Makes no sense as the requirement is bullshit.

Buy a handgun out of state.move to Hawaii register it in Hawaii all good.  Try to buy another one but havent taken training in Hawaii. Get denied because some how owning another handgun after moving to Hawaii would make me irresponsible or dangerous ?

Have to take a 6 hour class about gun safety and actually fire a gun OR sit in a class room for 2 days listening about Hunting with a 20 minute talk on the parts of a firearm, Never actually handle or fire a gun : But it equates to the same thing

Spend 20 years in the military Handling Firearms. Retire and have to pay some one to train me on firearms use so i can own a handgun in Hawaii.

NRA certified instructor, Has to pay some one elese to certify himself so he can have an affidavit to prove hes knows what hes doing.

Never thought about it that way.  So NM, makes no sense...well as much sense as  a 30 clip magazine that can fire 900 rds a second.

Its not about making sense.
Its about making it more difficult for Hawaii citizens to exercise their 2A right to get a firearm.

Its much easier to buy alcohol and drive drunk.
Its much easier to run over a motorcyclist and run away.
Its much easier to get illegal aerial fireworks.

I went through the class last week and waiting for the cert in the mail. He was very particular about going over the Hawaii law and reviewed the document from HRA. Hopefully, it's mentioned in the cert he's sending me. It's specified in the law in (B) below.

(4) A firearms training or safety course or class conducted by a state certified or National Rifle Association certified firearms instructor or a certified military firearms instructor that provides, at a minimum, a total of at least two hours of firing training at a firing range and a total of at least four hours of classroom instruction, which may include a video, that focuses on:

(A) The safe use, handling, and storage of firearms and firearm safety in the home; and

(B) Education on the firearm laws of the State.

Called HPD Firearms department just now prior to posting this and requested to speak with an officer but ended up speaking with "Susie" or "Suzie" (not sure if she was an officer or another clerk) there and I cited this incident in question and she says she believes that individual that was rejected had a affidavit may have said: "Said class meets the state laws requirements" and NOT "Said class meets the HAWAII state laws requirements".

As of this morning an HPD firearms employee claims:

-Affidavit doesnt need to say "meets requirements for HRS 134"
-Affidavit will be acceptable long as affidavit says "meets the HAWAII state laws requirements ..."

***I assumed the Affidavit of Certified Firearms Education Course was a uniform document across the board for all NRA Certified Instructors in the State of Hawaii. If what this HPD firearms division employee is claiming is true, then I guess some instructors have some that just say "state laws" and doesn't specify what state its referring to.

Again, don't "shoot the messenger" here just passing along what HPD, on behalf of this employee" is claiming as of today 01/06/2017 as of a phone conversation at 7:47 am HST.

Thanks for the info and confirming. I was worried this was a new requirement.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think HPD firearms is flipping us the bird and giving us more hassle.

I think HPD firearms is flipping us the bird and giving us more hassle.

What makes you think the peoples' public servants would ever do such a thing? 

I think HPD firearms is flipping us the bird and giving us more hassle.

You think?

I Know......

 

It's appalling that this discussion is actually occurring in the United States. 

What this post tells me is that not all affidavits are alike and that some affidavits may be lacking in sufficient detail to establish one or more requirements of HRS 134-2. 

HRS 134-2 is pretty clear (at least to me) what is required in the affidavit. First of all, HRS 134-2(g) provides the affidavit must be by a certified firearms instructor who conducted or taught the course and his/her pertinent contact info must be stated. The affidavit must also attest to the completion of "the course(s)" referred to in HRS 134-2(g)(1), (2), (3) and/or (4). While there is no explicit requirement that the affidavit specifically state the course and/or what was taught, it would behoove the instructor not to specifically identify the course and what was taught (if qualifying under HRS 134(g)(4)) as an affidavit which simply states "applicant successfully completed the courses referred to in HRS 134(g)(1) - (4)" is begging to be rejected.   Unless I missed it, the statute does not say that the affidavit must attest to the applicants compliance with 134-2 as the officer claims. While the statute does not preclude one from attesting that the applicant has complied with HRS 134-2, an affidavit that contains this statement but fails to attest to the rest is insufficient and would probably be insufficient.

~F

What this post tells me is that not all affidavits are alike and that some affidavits may be lacking in sufficient detail to establish one or more requirements of HRS 134-2. 

HRS 134-2 is pretty clear (at least to me) what is required in the affidavit. First of all, HRS 134-2(g) provides the affidavit must be by a certified firearms instructor who conducted or taught the course and his/her pertinent contact info must be stated. The affidavit must also attest to the completion of "the course(s)" referred to in HRS 134-2(g)(1), (2), (3) and/or (4). While there is no explicit requirement that the affidavit specifically state the course and/or what was taught, it would behoove the instructor not to specifically identify the course and what was taught (if qualifying under HRS 134(g)(4)) as an affidavit which simply states "applicant successfully completed the courses referred to in HRS 134(g)(1) - (4)" is begging to be rejected.   Unless I missed it, the statute does not say that the affidavit must attest to the applicants compliance with 134-2 as the officer claims. While the statute does not preclude one from attesting that the applicant has complied with HRS 134-2, an affidavit that contains this statement but fails to attest to the rest is insufficient and would probably be insufficient.

~F

The problem is that HPD can make the choice to accept or deny an affidavit based on the wording at will.

The problem is that HPD can make the choice to accept or deny an affidavit based on the wording at will.

They can and often do. Unfortunately, the remedy is a suit for declaratory and injunctive relief, damages and attorneys's fees and cost after exhausting your administrative remedies.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk

As a reminder to NRA instructors, NRA requires you to put "this is not an NRA approved course" on any written materials where you use your credentials as a NRA instructor and teaching a non-NRA course.  Failure to do so can result in revocation of NRA credentials.

Suzy is a civilian employee, with many years in the Firearms section.  She is in the know.  Other Officers all the way up to the Major rotate in and out. 

Affidavits that I provide do not specifically make note of the HRS section #, but does attest to meeting Hawaii State Law requirements.  I have never heard anything to the contrary before.

Suzy is a civilian employee, with many years in the Firearms section.  She is in the know.  Other Officers all the way up to the Major rotate in and out. 

Affidavits that I provide do not specifically make note of the HRS section #, but does attest to meeting Hawaii State Law requirements.  I have never heard anything to the contrary before.

Do you state the hours, classroom and range time ? Ive seen people have problems when they dont.

That is mentioned in the law.

Do you state the hours, classroom and range time ? Ive seen people have problems when they dont.

That is mentioned in the law.

Where ? i have seen HPD deny permits because the actual hours were not written on the affidavit,

 (4)  A firearms training or safety course or class conducted by a state certified or National Rifle Association certified firearms instructor or a certified military firearms instructor that provides, at a minimum, a total of at least two hours of firing training at a firing range and a total of at least four hours of classroom instruction, which may include a video, that focuses on:

          (A)  The safe use, handling, and storage of firearms and firearm safety in the home; and
          (B)  Education on the firearm laws of the State.
          An affidavit signed by the certified firearms instructor who conducted or taught the course, providing the name, address, and phone number of the instructor and attesting to the successful completion of the course by the applicant shall constitute evidence of certified successful completion under this paragraph.

Do you state the hours, classroom and range time ? Ive seen people have problems when they dont.

Yes, it has the date, the hours of each separate instructional block and location where both the classroom and live fire instruction took place. 

My affidavit format has been used since the law first took effect.  Specific information and format was confirmed via HPD firearms section at that time frame as accurate.  I have never had anyone using it have a problem since then.  I have seen other affidavits that are similar in format that are widely accepted.

I said mentioned, not quoted. They want to know if it was 4 hours classroom, 2 hours range.

That's the concern if the HPD accepts it once then rejects it next time like the OP mentioned.

My affidavit format has been used since the law first took effect.  Specific information and format was confirmed via HPD firearms section at that time frame as accurate.  I have never had anyone using it have a problem since then.  I have seen other affidavits that are similar in format that are widely accepted.