Why does one need to apply for separate permits per weapon one wants to carry? Is this “rule” made by the police chief, or is it somewhere in the HRS that I missed?

Why does one need to apply for separate permits per weapon one wants to carry? Is this “rule” made by the police chief, or is it somewhere in the HRS that I missed?

A bit vauge but HRS says qualified on the firearm.  Could be taken different ways, but Hawaii sees it as that serialized firearm.  Some.of these laws go back a hundred years.

In my opinion ...

The rule to register a specific firearm for carry is a throwback from states that never required firearm registration, even for handguns.  The theory was, if a carry permit holder used their gun, the state wanted to ensure the owner didn't ditch that gun making it unable to be connected to a crime.  So, if the Cops asked to see your carry weapon, the serial number had to match or you become a suspect.

Hawaii uses a similar logic, even though all firearms must be registered.  Nevada used to have a rule that you had to qualify on a handgun with an action the same as you plan to carry -- semi or revolver.  Back then, you had the option to change carry weapons but only to one of the same action.  If you wanted the option to carry a semi and/or a revolver, you had to qualify using both types.

Nevada no longer requires you to do any of that.  You can qualify on on handgun and carry any handgun.

As of 10/1/2013 you no longer need to qualify with a semi-auto and revolver
or specific gun. You only have to qualify with one gun. By qualifying with any
one gun, you are permitted to carry any gun. The caliber and type (semi-auto
or revolver) is irrelevant. When you qualify with any one gun at the class, you
can carry any gun you like!

https://www.ccw-lasvegas.com/target-qualification.html

A bit vauge but HRS says qualified on the firearm.  Could be taken different ways, but Hawaii sees it as that serialized firearm.  Some.of these laws go back a hundred years.

Really really far stretch……

Another thing I just remembered.

The statute for concealed carry licensing used to restrict the licensee from carrying a magnum handgun.

I can see the police wanting to verify the gun someone chose to designate for carry complied with that and any other restrictions, just like they still require in-person inspection of firearms for registration in certain circumstances.

Basically, they don't trust people to know or follow the rules, so they make more rules.

Silly rules made by silly people who are afraid of their own silly shadow.

Another thing I just remembered.

The statute for concealed carry licensing used to restrict the licensee from carrying a magnum handgun.

I can see the police wanting to verify the gun someone chose to designate for carry complied with that and any other restrictions, just like they still require in-person inspection of firearms for registration in certain circumstances.

Basically, they don't trust people to know or follow the rules, so they make more rules.

I do not see that in the current law

 §134-9  Licenses to carry.  (a)  In an exceptional case, when an applicant shows reason to fear injury to the applicant's person or property, the chief of police of the appropriate county may grant a license to an applicant who is a citizen of the United States of the age of twenty-one years or more or to a duly accredited official representative of a foreign nation of the age of twenty-one years or more to carry a pistol or revolver and ammunition therefor concealed on the person within the county where the license is granted.  Where the urgency or the need has been sufficiently indicated, the respective chief of police may grant to an applicant of good moral character who is a citizen of the United States of the age of twenty-one years or more, is engaged in the protection of life and property, and is not prohibited under section 134-7 from the ownership or possession of a firearm, a license to carry a pistol or revolver and ammunition therefor unconcealed on the person within the county where the license is granted.  The chief of police of the appropriate county, or the chief's designated representative, shall perform an inquiry on an applicant by using the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, to include a check of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement databases where the applicant is not a citizen of the United States, before any determination to grant a license is made.  Unless renewed, the license shall expire one year from the date of issue.
     (b)  The chief of police of each county shall adopt procedures to require that any person granted a license to carry a concealed weapon on the person shall:
     (1)  Be qualified to use the firearm in a safe manner;
     (2)  Appear to be a suitable person to be so licensed;
     (3)  Not be prohibited under section 134-7 from the ownership or possession of a firearm; and
     (4)  Not have been adjudged insane or not appear to be mentally deranged.
     (c)  No person shall carry concealed or unconcealed on the person a pistol or revolver without being licensed to do so under this section or in compliance with sections 134-5(c) or 134-25.
     (d)  A fee of $10 shall be charged for each license and shall be deposited in the treasury of the county in which the license is granted. [L 1988, c 275, pt of §2; am L 1994, c 204, §8; am L 1997, c 254, §§2, 4; am L 2000, c 96, §1; am L 2002, c 79, §1; am L 2006, c 27, §3 and c 66, §3; am L 2007, c 9, §8]

“Be qualified to use THE FIREARM…. “

The one you already own and use safely, in my eye. I don’t see where they can restrict one permit per different firearm, one wished to carry concealed. (or open)

I do not see that in the current law

I know.  That's why I said "used to."  When I first started delving into HRS-134, I remember seeing the magnum restriction.  At some point in time, it was removed. 

Funny that the legislature would bother to update a law they had no intention of ever following, huh?

I know.  That's why I said "used to."  When I first started delving into HRS-134, I remember seeing the magnum restriction.  At some point in time, it was removed. 

Funny that the legislature would bother to update a law they had no intention of ever following, huh?

When wheel guns was the in thing, everyone carried a .357magnum.

When wheel guns was the in thing, everyone carried a .357magnum.

Yes, and there was a belief that magnums were too powerful for the average person to shoot accurately, especially one that was made small enough for concealed carry.

I owned a .357 Magnum Charter Arms Bulldog Detective Model.  I only put about 15 magnum rounds through it -- just to remind me to always keep it loaded with .38+P.  OMG was that thing a recoiling monster!  Thankfully it came standard with Pachmayr grips.

Here's a really good, detailed discussion of the pros and cons of a .357 mag for carry.
https://aliengearholsters.com/blog/357-magnum-concealed-carry/

I can't swear to it, but I think the Hawaii statute was written to restrict magnum ammo.  So, you could carry your .357 magnum with .38 Special ammo.  Don't quote me on that.  I'm going off something I read years ago.  Wish I'd taken screen shots of the law every year just to have a reference for these kinds of changes.

Ah-HAH!  I think I found where I might have read it.....

       (p) A license granted under this section shall only
5     entitle the licensee to carry concealed pistols or revolvers
6     with magazine capacities of ten rounds or less and that do not
7     contain magnum caliber ammunition."

https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2009/bills/SB327_.PDF

Yep.  Magnum P.I. (old and new series) kept getting in my way of Googling the magnum ammo thing.

 

What is it about Hawaii where the leaders are so afraid of every little thing.  The magnum caliber restriction is so ludicrous.

Meanwhile people are running around with swords hacking people's hands off.  What they going to do now?  Limit swords to a length of 12 inches?

What is it about Hawaii where the leaders are so afraid of every little thing.  The magnum caliber restriction is so ludicrous.

Meanwhile people are running around with swords hacking people's hands off.  What they going to do now?  Limit swords to a length of 12 inches?

maybe because most of these leaders are Asian? Those words scare them.

maybe because most of these leaders are Asian? Those words scare them.

Racist

So no can carry 22 Magnum?

Racist

So no can carry 22 Magnum?

From looking at the current laws, I don't see any magnum restrictions of any caliber.  That makes sense.  It looks like there were at least 2 Senate bills with the magnum ammo restriction, but neither made it into law.

Go with .22 Mag, if that's what you're comfortable shooting.   

 

It is stupid, as if we have 8 arms or something. Once you have two pistols, having more doesn't make you more dangerous.