The FIN hearing yesterday was interesting.  Several depts provided written testimony, and a few gave oral testimony.  I had a go at testifying because I felt I should voice my opinion.

There was one other individual who testified in opposition.  Dr Cooper/HRA got to testify in support, but with some very good comments.  Dr Cooper went after the Attorney General office stated support w/ amendments.  DA wanted to change the wording of "shall be waived" back to "may be waved".  I believe their concern was related to updating photos which may be "old".  Dr Cooper thought the photos could easily be updated without having to change the wording back to "may".  He also stated the various descriptors on the paperwork that don't change with time; fingerprints, height, eye color, hair color, etc.... The committee passed without amendments, so they must have agreed with Dr Cooper on this concern.

There were several questions from some committee members after testimony, addressed to both Dr Cooper and the DA spokesperson.  IMO Dr Cooper seemed to be "the reliable expert" when the DA's spokesperson kind of faltered on a quick and accurate answer to a question from committee members.  I don't remember the exact question, but I think a similar question was asked of Dr Cooper, and he had the answer right away!  I was glad there were questions, as this tells me folks were listening and addressing things brought up in the testimony.    I stated my opposition/concern that if the State budget funded the line item for the new shooting range in Kailua/Kona, any legislation which may interfere with visiting hunters/shooters/competitors at this proposed range may have a negative impact on their choice to come to Hawaii and spend their money.  I did not state i thought this would be true even if the hindrance was "real or perceived".   Hindsight is 20/20.  I tried to stick with financial impact, as it was FIN committee.  I pointed out that, as I understood it, folks bringing firearms into Hawaii already have to register and comply with existing statute, so the new bill was not needed. 

Do folks who register guns brought in from out of state for the first time- folks who didn't have to go through the permit process before registration- currently have to also have the fingerprint/background checks done at this registration?  They did not have had them done during permitting, since they didn't acquire here.  If they don't have to have fingerprints/background done when registering, then this could be the "loophole" the DA addressed.  I don't know if one must have the fingerprints/background done to register, but if they do, it's already part of the existing process, and that weakens the "loophole" argument.

Dr Cooper cited a recent DA annual report on Firearm Registration in Hawaii, 2012, just released by the DA's office. He seemed to have a better understanding on the findings of this report than the DA spokesperson.  I only say this because she didn't bring up the report in her latest written testimony, and still had wording about the police administering "gun safety and education... or gun buy-back programs".  Both these parts of the bill were removed via amendments in an previous committee report, so I wondered why the DA's office still left it in their testimony? 
You can see the DA's most recent submitted testimony(page 1), along w/ Dr Cooper/HRA's (page 9) at: 
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2013/Testimony/SB69_HD1_TESTIMONY_FIN_03-28-13_.PDF

A summary of DA's annual report "Firearm Registration in Hawaii, 2012" can be viewed at: http://ag.hawaii.gov/cpja/rs/specialrpts2013/
The full report in PDF is available here:  http://ag.hawaii.gov/cpja/files/2013/03/Firearm-Registrations-2012.pdf

I find it interesting that 157 applicants were denied a permit to acquire because they provided falsified "criminal or mental health information or both".  This represents 157 out of 227 denials in 2012.  It's a felony to do so.  The details of cause for denial are outlined on pg 10 of the report, and there were some causes which warrant prosecution if these were among this 157 falsified information denials- in my opinion.  One could argue all falsified information denials warrant prosecution the way the statute is written, but I'm more interested in why they didn't "do something" to the obvious major offenders?  There were 29 denials for previous assault convictions.  And there were denials for specified and unspecified felony convictions for 10 denials. 

My question is:  Why didn't the police arrest some of these folks when they came back to pick up their permits?  It's a class C felony, and if they want to get the guns out of the hands of criminals, they could have arrested them upon return, and let the courts decide if the falsification charges are worthy of conviction. 
If they catch folks who are prohibited from acquiring guns- folks they think falsified mental or criminal information provided- but don't "do anything" to them, what's the point?  Aren't these the folks they say they want to prosecute? 

It would also be interesting to know how many of the violent crimes committed with firearms (page 7-8 of report) involved illegal guns in these crimes.  If the majority of the guns used were illegal, then the permit and registration process isn't necessarily helping keep track of guns in the hands of criminals....especially if they don't prosecute more of the folks denied for cause involving felony falsification.

It's like the system is broken, or limping along.  They have these "tools" (permit/registration) which may not have much impact on the ability to help with illegal guns used in violent crimes, but they certainly could catch a few folks who shouldn't have guns before the crimes are committed, and "do something" to them. 

We can argue that the process (permit/registration) should not take place, but for now, it's the law. Lets either work to change those laws, or they should start using this stuff for prosecution before the illegal gun crime happens.  It's like they want more regulations/restrictions (overwhelmingly impacting law abiding citizens) while not prosecuting the offenders they already know about. 

I can see why this is so frustrating to a guy who want's to exercise his right to legally own and use a longarm or handgun.  Wow! 
I bet very few of the anti-gun public know the facts, and they are just being influenced by the rhetoric.  Typical of America these days.  Like misguided triage- we try to (inappropriately and incorrectly) treat the symptoms without addressing the cause of the problem to begin with. 

Thanks for the detailed info! Good observations and excellent questions you pose that I too would be interested to know the answers.

Thanks for posting and for testifying, William Smith!

I may have answered one of my questions from below. 
It looks like "Hawaii Revised Statutes 134-2 - Permits to acquire" has the fingerprinting part nailed down as requirement.
However, when I read through "Hawaii Revised Statutes 134-3 - Registration, mandatory, exceptions" there is no mention of a fingerprinting requirement for firearms legally purchased while out of state and registered in Hawaii when bringing them into the state.  This must be the "loophole" to which the Deputy DA refers. 

So the way I read it, a Hawaii resident can go to mainland, legally purchase a firearm, bring it back into Hawaii (transporting legally) and then register it without having to go through the fingerprinting.

Based on 134-3, I am not sure if they are subject to the mental health check requirements of 134-2 upon registering in my scenario above. 

Does anyone know (or think/guess) if the mental health disclosure part is not required upon registration in my scenario?
As always, thanks

I may have answered one of my questions from below. 
It looks like "Hawaii Revised Statutes 134-2 - Permits to acquire" has the fingerprinting part nailed down as requirement.
However, when I read through "Hawaii Revised Statutes 134-3 - Registration, mandatory, exceptions" there is no mention of a fingerprinting requirement for firearms legally purchased while out of state and registered in Hawaii when bringing them into the state.  This must be the "loophole" to which the Deputy DA refers. 

So the way I read it, a Hawaii resident can go to mainland, legally purchase a firearm, bring it back into Hawaii (transporting legally) and then register it without having to go through the fingerprinting.

Based on 134-3, I am not sure if they are subject to the mental health check requirements of 134-2 upon registering in my scenario above. 

Does anyone know (or think/guess) if the mental health disclosure part is not required upon registration in my scenario?
As always, thanks

The loophole was that HPD was already doing background checks (NICS) and running these people through .... so there really was no loophole.

The loophole was that HPD was already doing background checks (NICS) and running these people through .... so there really was no loophole.

I believe that depends on the definition of loophole.  I'm not saying the NICS alone shouldn't be adequate.  I'm not necessarily saying the fingerprinting requirement is reasonable, but it does looks like if someone brings a gun in from out of state, they only have to register.  And that registration process does not require fingerprinting, based on 134-3 the existing statute. If my statement is true, then this 134-3 registration process does not have the same requirements as firearms acquired through 134-2. 
Maybe I shouldn't call it a loophole, but what ever I call it, I'm reading that 134-3 and 134-2 have different requirements- no fingerprinting w/ registration.  I'm thinking that's what the DA is talking about.