Honolulu Police Department, whom we are trying to avoid at all costs, because they are not supposed to give legal advice or interpretations of the law to people.

HPD gives legal advice all the time but that aside when there is  a gray area a lot of people don't want to give a solid yes or no, they don't want to have to explain their actions or get in trouble if someone does not like their decision. If you try to get a solid answer you will probably find people telling you to contact some other office. The question could bounce back and forth between HPD and the prosecutors since prosecutors get to decide whether to press charges but the police department is supposed to be the experts on firearms. I have not seen this button in person so it is hard to give a professional opinion but there is definitely potential for it to be denied depending on how easy it is to detach the non detachable magazine.

Patrol officers do have to face decisions in gray areas quite often and have to interpret the law and enforce it correctly. Consider this real life scenario. The legislature passes a law that is actually unconstitutional, police arrest for it, and prosecutors  prosecute for it. The arrested person then appeals and some higher court says that the law was unconstitutional to begin with and should not have been made or enforced. The legislature is immune and so is the prosecutors. The police however are not and can be sued. So the legislators and prosecutors can tell the police the law is good to go but officers without legal degrees are still supposed to somehow recognize that the law should not be enforced since it is unconstitutional.  Therefore I would argue that police officers absolutely have to interpret the law and when someone asks about a law I try to explain it in detail and not just tell them the plain wording. If I tell someone the justifications for using deadly force but do not elaborate this person may use it in such a way that the prosecutors will go after them for it they get screwed.

A responsible officer, if presented with a questionable circumstance with no immediate answer, should not arrest but document. I do not think that HPD would arrest you if you showed up trying to register the weapon, at least I would not but I am not a supervisor. You might have a grumpy officer who hates guns tell you no but then have a pro gun officer who tells you yes.

The ruger 10/22 charger pistol is technically an assault pistol but it slipped through the cracks for a while. Did someone at the firearms dept know it filled the definition technically but allow it since in truth the assault pistol ban was not meant to combat such a firearm, or were they just not paying attention? I am not sure how that one happened.

HPD gives legal advice all the time but that aside when there is  a gray area a lot of people don't want to give a solid yes or no, they don't want to have to explain their actions or get in trouble if someone does not like their decision. If you try to get a solid answer you will probably find people telling you to contact some other office. The question could bounce back and forth between HPD and the prosecutors since prosecutors get to decide whether to press charges but the police department is supposed to be the experts on firearms. I have not seen this button in person so it is hard to give a professional opinion but there is definitely potential for it to be denied depending on how easy it is to detach the non detachable magazine.

Patrol officers do have to face decisions in gray areas quite often and have to interpret the law and enforce it correctly. Consider this real life scenario. The legislature passes a law that is actually unconstitutional, police arrest for it, and prosecutors  prosecute for it. The arrested person then appeals and some higher court says that the law was unconstitutional to begin with and should not have been made or enforced. The legislature is immune and so is the prosecutors. The police however are not and can be sued. So the legislators and prosecutors can tell the police the law is good to go but officers without legal degrees are still supposed to somehow recognize that the law should not be enforced since it is unconstitutional.  Therefore I would argue that police officers absolutely have to interpret the law and when someone asks about a law I try to explain it in detail and not just tell them the plain wording. If I tell someone the justifications for using deadly force but do not elaborate this person may use it in such a way that the prosecutors will go after them for it they get screwed.

A responsible officer, if presented with a questionable circumstance with no immediate answer, should not arrest but document. I do not think that HPD would arrest you if you showed up trying to register the weapon, at least I would not but I am not a supervisor. You might have a grumpy officer who hates guns tell you no but then have a pro gun officer who tells you yes.

The ruger 10/22 charger pistol is technically an assault pistol but it slipped through the cracks for a while. Did someone at the firearms dept know it filled the definition technically but allow it since in truth the assault pistol ban was not meant to combat such a firearm, or were they just not paying attention? I am not sure how that one happened.

Most of the point you are missing is they are allowed to interpret the law, just like you, but they need to keep that interpretation to themselves.   If someone calls me asking for the "legalities of statute x" or if "xxxx situation is legal or authorized" my answer is I am not a lawyer, please contact one who is authorized to practice law.  Especially on something 'grey.'

Ruger 10/22 with certain features (i.e. titanium barrel) is legal. With other features, such as the cheap stock barrel it is not. One drops it below the 50 ounces, the other keeps it above it.

What would happen if I showed up from CA with my 4473 paperwork and tried to register it with my bullet button in and a 10 rounder? I'd let them fuss with it until they they said they can't get the magazine out of course.
But what's the worst case scenario? Would the keep it as evidence? Or let me send it back to CA?

What would happen if I showed up from CA with my 4473 paperwork and tried to register it with my bullet button in and a 10 rounder? I'd let them fuss with it until they they said they can't get the magazine out of course.
But what's the worst case scenario? Would the keep it as evidence? Or let me send it back to CA?

Well if you did something like that, please at least inform the gun rights groups who would need to help out afterwards so we can at least record it lol. You should have 30 days to surrender to an FFL, or they might be able to confiscate it there.

Send it home for now man, we are working very steady on this - it's not in the closet, it's not a 'shelved' project.  It's something we have been focusing on for almost four months.

WILCO. Any help you need, let me know. I recommend the CalGuns Foundation as they have fought this already.

Patrol officers do have to face decisions in gray areas quite often and have to interpret the law and enforce it correctly. Consider this real life scenario. The legislature passes a law that is actually unconstitutional, police arrest for it, and prosecutors  prosecute for it. The arrested person then appeals and some higher court says that the law was unconstitutional to begin with and should not have been made or enforced. The legislature is immune and so is the prosecutors. The police however are not and can be sued. So the legislators and prosecutors can tell the police the law is good to go but officers without legal degrees are still supposed to somehow recognize that the law should not be enforced since it is unconstitutional.  Therefore I would argue that police officers absolutely have to interpret the law and when someone asks about a law I try to explain it in detail and not just tell them the plain wording. If I tell someone the justifications for using deadly force but do not elaborate this person may use it in such a way that the prosecutors will go after them for it they get screwed.

You are incorrect. The police are immune from prosecution if they arrest someone who subsequently, thru legal action, has the law nullified for whatever reason. It's called Qualified Immunity and as long as the officer was acting as a reasonable, similarily situated officer would, and within the policies, procedures or common practice of that department, he cannot be sued.

Now, if an officer tried to arrest you for something he knew, or should have known, was unconstitutional or deemed invalid, then he could have a problem. And even at that, unless that indescretion raises to a high level, or is based on something like a civil rights violation, it is more likely than not that the employing agency will be sued rather than the officer in his individual capacity.

You are incorrect. The police are immune from prosecution if they arrest someone who subsequently, thru legal action, has the law nullified for whatever reason. It's called Qualified Immunity and as long as the officer was acting as a reasonable, similarily situated officer would, and within the policies, procedures or common practice of that department, he cannot be sued.

Now, if an officer tried to arrest you for something he knew, or should have known, was unconstitutional or deemed invalid, then he could have a problem. And even at that, unless that indescretion raises to a high level, or is based on something like a civil rights violation, it is more likely than not that the employing agency will be sued rather than the officer in his individual capacity.

Let me see if I can find the case to illustrate my example. Well I am not sure if I can find the specific instance but here is how it was explained to me about 6 years ago. A group was passing out religious flyers, I think they were Hare Krishnas. The city enacted a law outlawing the hand billing and someone was arrested and charged. The appeal went up and the person passing out flyer was acquitted, who then turned around and tried to sue but was only able to sue the police for violation of his civil rights. I wish I could find the specific case but I am not sure if I know which one it is at this point. The point was made that police are expected to know that you cannot arrest someone for a 1st amendment right even if the law said to and only they (police department) were liable. In truth this type of instance is not that common. Most cases of laws that have some flaws don't involve something as obvious or as serious as violating someone's constitutional rights.

However police are definitely not always immune just because they are doing their job in good faith. Some laws like good Samaritan laws do however protect police. Domestic violence laws here in Hawaii protect police officers from false arrest as long as they are doing their job in good faith because the law requires officers to arrest in certain situations, it actually takes away any discretion.

Qualified immunity does offer some protection but it is not a trump card, there is that clause of "reasonableness"

What would happen if I showed up from CA with my 4473 paperwork and tried to register it with my bullet button in and a 10 rounder? I'd let them fuss with it until they they said they can't get the magazine out of course.
But what's the worst case scenario? Would the keep it as evidence? Or let me send it back to CA?

You could always call the firearms division and ask. I am fairly certain with the amount of military members coming in firearms that are not legal in Hawaii are brought in and I do not believe they are confiscated immediately and the person arrested. A friend called them about an unregistered firearm he found in a closet that he got from his uncle. He was told that even though he is technically over the 2 day registration requirement they weren't going to catch him on it in that type of circumstance. Even if the laws here are unreasonable the people at the firearms department are not always so unreasonable.

I think they would make you attempt to sell it. Just call them and ask but be vague. Say something like you brought over a firearm with certain specifications that you discovered were illegal in Hawaii and ask what you have to do to correct it.

Most of the point you are missing is they are allowed to interpret the law, just like you, but they need to keep that interpretation to themselves.   If someone calls me asking for the "legalities of statute x" or if "xxxx situation is legal or authorized" my answer is I am not a lawyer, please contact one who is authorized to practice law.  Especially on something 'grey.'

I believe an officer could certainly be liable if he gave some obviously incorrect legal advice but I am not aware of anything that would prohibit an officer from giving an opinion on something that was not clearly spelled out.  I am trying to think of another example to compare to firearms laws but nothing with the same gray area is coming to mind. An officer definitely makes judgement calls which could sometimes be considered interpretation perhaps.

Nothing in state law defines a shotgun. Blue lights on non police vehicles are illegal but is purple too close? What is unreasonable noise? Etc.

Let me see if I can find the case to illustrate my example. Well I am not sure if I can find the specific instance but here is how it was explained to me about 6 years ago. A group was passing out religious flyers, I think they were Hare Krishnas. The city enacted a law outlawing the hand billing and someone was arrested and charged. The appeal went up and the person passing out flyer was acquitted, who then turned around and tried to sue but was only able to sue the police for violation of his civil rights. I wish I could find the specific case but I am not sure if I know which one it is at this point. The point was made that police are expected to know that you cannot arrest someone for a 1st amendment right even if the law said to and only they (police department) were liable. In truth this type of instance is not that common. Most cases of laws that have some flaws don't involve something as obvious or as serious as violating someone's constitutional rights.

However police are definitely not always immune just because they are doing their job in good faith. Some laws like good Samaritan laws do however protect police. Domestic violence laws here in Hawaii protect police officers from false arrest as long as they are doing their job in good faith because the law requires officers to arrest in certain situations, it actually takes away any discretion.

Qualified immunity does offer some protection but it is not a trump card, there is that clause of "reasonableness"

Please do. You state that an officer was "sued" but that lends little to your argument as anyone at anytime can be sued for anything. It is not the fact that you are sued, it is the fact that you did not have a judgement entered against you that really matters. I can sue you for painting you house green, but I would never prevail in court.

Here's the basic doctrine:

A public official performing a discretionary function enjoys qualified immunity in a civil
action for damages, provided his or her conduct does not violate clearly established federal statutory
or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457
U.S. 800, 818 (1982). The immunity is "immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability."
Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985).

Furthermore, an officer acting on advice of, in accordance with a superior or attorney is futher insulated from civil actions:

...the fact of the consultation and the purport of the advice obtained should be factored into the totality of the circumstances and considered in determining the officer's entitlement to qualified immunity. Whether advice obtained from a prosecutor prior to making an arrest fits into the totality of circumstances that appropriately inform the qualified immunity determination is a question of first impression in this circuit. In Suboh v. Dist. Atty's Office of Suffolk Dist., 298 F.3d 81 (1st Cir.2002), we noted the question but had no occasion to answer it. See id. at 97. In dictum, we implied that if an officer seeks counsel from a prosecutor anent the legality of an intended action and furnishes the latter the known information material to that decision, the officer's reliance on emergent advice might be relevant, for qualified immunity purposes, to the reasonableness of his later conduct. . .Other courts, however, have spoken authoritatively to the issue. [collecting circuit cases] . . . .We agree with our sister circuits and with the implication of the Suboh dictum that there is some room in the qualified immunity calculus for considering both the fact of a pre-arrest consultation and the purport of the advice received. As a matter of practice, the incorporation of these factors into the totality of the circumstances is consistent with an inquiry into the objective legal reasonableness of an officer's belief that probable cause supported an arrest. It stands to reason that if an officer makes a full presentation of the known facts to a competent prosecutor and receives a green light, the officer would have stronger reason to believe that probable cause existed. And as a matter of policy, it
makes eminently good sense, when time and circumstances permit, to encourage officers to obtain an informed opinion before charging ahead and making an arrest in uncertain circumstances. . . .

In the instance you cite (handing out flyers) the officer was probably convicted because he knew, or should have known, that such activities were Constutionally protected. That is where the "qualified" comes into play.

We caution, however, that the mere fact that an officer secures a favorable pre-arrest opinion from a friendly prosecutor does not automatically guarantee that qualified immunity will follow. Rather, that consultation comprises only one factor, among many, that enters into the totality of the circumstances relevant to the qualified immunity analysis. . . The primary focus continues to be the evidence about the suspect and the suspected crime that is within the officer's ken. In considering the relevance of an officer's pre-arrest consultation with a prosecutor, a reviewing court must determine whether the officer's reliance on the prosecutor's advice was objectively reasonable. . . Reliance would not satisfy this standard if an objectively reasonable officer would have cause to believe that the prosecutor's advice was flawed, off point, or otherwise untrustworthy. . . Law enforcement officers have an independent duty to exercise their professional judgment and can be brought to book for objectively
unreasonable mistakes regardless of whether another government official (say, a prosecutor or a magistrate) happens to compound the error. . .

In the vast majority of cases where officers use the Qualified Immunity defense, they are successful. That is not to say that all actions of the police are protected. As you say, there is a "reasonablness" standard, as well as other issues to be considered.

Cited material from:

SECTION 1983: QUALIFIED IMMUNITY
Karen M. Blum (kblum@suffolk.edu)
Suffolk University Law School
Research Date: February 1, 2006

http://www.njd.uscourts.gov/atty/3dCirqual06.pdf

"does not violate clearly established statutory...." could this be related to the description of an assault pistol with a mag lock?

"does not violate clearly established statutory...." could this be related to the description of an assault pistol with a mag lock?

I am not sure if you are asking this of me or not, but I really have no idea what you are asking...

What would happen if I showed up from CA with my 4473 paperwork and tried to register it with my bullet button in and a 10 rounder? I'd let them fuss with it until they they said they can't get the magazine out of course.
But what's the worst case scenario? Would the keep it as evidence? Or let me send it back to CA?

worst case scenario: They confiscate your firearm and arrest you for  importing an illegal firearm.

Probably won't happen like that, but it could....

Any news?

Any news?

The news is Hawaii is trying to ban guns and get rid of lots of shit. This is not a good time to bring up new things in regards to laws, or for us to go asking people to put these things in writing.  We won't be happy with the results.

Got it.

Got it.

Yeah it's a really bad time. Our senators are helping sponsor legislation, local politicians are on record on how civilians "don't need these magazines", and we are having under cover meetings to further gun control.  Our ice is thin right now lol.

Yeah here in CA we just fought the SB249. Yet another battle but the war isn't over. I'm still moving to HI in May 2013 so I'm trying to wait as long as I can before I sell my AR Pistols and what not.

Yeah here in CA we just fought the SB249. Yet another battle but the war isn't over. I'm still moving to HI in May 2013 so I'm trying to wait as long as I can before I sell my AR Pistols and what not.

Yeah.  My buddy Brandon Combs pretty much helped fight that whole thing there by forming the StopSB249 group and really hitting it hard on the grass roots.  It was this campaign, and more Senator Leeland Yee's gun ban efforts, that our politicians were helping support.  (Not just in CA, but on a Federal level as well).