Good job you guys. Keep up the good work. 

http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/breaking/147841095.html

KK probably is responsible for 50% of those registrations...............

They're going to have another pretty soon - I just won a Colt Woodsman on Auctionarms

KK probably is responsible for 50% of those registrations...............

23%

Confirmed by firearms division today.

i swear you go there every week!

The news reported that there's over 1 million registered firearms in Hawaii.  Did anyone else catch that?

The news reported that there's over 1 million registered firearms in Hawaii.  Did anyone else catch that?

Yeah, but how many are duplicates? According to their records, I still have 23 firearms "registered" to me that I sold/gave away. And yes, all were registered under the new owners.

I believe the 1 million is an inflated figure.

i swear you go there every week!

 

The information was from the yearly AG's report. The reports, which started in 2000, have shown a yearly increase in firearms permits/registrations since it began. Per the report:

Firearm registration activity increased dramatically over the course of the twelve
years for which these data have been systematically compiled and reported. From
2000 through 2011, the number of permit applications processed annually climbed
136.9%, the number of firearms registered soared 170.3%, and the number of firearms
imported surged 148.3%.

As for the million guns in Hawaii, the report also states:

Although there is no way to track the number of firearms that permanently leave the state, independent
estimates made during the late-1990s by the Department of the Attorney General and the City &
County of Honolulu Police Department placed the total number of privately owned firearms in Hawaii at
roughly one million.

Other interesting facts include a rather constant 1.5% rejection rate (Long and hand-guns combined), a 4.5% approved but voided permits, and that 58.7% of permits were for long guns versus 41.3% handguns.

It also said 20% of the rejections were for mental health reasons. What I found interesting was that a footnote said:

Rejections for mental health issues or treatment can be satisfactorily
resolved with a verified doctor’s note stating that the applicant is no longer
adversely affected. While an original rejection cannot be overturned, a new
application may be submitted and the appropriate permit will be issued. It is
unknown how many applicants who are initially rejected for mental health
reasons successfully reapply for permits.

I would think that knowing how many of the initially denied permits for mental health reasons were subsequently able to successfully reapply for a permit. It also said 1 person was rejected for medical marijuana use and 2 were rejected for not being US citizens. But what I found interesting was the statement made about the issuance of concealed carry permits:

Eight private citizens applied for a concealed carry license in the City & County of Honolulu and were rejected for not meeting unstated criteria established by the chief of police.

Here is the language from the 2010 report:

Three private citizens applied for a concealed carry license in the City & County of Honolulu and were rejected for not meeting the criteria established by the chief of police.

It seems the AG is recognizing that the Chief is not sharing what criteria he's using to reject permits.

Yeah, but how many are duplicates? According to their records, I still have 23 firearms "registered" to me that I sold/gave away. And yes, all were registered under the new owners.

I believe the 1 million is an inflated figure.

I don't believe so, it's probably on the low end (see HiCarry's post)............I've heard that figure for quite some time.  Just realize that a lot of owners have multiple firearms.  I have probably 14(?).  KK must be about 10X that.............

I don't believe so, it's probably on the low end (see HiCarry's post)............I've heard that figure for quite some time.  Just realize that a lot of owners have multiple firearms.  I have probably 14(?).  KK must be about 10X that.............

Easily 1 million guns. 960 thousand people here, national estimates are roughly around 50% homes have guns.... and then most of us gun owners have a bunch of guns.

Rejections for mental health issues or treatment can be satisfactorily resolved with a verified doctor’s note stating that the applicant is no longer adversely affected. While an original rejection cannot be overturned, a new application may be submitted and the appropriate permit will be issued. It is unknown how many applicants who are initially rejected for mental health reasons successfully reapply for permits.

What doctor would certify to this and incur the liability of being wrong in some inevitable percentage of cases?

What are these mental health issues?  Foot fetishes?  Car fetishes?  Bondage scenes?  Cigarette addictions?

I'd probably fail because I'm a gun nut. 


From HiCarry:

I would think that knowing how many of the initially denied permits for mental health reasons were subsequently able to successfully reapply for a permit. It also said 1 person was rejected for medical marijuana use and 2 were rejected for not being US citizens. But what I found interesting was the statement made about the issuance of concealed carry permits:

Quote
Eight private citizens applied for a concealed carry license in the City & County of Honolulu and were rejected for not meeting unstated criteria established by the chief of police.

Here is the language from the 2010 report:

Quote
Three private citizens applied for a concealed carry license in the City & County of Honolulu and were rejected for not meeting the criteria established by the chief of police.

It seems the AG is recognizing that the Chief is not sharing what criteria he's using to reject permits.

Agreed.  Apparently some squeaky wheels are being heard out there in Hawaii --or at least in Honolulu.

What was it, Section 310(?) that left the door open for arbitrary and capricious decision-making by the Chief of Police?  I need refreshing on that.

On the other hand, I reckon you can't consider it capricious or arbitrary if 100% of the answers  is "NO!"

But you can consider it unconstitutional, I would guess.  Or did I read the Hawaiian constitution wrong?

Terry, 230RN

What doctor would certify to this and incur the liability of being wrong in some inevitable percentage of cases?

What are these mental health issues?  Foot fetishes?  Car fetishes?  Bondage scenes?  Cigarette addictions?

I'd probably fail because I'm a gun nut.

Terry, 230RN

Mostly it's being diagnosed as an alcoholic or being depressed.

I have a friend who lost his mother and he couldn't concentrate at work. He was very emotional for a few months.
He went to his doctor and was diagnosed as suffering depression.
His doctor in turn referred him to a psychiatrist.

When he went to buy his first shotgun, a few years later, he had to get a release letter from his doctor that said he wasn't suffering from depression anymore.

Also if you've been diagnosed as an "alcoholic", it is considered a mental illness.

Good job you guys. Keep up the good work. 

http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/breaking/147841095.html

LOL................

KK probably is responsible for 50% of those registrations...............

Even more LOL.............

Doing my damage myself... heh heh.... picking up another 10/22 and waiting for the Ruger Take Down .22.....       sweeeeetttt!

I'm in this month's Hunter's Ed class. The instructors said the news is gonna be at the class after lunch tomorrow talking to people about the increase in firearm registrations.

What doctor would certify to this and incur the liability of being wrong in some inevitable percentage of cases?

What are these mental health issues?  Foot fetishes?  Car fetishes?  Bondage scenes?  Cigarette addictions?

I'd probably fail because I'm a gun nut. 


From HiCarry:
Agreed.  Apparently some squeaky wheels are being heard out there in Hawaii --or at least in Honolulu.

What was it, Section 310(?) that left the door open for arbitrary and capricious decision-making by the Chief of Police?  I need refreshing on that.

On the other hand, I reckon you can't consider it capricious or arbitrary if 100% of the answers  is "NO!"

But you can consider it unconstitutional, I would guess.  Or did I read the Hawaiian constitution wrong?

Terry, 230RN

The physicians are provided immunity in releasing data that could result in disqualifying someone, I am not sure if the reverse is true. Here are the reasons listed for rejecting an application, including the menal health issues.

abuse of family/household member 30 13.0 abuse of family/household member + burglaries 1 .4 abuse of family/household member + mental health issue 1 .4 abuse of family/household member + substance abuse treatment 2 .9 admitted use of marijuana 1 .4 alcohol abuse counseling 7 3.0 alcohol abuse counseling + medical marijiana patient 1 .4 applicant claimed to be applying "under duress" 1 .4 assault 35 15.2 assault + abuse of family/household member 3 1.3 assault + mental health issue 1 .4 assault on police officer 1 .4 burglary 1 .4 crime of violence (unspecified) 2 .9 criminal property damage 2 .9 depression 1 .4 did not sign background check waiver 1 .4 disorderly conduct 11 4.8 disqualifying juvenile offense(s) 5 2.1 drug offense 22 10.1 drug offense + medical marijuana patient 1 .4 DUI pending 1 .4 embezzlement + possession of stolen property and burglar tools 1 .4 felony (unspecified) 6 2.6 harassment 8 3.5 harassment + mental health treatment 1 .4 identity theft 1 .4 medical clearance needed 2 .9 medical marijuana patient 1 .4 mental health issue (unspecified) 3 1.3 mental health treatment 25 10.9 motor vehicle theft 2 .9 murder arrest unresolved from 1982 1 .4 no residence 1 .4 not a U.S. citizen 2 .9 resides with disqualified person 8 3.5 restraining order 8 3.5 restraining order violation 2 .9 sexual assault 2 .9 statutory rape 1 .4 suicide attempt(s) 4 1.7 terroristic threatening 1 .4 theft 4 1.7 violent offense (unspecified) 2 .9 warrant 9 3.9 weapons offense 3 1.3

I am not sure what you are referring to with "Section  301" by HRS Ch.134 grants the Chief of Police in each county the authority to grant or deny concealed carry permits. I believe it was California that had a case in regards to "May Issue" authority. I don't recall the name of the case, but it centered on a police chief that wouldn't even evaluate CCW applications. When it went to court, the judge said it was OK that he denied all the permits, but he had to at least evaluate the merits of each before making any decision. So, the courts basically said you can deny all the permits you want, but you have to at least exercise the discretion granted to you on the matter and review each application.