court has discussed this with the attorneys.

And, [Mr. Prosecutor], what was your proposed response?

[PROSECUTOR]:  That as far as jury question number one, the legal definition of residence, that we cannot provide them with one.   Only a dictionary definition.

As to the second question, ․ which was can a-

THE COURT:-Vehicle legally be considered a sojourn or residence?

[PROSECUTOR]:  And that's in the context of Chapter 134, or the place to keep statutes.   It cannot be considered.   A vehicle cannot be considered a residence or place of sojourn.   And that's based on not only analysis of the different sections in Chapter 134, but also on Section 291C-112 8 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes, which prohibits persons from using any vehicle for purposes of human habitation, including dwelling place, living abode or sleeping place. And also State v. Sturch, 82 Hawai‘i 269, 921 P.2nd [sic] 1170, Appellate 1996[,]nterpreted Section 291C-112.

THE COURT:  [Defense Counsel].

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]:  I think we have already hashed this out and I agreed with the Court's instruction that it is going to give.

THE COURT:  All right.   I believe that we cannot legally define “residence,” there having been no instruction offered on what “residence” is.   The only instruction is defendant's requested instruction residence, implying something more than mere physical presence, less than something-less than domicile.   Residence is not synonymous with domicile.   And while a person may have more than one residence, that person may have one legal domicile.

The Court refused that as argument.   Other than that, no instruction was offered or suggested by the Court to be given, and I do not think we can now legally define residence for them, unless everybody agrees that a dictionary “residence” definition goes in, which not all parties are agreeing.

As to the second question, can a vehicle legally be considered a sojourn or residence.   The Court believes that the jury is asking the Court to decide, you know, an issue before them.   So it declines to do so.   What the Court's response will be is, “Please refer to all of the jury instructions that you have received in this case.”   Okay?

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]:  Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT:  All right.   I'm going to send that in.   I have signed it, dated it, and it's now 2:41 p.m.

(Footnote added.)

  It was for the court, not counsel, to instruct the jury regarding the law applicable to the facts of the case.  Hawaii Rules of Evidence Rule 1102;  State v. Hatori, 92 Hawai‘i 217, 220, 990 P.2d 115, 118 (App.1999).   The circuit court invited the prosecutor to submit a jury instruction that “it's against the law to be living in a car with your guns” when the circuit court sustained defense counsel's objection to the prosecutor's question to Detective Dadez on this issue.   The prosecutor did not submit such an instruction and only belatedly suggested one by referring to HRS § 291C-112 in response to the jury's question on whether a vehicle would be legally considered a sojourn or residence.

 The prosecutor's argument, however, was not an incorrect statement of law, as in State v. Mahoe, 89 Hawai‘i 284, 290, 972 P.2d 287, 293 (1998).9  As such, the prosecutor's statements that “a car cannot be a residence” and “it is against the law to live in a car” did not “seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings” arising to the level of plain error.  Vanstory, 91 Hawai‘i at 42, 979 P.2d at 1068.   Additionally, we conclude Martins' claim of ineffectiveness of counsel on this point is without merit.   Martins has not met his burden of demonstrating that his counsel's failure to object to the prosecutor's comments “resulted in the withdrawal or substantial impairment of a potentially meritorious defense.”  Briones, 74 Haw. at 462-63, 848 P.2d at 976.

Is there a blanket law or legislation, on federal or local levels, that would immunize a private citizen on private property in regards to carrying a firearm?

What about other states that we assume is legal to carry in their home, despite stringent carry laws? Do they have a legislation that specifically states a person CAN carry unrestrictedly in his own home?

How is free speech handled regarding public and private settings. I once read somewhere that if you wish to exercise your 1st amendment in a certain way in a certain places in public, you'd have to acquire a permit first. I assume you don't need a permit to do the same style of speaking when conducting it in your private home or private property.
 
Everything in the OP points to absolutely no carry unless licensed and/or hunting. You cannot carry concealed or unconcealed without a license, period. What about the "open carrying" that happens during shooting matches on a public range?
 
There must be some sort of legislation covering the "unconcealed carrying" that happens on the matches, and maybe we can stumble on the legislation covering the "concealed or unconcealed carrying on the person" on private property too. Otherwise.....people are in for some shit.

Is there a blanket law or legislation, on federal or local levels, that would immunize a private citizen on private property in regards to carrying a firearm?

What about other states that we assume is legal to carry in their home, despite stringent carry laws? Do they have a legislation that specifically states a person CAN carry unrestrictedly in his own home?

How is free speech handled regarding public and private settings. I once read somewhere that if you wish to exercise your 1st amendment in a certain way in a certain places in public, you'd have to acquire a permit first. I assume you don't need a permit to do the same style of speaking when conducting it in your private home or private property.
 
Everything in the OP points to absolutely no carry unless licensed and/or hunting. You cannot carry concealed or unconcealed without a license, period. What about the "open carrying" that happens during shooting matches on a public range?
 
There must be some sort of legislation covering the "unconcealed carrying" that happens on the matches, and maybe we can stumble on the legislation covering the "concealed or unconcealed carrying on the person" on private property too. Otherwise.....people are in for some shit.

Heller would protect us carrying in the home. That doesn't mean that the law says it would be illegal (which could allow it to be struck down). 

The 1st amendment can be subjected to reasonable time place and manner restrictions, yes some permits can be required -- and other times... *hint* *hint* they can not.

Re: open carrying during a match -- How do you read the above? I know how I read it -- and I don't like it, which is why I posted it.  I wanted to get lots more eyes on this issue, as I was doing this at like 6am ;p.

*snip from HRS-134*
 
§134-5  Possession by licensed hunters and minors; target shooting; game hunting.  (a)  Any person of the age of sixteen years, or over or any person under the age of sixteen years while accompanied by an adult, may carry and use any lawfully acquired rifle or shotgun and suitable ammunition while actually engaged in hunting or target shooting or while going to and from the place of hunting or target shooting; provided that the person has procured a hunting license under chapter 183D, part II.  A hunting license shall not be required for persons engaged in target shooting.
 
(b)  A permit shall not be required when any lawfully acquired firearm is lent to a person, including a minor, upon a target range or similar facility for purposes of target shooting; provided that the period of the loan does not exceed the time in which the person actually engages in target shooting upon the premises.
 
     (c)  A person may carry unconcealed and use a lawfully acquired pistol or revolver while actually engaged in hunting game mammals, if that pistol or revolver and its suitable ammunition are acceptable for hunting by rules adopted pursuant to section 183D-3 and if that person is licensed pursuant to part II of chapter 183D.  The pistol or revolver may be transported in an enclosed container, as defined in section 134-25 in the course of going to and from the place of the hunt, notwithstanding section 134-26.
 
As you said, 134-5(c) clearly and glaringly leaves out "or target shooting" after "hunting game mammals", while 134-5(a) states you can carry (unspecified carry method) and use both a rifle or shotgun while hunting or taget shooting. Also made apparent, you can't legally hunt birds with a pistol or revolver. lol.
 
What this reads is that you may carry and use a long-rifle for hunting and target shooting. You may carry unconcealed and use a pistol for hunting. You may not "carry unconcealed and use" a pistol or revolver for target shooting.
 
134-9(c)
     Â§134-9  Licenses to carry.  (a)  In an exceptional case, when an applicant shows reason to fear injury to the applicant's person or property, the chief of police of the appropriate county may grant a license to an applicant who is a citizen of the United States of the age of twenty-one years or more or to a duly accredited official representative of a foreign nation of the age of twenty-one years or more to carry a pistol or revolver and ammunition therefor concealed on the person within the county where the license is granted.  Where the urgency or the need has been sufficiently indicated, the respective chief of police may grant to an applicant of good moral character who is a citizen of the United States of the age of twenty-one years or more, is engaged in the protection of life and property, and is not prohibited under section 134-7 from the ownership or possession of a firearm, a license to carry a pistol or revolver and ammunition therefor unconcealed on the person within the county where the license is granted.  The chief of police of the appropriate county, or the chief's designated representative, shall perform an inquiry on an applicant by using the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, to include a check of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement databases where the applicant is not a citizen of the United States, before any determination to grant a license is made.  Unless renewed, the license shall expire one year from the date of issue.
(b)  The chief of police of each county shall adopt procedures to require that any person granted a license to carry a concealed weapon on the person shall:
(1)  Be qualified to use the firearm in a safe manner;
(2)  Appear to be a suitable person to be so licensed;
(3)  Not be prohibited under section 134-7 from the ownership or possession of a firearm; and
(4)  Not have been adjudged insane or not appear to be mentally deranged.
   (c)  No person shall carry concealed or unconcealed on the person a pistol or revolver without being licensed to do so under this section or in compliance with sections 134-5(c) or 134-25.
   (d)  A fee of $10 shall be charged for each license and shall be deposited in the treasury of the county in which the license is granted.
 
134-25 = [§134-25]  Place to keep pistol or revolver; penalty.
Except as provided in sections 134-5 and 134-9, all firearms shall be confined to the possessor's place of business, residence, or sojourn; provided that it shall be lawful to carry unloaded firearms in an enclosed container from the place of purchase to the purchaser's place of business, residence, or sojourn, or between these places upon change of place of business, residence, or sojourn, or between these places and the following:
The first line of it renders this statute irrelevant in this discussion in my opinion.
 
*edit* my bigger fonts didn't work

134-25 does basically become irrelevant; I just wanted to show that you could carry between X and X, only while it was encased.

So yeah -- I think that if you carrying, openly or concealed, or shooting a pistol (if you are not licensed under 134-9 and/or hunting game mammals) it may be a felony offense as the law is written.

Can a person shoot on a target range, carry a gun in a holster, or utilize a pistol for target shooting?

[§134-25]  Place to keep pistol or revolver; penalty.  (a)  Except as provided in sections 134-5 and 134-9, all firearms shall be confined to the possessor's place of business, residence, or sojourn; provided that it shall be lawful to carry unloaded firearms in an enclosed container from the place of purchase to the purchaser's place of business, residence, or sojourn, or between these places upon change of place of business, residence, or sojourn, or between these places and the following:

     (1)  A place of repair;

     (2)  A target range;

     (3)  A licensed dealer's place of business;

     (4)  An organized, scheduled firearms show or exhibit;

     (5)  A place of formal hunter or firearm use training or instruction; or

     (6)  A police station.

     "Enclosed container" means a rigidly constructed receptacle, or a commercially manufactured gun case, or the equivalent thereof that completely encloses the firearm.

If you read the bold faced words, this Bill is specifying places where you can "keep" a firearm.  It specifies where legally, a firearm is allowed to exist.  Personally, I think an "existence" law is  BETTER than having a "discharge" law.  Think about it, if there was such a law, there would be only three places listed: shooting ranges, hunting grounds and within your home during the rare instance of a Castle self-defense situation.  The way the law is written now, Everyday Gun Owner is on his way to the shooting range, to the gun shop, to his place of sojourn, to the police station, to the gun show, or coming back from any of those locations.   He is accosted by criminals, his life is in danger, he loads his weapon and fires in self defense.   Has he broken the law by uncasing and loading his firearm?  It's debatable. Would a decent lawyer be able to establish a strong enough self-defense case to negate those charges?  Probably.  If we had a law specifying where specifically firearms may be discharged, it becomes pretty black and white.   

Knife laws are written the same way.  The knife laws specify what types of knives are illegal.  It never specifies where it is illegal to use, because the question is always, why and in what context.   

Can 134-25 be read to allow you to un-case, handle, or carry those handguns once you have reached the destinations that you are allowed to carry in-between?

Well that's just common sense.  Again, HRS 134-5 is specifying where firearms are allowed to exist.  Firearms are allowed to be handled, carried, uncased and loaded in any of the places specified.  Drill holes in it and turn it into a flute.  put it under that wobbly leg of your coffee table.  Use it to stir your cake batter.  Hammer nails with it.  The law only stipulates that going between any of those lawful locations it needs to be unloaded and in a case:

…provided that it shall be lawful to carry unloaded firearms in an enclosed container from the place of purchase to the purchaser's place of business,

In a nutshell, this bill is saying, firearms are okay to exist in place A, B and C.  In between those places, it needs to be unloaded and in a case.  That is all.  At any of those allowed locations, it doesn’t specify the condition of the firearm, whether it is loaded or unloaded, whether people can touch it or if it can be displayed.  This is a GOOD thing that grants firearm owners freedom.   

Can you even carry a loaded firearm within your home?

Until a Bill comes along that says specifically “Firearms may not be carried loaded in the home,” yes, you can, because HRS 134-25 specifically states that firearms are allowed to exist in the home. 

Well that's just common sense.  Again, HRS 134-5 is specifying where firearms are allowed to exist.  Firearms are allowed to be handled, carried, uncased and loaded in any of the places specified.  Drill holes in it and turn it into a flute.  Use it to prop up that wobbly leg on your coffee table.  Hammer nails with it.  The law only stipulates that going between any of those lawful locations it needs to be in a case:

Quote

…provided that it shall be lawful to carry unloaded firearms in an enclosed container from the place of purchase to the purchaser's place of business,

In a nutshell, this bill is saying, guns are okay place A, B and C.  In between those places, it needs to be in a case.  That is all.  It doesn’t specify the condition of the firearm, whether it is loaded or unloaded, whether people can touch it or if you have it mounted on your wall.  This is a GOOD thing that grants firearm owners freedom.   

Doesn't it say "unloaded"?

^ unloaded while being transported between locations.  I edited my post to clarify. 

Antithesis, keep is not the same as bear, which why we had Heller.  A person could keep his gun in his house unloaded and locked, he was *never* allowed to carry a firearm in the home in DC.

Section B of 134-5 also provides: Any person violating this section by carrying or possessing a loaded or unloaded pistol or revolver shall be guilty of a class B felony. [L 2006, c 66, pt of §1].
So that appears to be your law saying you can't. 

You would have to take a look at 134-6, and then onto 134-25/26 to see they added section B specifically, and then repealed the lawful possession in your home, residence and sojourn.  One might feel that I am being frivolous, but we don't have the benefit of lots of case law, and are left with taking things at face value (exactly how they read).

I have a few friends that will probably look at this over the next few days, but it certainly is not as cut and dry as we would think. (which could be very good... or very bad!)  This type of situation would be quite similar to Ezell v. Chicago, where the city banned gun ranges.  They couldn't require training and ban ranges. Additionally, the court said if people have a right to possess, then they have a right to practice (subject to limitations). You could see, if you are prohibited from doing target practice with a pistol, and you are not allowed to carry in your home (Unless you have a permit from 134-9) well, they better be giving us those damn permits....


(Statements on Ezell were made during oral arguments, decision should be soon!)

I'm still having a hard time being convinced that there isn't some underlying statute, a precursor statute, or just something we're not getting that would render the above as mistranslated regarding carrying and even using firearms.

If carrying and using a pistol for target shooting truly isn't sanctioned as a legal act, then they can't possibly be allowing us to use pistols for target shooting.

I keep thinking there's got to be something we're missing, but IANAL.

It's not in the State laws, and city couldn't exempt you from state -- so you don't need to get into the HOR, HAR etc. Nothing is illegal until they say it is, that section (b) of 134-25 is what concerns me.  It wasn't there before, and is the one sentence difference between the old 134-6, and the current 134-25/26.  They split ammunition into a diff statute, and added the felony for possession of loaded or unloaded pistols.  Why? I don't know, that also plays into what a law really means.

One of the main guys at CGF just looked it over and concurred with my train of thought on this.

One of the projects I was thinking of doing was researching the history of HRS 134. The changes are annoted with the dates so looking up wouldn't be too difficult. The problem I ran into was I'd have to physically go down and look up all the records myself.

I was curious to see when the most changes occurred and what the statutes looked like at a prior date. HRS 134-25 was one I was interested in along with the "assault pistols."