http://hawaiirifleassociation.org/hawaii-gun-laws/
RECKLESS ENDANGERING
Discharging a firearm toward a populated area or on or toward a street or road is reckless endangering. This can apply to private ranges, plinking, negligent discharges, and self-defense use.
i actually mis-stated the first one:
The owner of a firearm is “absolutely” liable for personal injury or property damage caused by the discharge of he firearm unless the firearm was stolen and reasonably reported stolen, or unless the discharge of the firearm was legally justified.
same source
macsak, if you want a better source, refer to HRS §707-714(1)(b)
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol14_Ch0701-0853/HRS0707/HRS_0707-0714.htm§707-714 Reckless endangering in the second degree.
(1) A person commits the offense of reckless endangering in the second degree if the person:
(a) ...
(b) Intentionally discharges a firearm in a populated area, in a residential area, or within the boundaries or in the direction of any road, street, or highway; provided that the provisions of this paragraph shall not apply to any person who discharges a firearm upon a target range for the purpose of the target shooting done in compliance with all laws and regulations applicable thereto.
Wow that law is stupid as fuck. So if some dudes tries to kill me if I shoot him and save my life and my families life I will automatically get charged with reckless endangerment? Lose my gun rights and become a criminal? Unless of course I like on a 50 acre farm with no streets or populated areas?
you won't automatically get charged with Reckless Endangering 2nd, but you could be charged with it. if you get a chance, read state v. martins, 106 haw. 62, 101 p.3d 671 (ICA 2004). there is some discussion in there as to the sufficiency of the evidence for a jury to decide whether an area is "populated" for the purpose of Reckless 2nd. the case relies on an older version of the statute, but the older version is almost identical to the current version quoted above.
That's why this is a crazy scenario.
Guy riddling your house with gunfire from the driveway or sidewalk and pretty much no way to return fire without endangering neighbors.
reckless endangering 2nd has nothing to do with whether you are actually endangering neighbors. Although you are likely endangering them if you are firing in the direction of houses or streets (707-714(1)(a)), the other part of the "or" makes the shooter criminally liable (707-714(1)(b)).
Sounds like a common sense law to me. You are responsible for every shot that leaves the barrel. However it makes an exemption for a self-defense use (legally justified), though the exemption isn't unlimited like if you spray and pray. So you are protected from being charged criminally. Law enforcement have to follow these laws too.
On the civil side, if you have a negligent discharge at your home or shoot an errant round or riccochete at the range, and it hits me a half-mile away, I'm going to sue you. If it's a self-defense situation and you miss the bad guy and hit me, I'm going to sue you...at least to pay for the hospital bill and incapacitation. Also why Koko Head range needs improvements to fix the safety risks.
Training and safety are very important and most people don't realize they are undertrained for situations like this. You can't just spray bullets in a self-defense situation and put your life ahead of other innocent people. And just because you can return fire doesn't necessarily mean you should.
Basically for self-defense situations you have nothing to gain, but everything to lose.
i don't think that the legal affirmative defense of self defense is available for this. it may be available as a defense to a homicide charge, but not for reckless endangering 2nd. defense counsel may try to argue that the discharge of the firearm may not have been "intentional," but there's almost no way that a defense counsel would win that battle.
"intentionally" is a legal term of art and it refers to the purposefulness of the action. in this case, i think "intentionally" refers to the discharge of the firearm. in other words, imagine a prosecutor asking, "[Defendant], when you pulled the trigger of the firearm, did you know that the firearm would discharge a round? Did you intend to discharge a round by pulling the trigger?"
"intentionally" has nothing to do with whether you were hoping that you would hit your intended target.