Made better. Suitable for tshirts and posters
Someone correct my language if not right.
Hele Mai Lawe Ia - Come and take it

Guess I need to buy a .458 SOCOM upper. 

Love the logo. I want a tshirt!

Guess I need to buy a .458 SOCOM upper. 

So do I, you know to keep up appearances. And it would be fun to shoot!

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

Wrong.

The only "group" that can specify how to measure barrel length is the BATFE.  HPD needs to do the basics correctly, or nor at all.

According to what state law? Maybe I am missing it but Hawaii state law doesn't define how to measure a barrel, it only says 16 inches. BATFE may have their own definition but that doesn't mean Hawaii law has to use their interpretation.

So no, unless you can show Hawaii law has to follow BATFE standards, it's not wrong.

This is the heart of the matter. HPD does not interpret the law so they are making it up to suit their own. That itself is the "definition" of Banana Republic or Dictatorship.
And I did contact the AG and they referred me back to HPD, so it is a closed loop that keeps going round and round but never answering the question.


Legally they cannot tell you how to fix a magazine. And if they don't have a definition, then the onus is on them to get one from the AG, not you to prove it's not. If you have to use a tool or other implement to remove a magazine it is not detachable. Period. That has been determined and defined in multiple jurisdictions across the country. The barrel, pistol grip, and buffer tube are removable from your AR, but not detachable. You have to use a tool.

Anything they make you do beyond using a bullet button or the MEAN ARMS MA Lock to fix your magazine is illegal on their end. The other legal option is to have Battle Arms Development Fixed Magazine Conversion (or similar) where you must break the action open to remove the magazine. You have now fixed the magazine so the only way it can be removed is with a tool or breaking the action. Now we know in practice they will do whatever they want to deprive you of your rights.

Mean Arms https://www.meanarms.com/products/detail/ma-lock

Battle Arms https://www.battlearmsdevelopment.com/shop/product/bad-mrb-15-ar-15-california-compliant-fixed-magazine-conversion-3207

Interpretation is never something that can be completely avoided. It would be both unreasonable and nearly impossible to word a law so carefully so that no law had any gray are that an LEO would have to interpret. So when it comes to the word detachable  they are going to have to draw the line somewhere. Judges may later rule if the officer interpreted it correctly. Ideally laws will be written to minimize areas open to interpretation but sooner or later cops, and even prosecutors, have to do some amount of interpreting.

Even you are applying an interpretation when you say if a tool is needed then it is removable but not detachable. (unless there is some law that specifically says that and I am just unaware of that law) You could of course argue one over the other but if not defined by law or precedence it will still be an interpretation. BTW I have heard many people say remove the magazine from the gun but never heard anyone say detach it from the gun. Not trying to debate you but just give an example of issues where different definitions would come into play, legal, commons, and technical.


When I said logic, what I was referring to was the set of standards they were giving to base their interpretation on. So not the logic of their interpretation but the logic of applying their interpretation. What I was explaining was what they explained to me in how they interpret the section.

According to what state law? Maybe I am missing it but Hawaii state law doesn't define how to measure a barrel, it only says 16 inches. BATFE may have their own definition but that doesn't mean Hawaii law has to use their interpretation.

So no, unless you can show Hawaii law has to follow BATFE standards, it's not wrong.

There is a right way and a wrong way of measuring a barrel. Idk what the bafte manuel says, but the correct way is to measure by sticking a guide down the barrel so it touches the bolt.

Measuring from the outside is incorrect. Which may end up with someone in jail or their legal property confiscated for human error.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Interpretation is never something that can be completely avoided. It would be both unreasonable and nearly impossible to word a law so carefully so that no law had any gray are that an LEO would have to interpret. So when it comes to the word detachable  they are going to have to draw the line somewhere. Judges may later rule if the officer interpreted it correctly. Ideally laws will be written to minimize areas open to interpretation but sooner or later cops, and even prosecutors, have to do some amount of interpreting.

Even you are applying an interpretation when you say if a tool is needed then it is removable but not detachable. (unless there is some law that specifically says that and I am just unaware of that law) [see below] You could of course argue one over the other but if not defined by law or precedence it will still be an interpretation. BTW I have heard many people say remove the magazine from the gun but never heard anyone say detach it from the gun. Not trying to debate you but just give an example of issues where different definitions would come into play, legal, commons, and technical.


When I said logic, what I was referring to was the set of standards they were giving to base their interpretation on. So not the logic of their interpretation but the logic of applying their interpretation. What I was explaining was what they explained to me in how they interpret the section.

I agree that there will always be interpretation. But the Burden of Proof is on HPD and other Hawaii police departments to prove that it does not meet the requirements. Because the magazine was DESIGNED to be released from the receiver by only pushing a button, the adding of a "Bullet Button" or other method to increase the difficulty of removing the magazine to require a tool or breaking the action, substantially changes the design and no longer fits the "detachable" definition. Now if the State wants to change the language then they need to do that. HPD cannot state that that's the way they want it (because they do not interpret the law as stated by Capt. Nilsen). By using this standard, it would be no different than a traffic cop issuing a ticket for failing to stop by stating you didn't stop for 5 seconds at a stop sign. The law states a full and complete stop. If the wheels aren't turning, you're stopped. I mean they can, but they're wrong. and are open to civil suit by making people do otherwise.

But again, there is no logic when interpreting the Law. Either it is or it isn't. And if they say it isn't, then they have to provide the statutory evidence that it isn't (meaning in writing), not that my boss said it's supposed to be that way.

Laws defining detachable magazine from around the country

Connecticut State Laws and Published Ordinances - https://www.atf.gov/file/117176/download
 (4) “Detachable magazine” means an ammunition feeding device that can be removed without disassembling the firearm action;

Maryland State Laws and Published Ordinances - https://www.atf.gov/file/117251/download
(i) "Detachable magazine" means an ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from a firearm without requiring disassembly of the firearm action or without the use of a tool, including a bullet or cartridge.

Illinois Compiled Statutes - https://www.atf.gov/file/117216/download
(2) “detachable magazine” means an ammunition feeding device that can be removed from a firearm without disassembly of the firearm action.
 
California - https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/regs/chapter39.pdf
(a) "detachable magazine" means any ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm with neither disassembly of the firearm action nor use of a tool being required. A bullet or ammunition cartridge is considered a tool. Ammunition feeding device includes any belted or linked ammunition, but does not include clips, en bloc clips, or stripper clips that load cartridges into the magazine.

We need a 2a cruise.
Time to get a permit, polish up those Toyota Tacomas, bust out those DontTread On Me flags.
Block access to _____?

We need a 2a cruise.
Time to get a permit, polish up those Toyota Tacomas, bust out those DontTread On Me flags.
Block access to _____?

===========
Ballard would be down on us like a horsefly on s==t.
I'd probably get a ticket for the parking permit hanging on my rear view mirror.

How can we send the graphic of our informal poll (refusing to comply) to the legislators without painting targets on our backs???

We need a 2a cruise.
Time to get a permit, polish up those Toyota Tacomas, bust out those DontTread On Me flags.
Block access to _____?

Wait till you have a bad cold or flu and force yourself to get out of bed and go visit these anti2A guys in their office to say hello.  Be sure to cough or sneeze into your hand before shaking hands with them.

===========
Ballard would be down on us like a horsefly on s==t.
I'd probably get a ticket for the parking permit hanging on my rear view mirror.

How can we send the graphic of our informal poll (refusing to comply) to the legislators without painting targets on our backs???

At some point we have to quit talking.
You are not dealing with Humans, we are dealing with Democrats.
Even my dogs understand they won't get fed if I say sit and they ignore me.

At some point we have to quit talking.
You are not dealing with Humans, we are dealing with Democrats.
Even my dogs understand they won't get fed if I say sit and they ignore me.

Protesting is a waste of energy. If you really want to scare the shit out of them try coalition building. Lots more work trying to line up with semi-compatible values systems but the results get way more bang for the buck.

Love the logo. I want a tshirt!

You want'em, you got'em

Proceeds will go to support us in our fight for our rights

Spread the word

https://www.bonfire.com/hele-mai-lawe-ia/
Different colors available
$25 for short sleeve
$30 for long sleeve

Nice.
I want one. Will order soon.

how about mag protector?

There is a right way and a wrong way of measuring a barrel. Idk what the bafte manuel says, but the correct way is to measure by sticking a guide down the barrel so it touches the bolt.

Measuring from the outside is incorrect. Which may end up with someone in jail or their legal property confiscated for human error.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

I don't disagree with you but that doesn't mean they actually violated a law. Legal definitions don't always follow technical definitions though. They should ideally but technical definitions aren't automatically binding.

I agree that there will always be interpretation. But the Burden of Proof is on HPD and other Hawaii police departments to prove that it does not meet the requirements. Because the magazine was DESIGNED to be released from the receiver by only pushing a button, the adding of a "Bullet Button" or other method to increase the difficulty of removing the magazine to require a tool or breaking the action, substantially changes the design and no longer fits the "detachable" definition. Now if the State wants to change the language then they need to do that. HPD cannot state that that's the way they want it (because they do not interpret the law as stated by Capt. Nilsen). By using this standard, it would be no different than a traffic cop issuing a ticket for failing to stop by stating you didn't stop for 5 seconds at a stop sign. The law states a full and complete stop. If the wheels aren't turning, you're stopped. I mean they can, but they're wrong. and are open to civil suit by making people do otherwise.

But again, there is no logic when interpreting the Law. Either it is or it isn't. And if they say it isn't, then they have to provide the statutory evidence that it isn't (meaning in writing), not that my boss said it's supposed to be that way.

Laws defining detachable magazine from around the country

Connecticut State Laws and Published Ordinances - https://www.atf.gov/file/117176/download
 (4) “Detachable magazine” means an ammunition feeding device that can be removed without disassembling the firearm action;

Maryland State Laws and Published Ordinances - https://www.atf.gov/file/117251/download
(i) "Detachable magazine" means an ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from a firearm without requiring disassembly of the firearm action or without the use of a tool, including a bullet or cartridge.

Illinois Compiled Statutes - https://www.atf.gov/file/117216/download
(2) “detachable magazine” means an ammunition feeding device that can be removed from a firearm without disassembly of the firearm action.
 
California - https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/regs/chapter39.pdf
(a) "detachable magazine" means any ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm with neither disassembly of the firearm action nor use of a tool being required. A bullet or ammunition cartridge is considered a tool. Ammunition feeding device includes any belted or linked ammunition, but does not include clips, en bloc clips, or stripper clips that load cartridges into the magazine.

I think you hit the head on the nail, the police have the burden of proof to show a person violated the law or that a definition covers a certain situation. Therefore if there is some gray area the officer should act in the way that is least intrusive to someone's constitutional rights. That idea should serve as a guide and will reduce (but not totally eliminate) instances where officers have to make an interpretation.

The secondary step in this type of situation if someone alleged wrongdoing by the cop is also important to this topic. The cop is supposed to be operating on good faith and the judge or jury can determine whether the cop's actions were reasonable given what the cop knew at the time. This isn't so much a guide on how to interpret but a standard on how to judge whether a cop applied the law correctly. And ultimately it will be up to the jury to look at the firearm and listen to the arguments and decide whether the magazine was detachable or whether it was just removable.

I can see both sides of the issue here though. I once heard a prosecutor telling an court case where the accused was arrested for trespassing. The trespass law said enter or remain unlawfully on a property and the witness saw the suspect leaving the property. Someone on the jury voted not guilty and their explanation was that no one saw the suspect enter the property, only leave the property. Obviously to leave the property you had to first enter but the juror for whatever reason didn't see it as a violation of the law. I mention this story because it is funny and because it shows how interpretation issues can always come up. What was it the Bill Clinton said in court? "what is the definition of "Is?" or something like that. Absurd of course but I doubt the law ever bothered to define the word "is"


I was thinking about building a pump action AR pistol and I asked some technical questions about what would need to be done as far as disabling semi-auto capability so they wouldn't consider it an assault pistol. The basic message I got (it was too long ago to remember word for word) was that it couldn't be something that was easily changeable. So I couldn't just remove the buffer spring (for example) and then claim I don't have a semi-auto gun. That doesn't cover the word detachable but it is the experience I can attest to at HPD on a similar issue..

I don't disagree with you but that doesn't mean they actually violated a law. Legal definitions don't always follow technical definitions though. They should ideally but technical definitions aren't automatically binding.

That makes absolutely no sense.

If the LAW says a < 16" rifle barrel is ILLEGAL, and the POLICE in the FIREARMS DIVISION, who have a duty to enforce that LAW don't know the proper way to actually measure a rifle barrel, your response is "but the LAW doesn't say how to do it?

LOL!!!!

If they do it wrong, confiscate your firearm, and arrest you for a felony firearm violation, maybe you'd figure out why there doesn't need to be a specific law to violate the spirit of one that does exist.

"Your window tint is too dark.  Law says 80% max."

"How do you know it's more than 80% unless you measured it with proper instruments?"

"The law doesn't tell me how to make that measurement.  Here's your ticket."

I don't disagree with you but that doesn't mean they actually violated a law. Legal definitions don't always follow technical definitions though. They should ideally but technical definitions aren't automatically binding.

Measuring wrong isnt illegal, but it will cost the innocent gun owner time, money, and their job.

So there is a right way and a wrong way. The cop is doing it the wrong way.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk