https://reason.com/2023/12/08/prosecutors-agree-he-shot-a-man-in-self-defense-theyre-still-trying-to-put-him-in-prison/?fbclid=IwAR1PLQjzskTkJmXEjwDScDNqenM4II-5o017fUd_8_tRmVFDQVJPw3Wm8XA

Cliffnotes

Happened in NY
Shooter deemed usage was in self defense since his home was broken into and event caught on camera.  Bad guy reached into his pocket, which had a taser in it.
Shooter charged for having a non-licensed firearm due to NY law
Shooter has no criminal history
Shooter may die in prison

But according to 1, this is constitutional cause he's getting "due process" and because SCOTUS hasn't ruled on the NY permitting scheme.

This could happen in HI because HI has registration of all firearms.

This could happen in HI because HI has registration of all firearms.

"Slightly" different penalties involved.  NY can put him in prison for years.  HI -- only up to 30 days.

HRS 134 says the penalty for having an unregistered firearm is a petty misdemeanor. 

They also give you 5 days from notice of the violation before charging you and/or confiscating the firearm if the acquisition falls under 134-3(b).

(4)  A crime is a petty misdemeanor if it is so designated in this Code or in a statute
other than this Code enacted subsequent thereto, or if it is defined by a statute other
than this Code that provides that persons convicted thereof may be sentenced to
imprisonment for a term not to exceed thirty days.

"Slightly" different penalties involved.  NY can put him in prison for years.  HI -- only up to 30 days.

HRS 134 says the penalty for having an unregistered firearm is a petty misdemeanor. 

They also give you 5 days from notice of the violation before charging you and/or confiscating the firearm if the acquisition falls under 134-3(b).

And under the new HRS, one loses their 2a right for 20 years due to this being a firearm violation.

And under the new HRS, one loses their 2a right for 20 years due to this being a firearm violation.

Can you point to that in the statute, please?

SB1230, which hasn't been fully uploaded as a HRS134-7 yet.

"(b)  No person who [is under indictment for, or has waived indictment for, or has been bound over to the circuit court for,] is being prosecuted for one or more charges for a felony, a crime of violence, a criminal offense relating to firearms, or an illegal sale or distribution of any drug in a court in this State or elsewhere, or who has been convicted in this State or elsewhere of having committed a felony, [or any] a crime of violence, a criminal offense relating to firearms, or an illegal sale or distribution of any drug shall own, possess, or control any firearm or ammunition [therefor]."

"(h)  Any person who otherwise would be prohibited under subsection (b) from owning, possessing, or controlling a firearm and ammunition solely as a result of a conviction for a crime that is not a felony, and who is not prohibited from owning, possessing, or controlling a firearm or ammunition for any reason under any other provision of this chapter or under title 18 United States Code section 922 or another provision of federal law, shall not be prohibited under this section from owning, possessing, or controlling a firearm and ammunition if twenty years have elapsed from the date of the conviction."

SB1230, which hasn't been fully uploaded as a HRS134-7 yet.

"(b)  No person who [is under indictment for, or has waived indictment for, or has been bound over to the circuit court for,] is being prosecuted for one or more charges for a felony, a crime of violence, a criminal offense relating to firearms, or an illegal sale or distribution of any drug in a court in this State or elsewhere, or who has been convicted in this State or elsewhere of having committed a felony, [or any] a crime of violence, a criminal offense relating to firearms, or an illegal sale or distribution of any drug shall own, possess, or control any firearm or ammunition [therefor]."

"(h)  Any person who otherwise would be prohibited under subsection (b) from owning, possessing, or controlling a firearm and ammunition solely as a result of a conviction for a crime that is not a felony, and who is not prohibited from owning, possessing, or controlling a firearm or ammunition for any reason under any other provision of this chapter or under title 18 United States Code section 922 or another provision of federal law, shall not be prohibited under this section from owning, possessing, or controlling a firearm and ammunition if twenty years have elapsed from the date of the conviction."

There are cases being won that contested the removal of 2A rights for non-violent crimes regardless of what they related to.  Others (Rahimi) are contesting removal of 2A rights for non-felony charges/convictions.  I have a feeling that 20-year quashing of a civil right for an adminstrative infraction won't stand.

https://reason.com/2023/12/08/prosecutors-agree-he-shot-a-man-in-self-defense-theyre-still-trying-to-put-him-in-prison/?fbclid=IwAR1PLQjzskTkJmXEjwDScDNqenM4II-5o017fUd_8_tRmVFDQVJPw3Wm8XA

Cliffnotes

Happened in NY
Shooter deemed usage was in self defense since his home was broken into and event caught on camera.  Bad guy reached into his pocket, which had a taser in it.
Shooter charged for having a non-licensed firearm due to NY law
Shooter has no criminal history
Shooter may die in prison

But according to 1, this is constitutional cause he's getting "due process" and because SCOTUS hasn't ruled on the NY permitting scheme.

It is because there are two separate laws at play. One law regarding firearm licensing and one law regarding use of lethal force. Those two are independent of each other which is why he could be cleared of one offense but charged with the other.

This could happen in HI because HI has registration of all firearms.

Not all firearms need to be registered in Hawaii.

https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol03_Ch0121-0200D/HRS013(d)  Registration shall not be required for:

     (1)  Any device that is designed to fire loose black powder or that is a firearm manufactured before 1899;

     (2)  Any device not designed to fire or made incapable of being readily restored to a firing condition; or

     (3)  All unserviceable firearms and destructive devices registered with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives of the United States Department of Justice pursuant to Title 27, Code of Federal Regulations.4/HRS_0134-0003.htm

I have a black powder derringer that is not registered.

#objective

This is incorrect, not all firearms need to be registered in Hawaii.

https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol03_Ch0121-0200D/HRS013(d)  Registration shall not be required for:

     (1)  Any device that is designed to fire loose black powder or that is a firearm manufactured before 1899;

     (2)  Any device not designed to fire or made incapable of being readily restored to a firing condition; or

     (3)  All unserviceable firearms and destructive devices registered with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives of the United States Department of Justice pursuant to Title 27, Code of Federal Regulations.4/HRS_0134-0003.htm

I have a black powder derringer that is not registered.

This is incorrect, not all firearms need to be registered in Hawaii.

https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol03_Ch0121-0200D/HRS013(d)  Registration shall not be required for:

     (1)  Any device that is designed to fire loose black powder or that is a firearm manufactured before 1899;

     (2)  Any device not designed to fire or made incapable of being readily restored to a firing condition; or

     (3)  All unserviceable firearms and destructive devices registered with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives of the United States Department of Justice pursuant to Title 27, Code of Federal Regulations.4/HRS_0134-0003.htm

I have a black powder derringer that is not registered.

According to FOPA, no guns are allowed to be registered.

No such rule or regulation prescribed [by the Attorney General] after the date of the
enactment of the Firearms Owners Protection Act may require that records required
to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be
recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States
or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of
firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or disposition be established.

Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary's authority to inquire into the
disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation.

According to FOPA, no guns are allowed to be registered.

That would be nice

Not all firearms need to be registered in Hawaii.

https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol03_Ch0121-0200D/HRS013(d)  Registration shall not be required for:

     (1)  Any device that is designed to fire loose black powder or that is a firearm manufactured before 1899;

     (2)  Any device not designed to fire or made incapable of being readily restored to a firing condition; or

     (3)  All unserviceable firearms and destructive devices registered with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives of the United States Department of Justice pursuant to Title 27, Code of Federal Regulations.4/HRS_0134-0003.htm

I have a black powder derringer that is not registered.

Thanks for nitpicking just because you feel the need for self gratification.

It is because there are two separate laws at play. One law regarding firearm licensing and one law regarding use of lethal force. Those two are independent of each other which is why he could be cleared of one offense but charged with the other.

Please show me where I said he was being charged for using lethal force.  Thanks for nitpicking for something to make yourself sound good in your mind.

According to FOPA, no guns are allowed to be registered.

SCOTUS hasn't ruled on this, thus HI's registration is constitutional-someone here would say.

The no registration under FOPA only prevents the Feds from having a registry, or the prevents the Feds requiring the state to have a registry.  It doesn't prevent states from creating their  own registry.  And military registration would fall under different rules.

Registration will eventually be overturned in the courts, but it'll be a long time from now.

Thanks for nitpicking just because you feel the need for self gratification.

So you said something incorrect and somehow instead of simply acknowledging the correct information you accuse me of doing it for self gratification? But if I you and Flapp do it, its totally justified? Stop being a hypocrite. 

Please show me where I said he was being charged for using lethal force.  Thanks for nitpicking for something to make yourself sound good in your mind.

Strawman. I never said you said he was being charged with using lethal force.

I am simply explaining how there are two separate laws at play in this case and that is why he still faces one charge even if exonerated of the other.

The no registration under FOPA only prevents the Feds from having a registry, or the prevents the Feds requiring the state to have a registry.  It doesn't prevent states from creating their  own registry.  And military registration would fall under different rules.

Registration will eventually be overturned in the courts, but it'll be a long time from now.

You must be an amazing free diver if you can hold your breath that long!

So you said something incorrect and somehow instead of simply acknowledging the correct information you accuse me of doing it for self gratification? But if I you and Flapp do it, its totally justified? Stop being a hypocrite.

Thanks for nitpicking.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk