Not to worry, I sent Karamatsu another email that is guaranteed to set him straight!

Not to worry, I sent Karamatsu another email that is guaranteed to set him straight!

If anyone can, it's you...Thanks!

Any result on this?

Not yet, it was pushed back another day. We'll see this afternoon...maybe.

Seems this was passed out with the recommendation to accept with ammendments. Unfortunately it is unclear what those ammendments are, but as they apparently came from the "memo" from the HAJ, no telling what it actually says. Regardless, everyone should be proud of their efforts to get this passed, even if it isn't exactly as we wanted.

I would challenge everyone to consider what to do about next year....as many of you saw, the process is long and drawn out, and at times maddenly slow. But, it is what it is and we need to work within the framework we have. So, knowing this, and with this experience under your collective belts, what do you want to do next year? Despite the fact that we are nearing the end of this session, we need to start concentrating on next year. Ask yourselves, what can I do to help pass legislation WE want.

Next year may prove to be another ideal year to get things done....like this year, financial issues kept HPD from submitting an onerous bunch of anti-gun bills and those same financial constraints may work to our advantage next year....and we have a new Chief that at least appears to be a little more reasonable about firearms rights.

Again, GREAT work....lets keep it up and keep chipping away at the unreasonable restrictions and requirement currently imposed on Hawaii's legal gun owners and shooting enthusiasts,

I think we need to increase our numbers exponentially.  For every one of us posting on the forums, there must be at least ten times as many people equally fed up with the current gun laws in Hawaii who are simply unaware or apathetic to the changes that need to be made.  We need to spread the word and get more people actively participating.  The emailing and phone call part is easy, it's getting everyone on the same page so we strike in a concerted effort on the issues that matter most. 

I think we need to increase our numbers exponentially.  For every one of us posting on the forums, there must be at least ten times as many people equally fed up with the current gun laws in Hawaii who are simply unaware or apathetic to the changes that need to be made.  We need to spread the word and get more people actively participating.  The emailing and phone call part is easy, it's getting everyone on the same page so we strike in a concerted effort on the issues that matter most. 

I've been posting for support in another forum that I frequent.  I found opportunities to post support for gun right bills when people bitch and moan.  I make it real easy for them by posting email address and phone numbers for legislators.  I find it easier that they are like-minded conservatives.

Here are the changes made to the bill from HD1 to CD1 if anybody is interested. New additions are in red and removals are stricken.

 SECTION 1. Chapter 663, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is amended by adding a new section to be appropriately designated and to read as follows:
 "§663-" Owner to criminal offender;felon; limited liability. (a) An owner, including but not limited to a public entity, of any estate or any other interest in real property, whether possessory or nonpossessory, or any agent of the owner lawfully on the premises by consent of the owner, shall not be liable to any perpetrator engaged in any of the felonies set forth in subsection (b) for any injury or death to a personthe perpetrator that occurs upon the realthat property during the course of or after the person's commission of such felony, or when a criminal offense;reasonable person would believe that commission of a felony as set forth in subsection (b) is imminent; provided that:
 (1) The injured personthat if the perpetrator is injured, the perpetrator is charged with the criminal offense, and convicted of the criminal offense or of a lesser included felony or misdemeanor; and
 (2) The injured person's conduct in furtherance of the commission of the criminal offense, or lesser included felony or misdemeanor, proximately causes the injury.misdemeanor.
 (b) During the pendency of a criminal proceeding under subsection (a)(1), a civil action alleging the owner's liability for the person's injury shall be abated and the statute of limitations on the civil cause of action shall be tolled.
 (c) This section shall not limit the liability of an owner or an owner's agent that otherwise exists for wilful, wanton, or criminal conduct, or for wilful failureapplies to guard or warn against a dangerous condition, use, or structure.
 (d) The limitation on liability provided by this section shall be in addition to any other available defense.
 (e) For the purposes of this section, "criminal offense" means: following felonies:
     (b)  This section applies to the following felonies:
 (1) Murder in the first or second degree;
 (2) Attempted murder in the first or second degree;
 (3) Any class A felony enumeratedas provided in the Hawaii Penal Code, including any attempt or conspiracy to commit a crime classified as a class A felony;
 (4) Any class B felony enumerated in the Hawaii Penal Code, including any attempt or conspiracy to commit a crime classified as a class B felonyinvolving violence or physical harm as provided in the Hawaii Penal Code;
 (5) Any felony punishable by imprisonment by the State for life;
 (6) Any other felony in which the defendantperson inflicts serious bodily injury on anyanother person, other than an accomplice, or any felony in which the defendant uses a firearm; orand
 (7) Any felony in which the person personally used a firearm or a dangerous or deadly weapon.
 (c) The limitation on liability under this section arises:
 (1) At the moment the perpetrator commences the felony to which this section applies; or
 (2) At the moment the owner or agent of the owner lawfully on the premises by consent of the owner believes that a commission of a felony under subsection (b) is imminent;
and extends to the moment the perpetrator is no longer upon the property.
 (d) The limitation on liability under this section applies only when the perpetrator's conduct in furtherance of the commission of a felony specified in subsection (b) proximately or legally causes the injury or death.
 (e) This section does not limit the liability of an owner that otherwise exists for:
 (1) Wilful, wanton, or criminal conduct; or
 (2) Wilful or malicious failure to guard or warn against a dangerous condition, use, or structure; or
 (3) Injury or death caused to individuals other than the perpetrator of the felony.
 (f) Except with regard to paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(3), the limitation of liability under this section shall not be affected by the failure of the owner to warn the perpetrator of the felony that the owner is armed and ready to cause bodily harm or death.
 (g) For purposes of this section, "owner" means the owner, the occupant, tenant, or anyone authorized to be on the property by the owner or the occupant, including a guest or a family or household member, employee, or agent of the owner lawfully on the premises.
 (h) The limitation on liability provided by this section shall be in addition to any other available defense."
 SECTION 2. New statutory material is underscored.
 SECTION 3. This Act shall take effect on January 1, 2050upon approval.

Ok, I keep re-reading this.  And, it looks to me that if a bad guy is killed during the commission of a crime while in your home, you are covered.  If a bad guy is injured, you are only covered if s/he is charged and convicted of SOMEthing.  Which leaves the loophole of a bad guy who gets hurt while trying to brain you, but isn't convicted because of sloppy police work, or because the DA decides not to prosecute. 

I do like the fact that you are not considered liable even if you fail to warn the bad guy that you are armed.  In fact, I think I like most of it.  I think.

What I can get out of it is that you can believe they are going to commit a felony but they can be charged and convicted with anything. I agree that it could leave the defender to trust the police and the DA. That is the biggest problem and an affluent (read knows people who know people) perpetrator could easily use that to their advantage.

Am I understanding this correcting in that this law only limits the liability of the property owner from civil suits (as opposed to criminal suits)?  For example, if a BG enters home about to or in the act of committing a felony, all criminal statues hold true for the use of deadly force in self-defense (as described by that law), but you have limited liability in getting sued by the perp and/or their family?

You are correct in that this bill is to protect against civil suits. There are already laws concerning the criminal aspect of self-protection.

After reviewing it, the added language is actually quite beneficial, especially this part:

(g) For purposes of this section, "owner" means the owner, the occupant, tenant, or anyone authorized to be on the property by the owner or the occupant, including a guest or a family or household member, employee, or agent of the owner lawfully on the premises.

They had the foresight to make the term "owner" all inclusive to any guest or person allowed to be on the property. It makes for much greater legal coverage than the way the bill was originally worded. 
 
 
What's your take on this part:

(7) Any felony in which the person personally used a firearm or a dangerous or deadly weapon.

Does "used/use" mean the person needs to be actively attacking with the deadly weapon or firearm, or do they merely have to be brandishing it?   I would argue that by having the weapon in hand they are "using" it as a threat of physical violence, under the definiton of terroristic threatening.  If so, then all the criminal has to do is carry the weapon into your household and they are subject to the limited liability law.

Good catch. I'd say that just bringing a "dangerous or deadly weapon" onto the property would qualify. And quite a few things could be dangerous or deadly.

First, again, good job to everyone that helped out with getting this bill to where it is now. The language added seems to be a combination of language from the House bill and another similar bill (SB1132, if I recall correctly) that didn't make it as far.

As to when you are immunized from civil liability, remember this phrase:

or when a reasonable person would believe that commission of a felony as set forth in subsection (b) is imminent;

So, the homeowner can use the fact that the intruder had a weapon to articulate a fear that an assault was imminent, but the mere fact that a weapon was possessed may not meet the burden. Which, IMHO, is probably the correct way to go. For argument's sake, imagine if a homeowner utilized deadly force against someone on their property (i.e. someone with no criminal intent, but happened to be carrying a large fixed blade knife on their belt), they probably couldn't claim self defense, nor gain the immunity under this bill.

The addition of the inclusive language for "owner" was a direct result of meetings last year by HRA over the concern that "owner" without said inclusions, would not benefit a large number of legal residents and visitors to one's property.

I have been too busy to review the language in detail, but do sense some areas that a plantiff's lawyer might use to their client's advantage. But, I hope to have a lawyer look at it and see what they think.

Thanks for that info, HiCarry. I'd love to hear the thoughts of a lawyer on this.

link didnt work, will try again, but using means holding according to the state

link didnt work, will try again, but using means holding according to the state

While mere possesion of a firearm may constitute a crime, remember, there is still a requirement that you articulate, to a reasonable man standard, a perceived threat of one of the felonies proscribed under the language of the bill in order to be granted civil immunity. In other words, you would not likely succeed in invoking said immunity if you shot a guy with a gun who had mearly stepped onto your front lawn, which was 30 yards from the nearest entry point of your residence.

Especially if the subsequent conversation with the police went something like:

Homeowner: He was on my property with a gun so I shot him
Cop: Did you fear for your life or great bodily harm
Homeowner: No, but he had a gun and he was on my property
Cop: Did he threaten you?
Homeowner: No, but he had a gun and was on my property
Cop: Did he threaten anybody else?
Homeowner: No, but......

I think you get the picture. The mere possession of the gun while being on your property MAY not be enough for either a successful self-defense claim or to receive the immunity under this bill.

I also think Tom raises a valid point, and one HRA tried to push. That the bad guy had to be convicted of the crime, and in this version of the bill, only those crimes stipulated. An example I can immediately think of is the case of someone defending themselves and then having the bad guy convicted of something less than the Class A or B felonies, or the "any other felony" in which the person inflicts "serious" bodily injury. Say assault in the 3rd degree, where the intent was was to inflict "substantial" bodily injury (serious is worse than substantial...). According to my interpretation, if that were to happen, the homeowner may not be granted the immunity under this language.

Also consider the circumstances where two intruders enter your house and only one has a gun. But, in defending yourself against a reasonable threat by that person with the gun, you inadvertently injure or kill the guy without the gun. If the courts determine that the guy you shot should only be charged with, and is subsequently convicted of, burglary in the 2nd degree (a class C felony), again the immunity may not be conferred.

So, that being said, this bill is still a very good start. What we need is to have a lawyer review and analyze it and see if those concerns, and any others, are valid, and make an effort to ammend it in a subsequent legislative session.

Quote from: tonsofguns on April 28, 2010, 09:31:46 PM

link didnt work, will try again, but using means holding according to the state

Homeowner: He was on my property with a gun so I shot him
Cop: Did you fear for your life or great bodily harm
Homeowner: No, but he had a gun and he was on my property
Cop: Did he threaten you?
Homeowner: No, but he had a gun and was on my property
Cop: Did he threaten anybody else?
Homeowner: No, but......

 The answer to the officers questions are YES, YES ,and YES. Furthermore, I think ANY REASONABLE PERSON would shoot an armed intruder whether the gun was pointed directly at them or others or merely being held.

ETA: What then constitutes a clear and present danger if not an armed intruder, be it a gun,knife, bat, or rock? Does one have to wait to be shot, stabbed, or beaten within an inch of death in order to defend oneself? I think not, and MANY, MANY, MANY self defense experts would agree, a person who is armed, IS the threat. Why do you think the government wants to disarm us!?

This is the kind of decision that takes some consideration. It will be up to the homeowner/guest to feel threatened. Then the answers will be YES, YES, and YES.

On a side note, I hope I never get put in that situation.