As the title says.  To give you a little background I was stationed in Hawaii in 2000 and moved away in 2010 and I will be moving back this weekend.  During the past 13 years I have registered a total of 4 firearms (2 pistols and 2 rifles) and all were brought in from Az.  In the coming weeks I will be applying for a long gun permit so I may finish my AR build.

My question and what I don't understand is, why do I need to apply for a long gun permit or any permit for that matter if I am a current (multiple) firearm owner?  I understand the 2 week cool off period/mental/criminal background check for new gun owners.  But let's be real, the cool off period really would not apply to someone that already owns firearms as they would have access already.  As for the mental and criminal background check, couldn't that be solved with a few phone calls.  You would figure as a multiple firearm owner that are legally registered, I should only have to show my current firearm registration at a local dealer, purchase the firearm, and then register at HPD.  I guess that makes to much sense?

In the end I know it probably has to do with local laws but if you have any other opinions please reply.

Jess

Although I do agree with you, each state has the right to put up as many hoops as they want when it comes to acquiring any form of firearm. Hawaii just happens to be among one of the most "progressive" states in the Union.

Yup as mentioned, its just hoops you have to go through to further dissuade you from purchasing more firearms and defending your family and loved ones.  The longer and more difficult the process is, the more people will not go through it (imagine new handgun owners having to go back multiple times for 1 firearm as well as having to wait for the permit to clear.).

Thanks for the replies.  I figured it was mainly hoops and only ask the question to provoke thoughts and opinions from others.  With the way political climate is today towards gun laws, I don't see this current system relaxing anytime soon.

Although I do agree with you, each state has the right to put up as many hoops as they want when it comes to acquiring any form of firearm. Hawaii just happens to be among one of the most "progressive" states in the Union.

No.  Governments can enact "reasonable restrictions" (as interpreted by a judge who probably doesn't own guns because they have a bailiff for a bodyguard) on the exercise of a right.  Some, or even many, of those restrictions may be found reasonable, but they are most definitely not free to put up "as many hoops as they want". 

Also, and this probably picking nits, but states don't have any rights at all.  No government does; only individuals have rights.  Government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed.

No.  Governments can enact "reasonable restrictions" (as interpreted by a judge who probably doesn't own guns because they have a bailiff for a bodyguard) on the exercise of a right.  Some, or even many, of those restrictions may be found reasonable, but they are most definitely not free to put up "as many hoops as they want". 

Also, and this probably picking nits, but states don't have any rights at all.  No government does; only individuals have rights.  Government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed.

I was merely paraphrasing what the Supreme Court said a few years ago when it came to the process of each state's restrictions regarding firearms.

No.  Governments can enact "reasonable restrictions" (as interpreted by a judge who probably doesn't own guns because they have a bailiff for a bodyguard) on the exercise of a right.  Some, or even many, of those restrictions may be found reasonable, but they are most definitely not free to put up "as many hoops as they want". 

Also, and this probably picking nits, but states don't have any rights at all.  No government does; only individuals have rights.  Government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed.

Yeah but unfortunately the vast majority of those in elected office here have every intent to nueter our 2a rights. The political process works. Its just that people here don't vote or are oblivious on where the candidates they vote for stand on issues. We actually stand a good chance of squashing any new legislation if every gun owner in the state did their part. I mean come on only 150 people showed up on a sat to rally at the capital. There were more people taking time off from work to stand at the HPD lines.

you "shouldn't" need to.

but Hawai'i's government likes to discourage firearms ownership so yeah, that's why you have to do it.

Though I have no solid proof that the legislature or city admin officials, it is obvious to us firearms owners, that the system is there to discourage firearms ownership. Do you see the same process when registering cars? Let's look at how many traffic fatalities this year. While on a rant, this state needs to be a more responsible one, a state that is not a nanny and is not a state of entitlement. The legislature wants to limit our rights because they believe we (as whole) are not responsible enough to own firearms, regardless of what our rights are.

Although I do agree with you, each state has the right to put up as many hoops as they want when it comes to acquiring any form of firearm. Hawaii just happens to be among one of the most "progressive" states in the Union.

Whenever I see the word "progressive", I just substitute the word "repressive".

Unfortunately what people in this world lack is common sense. I brought with me 2 handguns and a rifle when i came back from the mainland and registered them no problem. No extensive background checks, no safety classes... but to get one while your here you have to go through all the hoops. Makes no sense whatsoever. The waiting period is retarted, having to obtain a permit for each pistol. AND WAIT is retarted. There are just too many people who lack any modicom of brainpower and most of them are the ones making the laws.

There are just too many people who lack any modicom of brainpower and most of them are the ones making the laws.

And yet these politicians keep getting re-elected. Ignorant voters are the nightmares of common sense. 

And yet these politicians keep getting re-elected. Ignorant voters are the nightmares of common sense.

^ This is exactly the problem.  The sheeple of the State of Hawaii ( and America as a whole) are more interested in who is going to win American Idle, whats going on in Jersey Shore, or watching that stupid Honey Boo Boo show (this show is responsible for killing 100 brain cells per episode).  People need to wake up!  I think that Politicians should only be allowed 1 term, this way they will not have time to be Assholes.

Ignorant voters are the nightmares of common sense.

The re-election of a Marxist for President is proof of that, unfortunately.

The re-election of a Marxist for President is proof of that, unfortunately.

Not a Marxist socialist, a Fabian socialist.
Check it out. There is a big difference. Google it, the Fabian Socialist movement. It is us, and they are winning.

Yes. I'm aware of the incremental strategy of the Fabians which overlap with those of the Frankfurt school of Socialism.

When I call Obummer a Marxist, I'm referring to his ideological upbringing. I know Marxism generally involves bloody revolutions like Castro, Che or Pol Pot. However, Obummer is and always has been a Marxist at heart; he's just a pragmatic one that's embraced the concept of the slow march toward the classless utopia that Marx and Engel envisioned. There's too much in his past to say that he's abandoned the strong Marxist-Leninist leanings that were instilled in him by Frank Marshall Davis, etal.

Why apply for a long gun permit when I already own multiple firearms?

The answer is actually quite simple...
An individuals situation can change from one firearm purchase to the next. Meaning one might have an active retraining order, mental health issue, criminal conviction, or "other" court order that might disqualify them from owning/purchasing a firearm. The annual renewal/background check is just the State doing their due diligence to ensure individuals meet requirements. (Note: Current ownership and past firearms registrations are not proof that one currently meets the standards for purchase.)

Yes. I'm aware of the incremental strategy of the Fabians which overlap with those of the Frankfurt school of Socialism.

When I call Obummer a Marxist, I'm referring to his ideological upbringing. I know Marxism generally involves bloody revolutions like Castro, Che or Pol Pot. However, Obummer is and always has been a Marxist at heart; he's just a pragmatic one that's embraced the concept of the slow march toward the classless utopia that Marx and Engel envisioned. There's too much in his past to say that he's abandoned the strong Marxist-Leninist leanings that were instilled in him by Frank Marshall Davis, etal.

Agreed

The answer is actually quite simple...
An individuals situation can change from one firearm purchase to the next. Meaning one might have an active retraining order, mental health issue, criminal conviction, or "other" court order that might disqualify them from owning/purchasing a firearm. The annual renewal/background check is just the State doing their due diligence to ensure individuals meet requirements. (Note: Current ownership and past firearms registrations are not proof that one currently meets the standards for purchase.)

right. cause if for any reason a person "looses it", gets a RO, etc, etc, they will need a brand new firearm to go crazy.

Nah your answer makes the most sense and puts it into a new point of view, instead of the usual jump through hoops routine.  Although i do think that is still a part of the reason.

right. cause if for any reason a person "looses it", gets a RO, etc, etc, they will need a brand new firearm to go crazy.

Nah your answer makes the most sense and puts it into a new point of view, instead of the usual jump through hoops routine.  Although i do think that is still a part of the reason.

I know, but it is what it is. The process does prevent people who shouldn't have firearms from legally purchasing.

Personally, I don't see it as an obstacle (or hoops) for any law abiding and responsible gun owner. There's nothing nefarious to the process and it's no different than having to renew a driver's, business, or professional license. Well, that is, with one exception: repeatedly being required to bring the same documents IS pretty ridiculous. They've had my fingerprint cards on file since the 80's...why can't they just put a photocopy of my birth certificate, etc in there too???