This law is poorly written. It would seem to make an upper a firearm as well but it mentions parts serialized under federal law even though federal law doesn't require serial numbers on uppers.

I do see one workaround though, if we become licensed manufacturer we appear to be exempt. Under HRS 134-31 we can become license manufacturers for only $10 but it has to be renewed every year.

This law is poorly written. It would seem to make an upper a firearm as well but it mentions parts serialized under federal law even though federal law doesn't require serial numbers on uppers.

I do see one workaround though, if we become licensed manufacturer we appear to be exempt. Under HRS 134-31 we can become license manufacturers for only $10 but it has to be renewed every year.

good luck with that
let us know when you get your license...

good luck with that
let us know when you get your license...

I will ask my friend at the gun store how hard it was to get his. I do already make gun parts though, just not the parts that make it go boom.

"§134-        Manufacturing, purchasing, or obtaining firearm parts to assemble a firearm having no serial number; penalty.  (a)  A person who is not licensed to manufacture a firearm under section 134-31, or who is not a dealer licensed by the United States Department of Justice, shall not, for the purpose of assembling a firearm, purchase, produce with a three-dimensional printer, or otherwise obtain separately, or as part of a kit:

     (1)  A firearm receiver that is not imprinted with a serial number registered with a federally licensed manufacturer;

     (2)  A firearm receiver that has not been provided a serial number that may be registered in accordance with section 134-3(c); or

     (3)  Any combination of parts from which a firearm having no serial number may be readily assembled; provided that the parts do not have the capacity to function as a firearm unless assembled., purchasing, or obtaining firearm parts to assemble a firearm having no serial number; penalty.  (a)  A person who is not licensed to manufacture a firearm under section 134-31, or who is not a dealer licensed by the United States Department of Justice, shall not, for the purpose of assembling a firearm, purchase, produce with a three-dimensional printer, or otherwise obtain separately, or as part of a kit:

     (1)  A firearm receiver that is not imprinted with a serial number registered with a federally licensed manufacturer;

     (2)  A firearm receiver that has not been provided a serial number that may be registered in accordance with section 134-3(c); or

     (3)  Any combination of parts from which a firearm having no serial number may be readily assembled; provided that the parts do not have the capacity to function as a firearm unless assembled.

(Bold emphasis added. Red highlighting omitted as didn’t transfer in the quote function)

It keeps referring to purchasing, manufacturing or obtaining

Is obtaining not future tense ?

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/obtain?src=search-dict-hed

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/obtain?s=t

Can you obtain something you already had ?
I guess one could have obtained it years ago. But obtained is not in the language of the law.
It doesn’t say “or having obtained”

Do the words possess ever appear ?

It keeps referring to purchasing, manufacturing or obtaining

Is obtaining not future tense ?

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/obtain?src=search-dict-hed

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/obtain?s=t

Good observation. This would seem to indicate older parts being grandfathered in. Most other laws seem to include the word possess but this one omits it.

So I think in court they would have to prove you got/made the part after the law. Oops, I lost my receipt for this when I bought it last year.

I will ask my friend at the gun store how hard it was to get his. I do already make gun parts though, just not the parts that make it go boom.

A 01 is different than an 07

Interesting that obtain vs. posses.

Looks like another law like rifle mags that lots will think are limited to 10rds. Some shops wont sell AR uppers, others will.



Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

There are already prohibitions and penalties for possession of a firearm by prohibited persons.

So, all the new law needs to do is stop the acquisition of unserialized (ghost gun) receivers.

Once an 80% blank is serialized and registered, it ceases to be capable of assembling a ghost gun.

Manufacturing, purchasing, or obtaining firearm parts to assemble a firearm having no serial number

Possession is not included, but "obtaining" pretty much covers it.

As for the grammar experts' analysis:

A verb ending in -ing is either a present participle or a gerund. These two forms look identical. The difference is in their functions in a sentence.

A present participle is most commonly used as part of the continuous form of a verb, after verbs of perception, after verbs of movement, or as an adjective.

The gerund always has the same function as a noun, although it looks like a verb. It can be used in the same way as a noun.

In the context of the statute, the verbs "Manufacturing, purchasing, [and] obtaining" function as nouns. e.g. "The defendant was found guilty of manufacturing an unserialized firearm without a license."  "Manufacturing" is the object of the preposition "of", which would make it a noun functionally.

There are already prohibitions and penalties for possession of a firearm by prohibited persons.

Is this relevant ? We’re talking about persons who are not prohibited as far as I know.

So, all the new law needs to do is stop the acquisition of unserialized (ghost gun) receivers.

Didn’t see acquisition in the law anywhere. Or acquired.

Thanks for the English lesson though.
Didn’t know running could be construed to be a noun. “He was guilty of running through a stop sign.”
Something new everyday I guess.

I still question your analysis though.
But appreciate the input. 

It still reads like obtaining is post effective date of the new law.
And if they wanted to be unambiguous and mean possess, the word possess would clearly have been included.
But it wasn’t.

Is this relevant ? We’re talking about persons who are not prohibited as far as I know.

Didn’t see acquisition in the law anywhere. Or acquired.

Thanks for the English lesson though.
Didn’t know running could be construed to be a noun. “He was guilty of running through a stop sign.”
Something new everyday I guess.

I still question your analysis though.
But appreciate the input. 

It still reads like obtaining is post effective date of the new law.
And if they wanted to be unambiguous and mean possess, the word possess would clearly have been included.
But it wasn’t.

They don't make possession illegal after Sept 15 if you register them with serial numbers.  if you still have it after Sept 15 and didn't register, they'll get you for failing to register.

Read the bill for yourself.  The purpose is to prevent people WHO ARE PROHIBITED from being able to obtain firearms though other-than-controlled means.  Being able to buy blanks for receivers without background checks lets PROHIBITED PEOPLE buy parts to assemble a firearm with no serial numbers and no registration.

If you aren't prohibited, just take the current blanks you have into HPD for registration before Sept 15.  Once it's registered as a firearm (even though it's not), it's no longer "ghost gun" capable.

Obtained == acquired.  Synonyms.  Since "acquire" is used all though the permit process statutes, they probably wanted to use another word since no permit is being used to "acquire" the non-firearm blank.  Just a guess.

If you ever took real English classes where you diagramed sentences, you might remember phrases like:

was running
will be running
has been running
will have been running
etc.

All those present participle, past participle, future participle (and the same categories with "perfect" included), the tense is determined by the additional parts of the phrase, not the participial action containing -ing.  That's the other use of those verbs besides gerunds, which is how they are used in the statute (as nouns).

I think I read it.

I didn’t see in the new law where an 80%, or a block of aluminum as Ren points out, was defined as a firearm receiver. Or even firearm part.

And still haven’t seen the word possess in the new law.
But more importantly, where is an 80% defined as a firearm part?

Anything about firearms parts, other than firearms receivers, refers to may be readily assembled.
It doesn’t refer to readily manufactured, which an 80% would need to be.
You can’t readily assemble an 80% lower.

It does look like you need to Serialize and register it before you begin to manufacture it.

The more I read it the cloudier it gets.

By my reading, unregistered uppers are more suspect than 80% lowers as uppers are un-serialized, un-registered firearm receivers which can be used to readily assemble a firearm.


P.S. Guess I gotta go back and watch Schoolhouse Rock again. 
Conjunction junction, what’s your function.....

I think I read it.

I didn’t see in the new law where an 80%, or a block of aluminum as Ren points out, was defined as a firearm receiver. Or even firearm part.

And still haven’t seen the word possess in the new law.
But more importantly, where is an 80% defined as a firearm part?

Anything about firearms parts, other than firearms receivers, refers to may be readily assembled.
It doesn’t refer to readily manufactured, which an 80% would need to be.
You can’t readily assemble an 80% lower.

It does look like you need to Serialize and register it before you begin to manufacture it.

The more I read it the cloudier it gets.

By my reading, unregistered uppers are more suspect than 80% lowers as uppers are un-serialized, un-registered firearm receivers which can be used to readily assemble a firearm.


P.S. Guess I gotta go back and watch Schoolhouse Rock again. 
Conjunction junction, what’s your function.....

They avoided specific wording, because someone in the Legislature finally figured out that the people are smarter than they give us credit for.

If they say "80% receivers are banned," we'll be buying 75% blanks.  If they say "possession" is illegal, and there is no accountability for whoever buys these things and then resells them, they'll never be able to find them unless one is found at a crime scene or discovered in a search.  So, they banned the USE of these products (gun parts) that can be assembled as a firearm.  Use includes manufacturing, buying (purchasing) or receiving (obtaining) one.

The intent is to make these parts illegal in Hawaii -- except for the ones you serialized and registered like normal firearms.  If they allow that (which I think they are), then possession of SERIALIZED & REGISTERED blanks is still legal.  If the cost is less for these 80% lowers/frames than a milled and FFL-controlled receiver/frame, I can see FFLs doing transfers for 80% receiver parts -- where they make sure you have a permit, and the part is recorded as a "receiver blank" when registering with HPD.  Therefore, it would be logical that they aren't banning 80% lowers -- only the ones that are sold without serial numbers and unregistered.

If you obtain it, then give or sell it to someone else, you're still guilty without having to still be in possession.  The person you gave/sold it to is still guilty, since they obtained it from you -- possession not withstanding.

You're trying to dissect the verbiage to argue some sort of loophole exists.  They made the wording ambiguous and "loose" enough so they can shoehorn in a case involving a receiver blank no matter what part you actually played in it's existence in Hawaii.

The definitions should have been added to the statute in the glossary, but that would just create the loopholes you are looking for.  That's why interpretation is left up to the prosecutor -- who refuses to provide the people who pay their salaries and operations budgets the courtesy of providing their interpretations of ambiguous laws.

Use includes manufacturing, buying (purchasing) or receiving (obtaining) one.

If you obtain it, then give or sell it to someone else, you're still guilty without having to still be in possession.  The person you gave/sold it to is still guilty, since they obtained it from you -- possession not withstanding.

You're to dissect the verbiage to argue some sort of loophole exists.

I agree 95% with the above post. Not the quote, the actual post.
But......
Yes. Yes I am and it does exist as I read it.

If a person is not manufacturing, buying or receiving (obtaining) (or transferring ) one, there is no “use” of. (By your definition above )

So how you figure if there is no manufacturing, buying, obtaining, or transferring of, that it’s illegal to posses a chunk of plastic or aluminum not specified to be a readily assembled firearm part ? 
(And that the ATF doesn’t define as a firearm part. )

On that note, I still don’t see where any of the verbiage of the new law applies to 80% blocks of plastic or aluminum that are not firearm receivers or firearm parts to be readily assembled.

I agree 95% with the above post. Not the quote, the actual post.
But......
Yes. Yes I am and it does exist as I read it.

If a person is not manufacturing, buying or receiving (obtaining) (or transferring ) one, there is no “use” of. (By your definition above )

So how you figure if there is no manufacturing, buying, obtaining, or transferring of, that it’s illegal to posses a chunk of plastic or aluminum not specified to be a readily assembled firearm part ? 
(And that the ATF doesn’t define as a firearm part. )

On that note, I still don’t see where any of the verbiage of the new law applies to 80% blocks of plastic or aluminum that are not firearm receivers or firearm parts to be readily assembled.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it think....

"§134-    Manufacturing, purchasing, or obtaining firearm parts to assemble a firearm having no serial number;

Is an 80% chunk of plastic or metal that was purchased as an 80% AR lower or 80% Glock frame included in "firearm parts to assemble a firearm having no serial number;"

That's the best I can offer.

I agree 95% with the above post. Not the quote, the actual post. ....

On that note, I still don’t see where any of the verbiage of the new law applies to 80% blocks of plastic or aluminum that are not firearm receivers or firearm parts to be readily assembled.

The "readily assembled" part is the third of three criteria for violating the provision, and it requires " (3)  Any combination of parts from which a firearm having no serial number may be readily assembled; provided that the parts do not have the capacity to function as a firearm unless assembled."

The first two criteria only requires a firearm receiver that is lacking a serial number.  Nothing about being "readily assembled" on its own as a block of plastic or metal.

The bill states ""Firearm receiver" includes any object or part that is not a firearm frame or receiver in finished form but that is designed or intended to be used for that purpose and may readily be made into a firearm frame or receiver through milling or other means."

in that definition, it uses "readily made", as in manufactured/milled.  To me that definition is literally the same as an 80% lower or pistol frame, regardless of material used.

Shoulda just said that in the first place.

“  "Firearm receiver" means the part of a firearm that provides housing for the firearm's internal components, including a hammer, bolt, breechblock, action, or firing mechanism.  "Firearm receiver" includes any object or part that is not a firearm frame or receiver in finished form but that is designed or intended to be used for that purpose and may readily be made into a firearm frame or receiver through milling or other means."

Back to manufacturing, purchasing or obtaining.....
Still implies after the law was enacted.
Doesn’t say possess. Which should have been clear if that’s what they intended.
(Oh crap, back to English 101 I guess.)

And where does this put uppers ? Particularly spare uppers or various caliber uppers used on same registered lower ?

 

Shoulda just said that in the first place.

“  "Firearm receiver" means the part of a firearm that provides housing for the firearm's internal components, including a hammer, bolt, breechblock, action, or firing mechanism.  "Firearm receiver" includes any object or part that is not a firearm frame or receiver in finished form but that is designed or intended to be used for that purpose and may readily be made into a firearm frame or receiver through milling or other means."

Back to manufacturing, purchasing or obtaining.....
Still implies after the law was enacted.
Doesn’t say possess. Which should have been clear if that’s what they intended.
(Oh crap, back to English 101 I guess.)

And where does this put uppers ? Particularly spare uppers or various caliber uppers used on same registered lower ?

Really?

I'm not here to spoon feed anyone (especially you) information that's contained in the text of the bill.  The link has been posted many times.  All you have to do is click and read.

Did you make testimonial comments to the legislature for this bill?  If so, did you stop to read it first? 

Maybe you can get someone else to  waste  spend their time trying to discuss something you haven't bothered to read -- and then blame them for not posting the entire text so you can refer to it.

      Buh-bye!

Why you gotta get your panties all in a bunch ?
If you didn’t want to waste your time, just don’t reply.

Does buh-bye mean I won’t see you responding to my posts in the future ? (I can only hope.)

Back to manufacturing, purchasing or obtaining.....
Still implies after the law was enacted.
Doesn’t say possess. Which should have been clear if that’s what they intended.
(Oh crap, back to English 101 I guess.)

And where does this put uppers ? Particularly spare uppers or various caliber uppers used on same registered lower ?

What if you bought a chunk of plastic to use as a paperweight or design as an art piece with no intention to manufacture it as a firearm?