What about a gun that jammed on the first round, that means it didn't function. (All rhetorical). Would that be OK?  As I have never looked into this specifically, but I assume what you're saying makes no sense.  Maybe Flapp can chime in as he post more credible info.

See above post, I was editing it to add section when you replied.

Carrying around a non-functioning replica, for example, would still be a crime.

Revised ordinances of honolulu
41-11.2 Prohibitions.
(a)   No person shall carry or display a replica gun on any street, alley, public road, or on any public lands, unless such replica gun is in a suitable case or securely wrapped.
(b)   No person shall draw or brandish a replica gun in the presence of a law enforcement officer engaged in the performance of the law enforcement officer’s duties.
(c)   Nothing in this article shall be deemed to prevent any person who has obtained a hunting license pursuant to HRS Chapter 183D from engaging in hunting in accordance with law.
(d)   In the event a replica gun is also an “air gun”, as defined in § 41-10.1, the exceptions in § 41-10.4 shall also be exceptions to the prohibitions in this article.
(e)   Nothing in this article shall prevent carrying or display of a replica gun by a person involved in a living history presentation or other activity for historical interpretation or educational purposes, or by a person participating in a parade if such activity or parade participant is associated with an established historical organization, museum, military preservation organization, or other group with a mission to educate the public at various events through the use of historical artifacts, clothing, vehicles, aircraft, maritime vessels, and firearms or replicas thereof.

"So it would be legal to carry around a non-functioning gun?"

The correct answer appears to not be, "Carrying around a non-functioning replica, for example, would still be a crime."

The statute allows "carrying it around" if you follow the same rules for a functional firearm:
"(a)   No person shall carry or display a replica gun
on any street, alley, public road, or on any public lands,
unless such replica gun is in a suitable case or securely wrapped."

Complete answers would be appreciated in the future.

 

Wrong.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

The guy didn't carry it around in a suitable case if he drew it any pointed it at someone. I figured that was obvious given the context of the thread.

This guy is worse than a corrupt cop.

What was he going to do if they neva listen to him when he pointed the gun at them?

He going shoot them?

"Oh no, officer I was just trying to make dem scaid....."

were you there?

Sure, I just made up an entire section of Revised ordinances of Honollulu 

You answered a question about the law, not that specific case:

"So it would be legal to carry around a non-functioning gun?"


Man up!  Admit you didn't give a complete/correct answer.

No.  But is anyone disputing that he pulled a gun on those 2 guys?  It was reported as so.

The linked news post actually says "allegedly" and also that it was to stop a fight.

The media often uses that word.

You cannot use deadly force (pointing a gun at someone) to stop others from fighting.  Use of deadly force law only applies to yourself.

There are many laws for many things. I believe there is also a law about physically assaulting people. All laws are for things people can do, not for things people cannot do.

There are many laws for many things. I believe there is also a law about physically assaulting people.

All laws are for things people can do, not for things people cannot do.

Not sure i understand your generality.  Can you elaborate, please?

Sounds like you are saying there are no laws for what it is impossible for people to do -- like, no laws exist re: time travel.

Time travel laws do exist. But they keep going back in time to delete them. Then pass them again so they maintain control. Then go back in time to delete again and so on.  But wait, how would they know to delete them if the laws never existed?  Uh-oh....time travel brother paradox.

You answered a question about the law, not that specific case:

"So it would be legal to carry around a non-functioning gun?"


Man up!  Admit you didn't give a complete/correct answer.

Whatever dude, it is not worth arguing with you over this.

Once again, you posted the wrong thing. Not that the law itself was wrong.  It's like I ask what's purple and you post blue. Then add in "well if you add red also, then it's purple".

Read slowly what you posted and the ENTIRE ordinance, including the definitions (hint hint). Then come back and respond to why I said you're wrong. Here's another HINT, you have to look up state law after this.

This is the 2nd time you posted only part of something so it sounds like you're right, but in the end wrong.  We call this selective information.  The anti gunners use this tactic as well. Hmmm.... EEF thinks red flag laws are constitutional like how MDA, ET, Brady do and now using this tactic more.

"Spoken" like a person who knows he's wrong and still can't type the words.