Author Topic: Leftist State Hawaii Institutes Dangerous and Draconian New Anti-Gun Statutes  (Read 1081 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Elderberry

  • TBR Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 24,420
MRC TV by P. Gardner Goldsmith 7/16/2019

The multi-island paradise of Hawaii is rapidly becoming an Orwellian political dystopia.

On July 11, Chris Eger of Guns.Com reported that (no shock) the Democratic Governor of the state, David Ige, signed into effect two new anti-gun statutes that not only infringe on the right to keep and bear arms but also stand as insults to logic and common sense.

The first statute, entitled SB600, prohibits anyone under 21 years of age from entering the political boundaries of the state while in possession of a firearm.

Some might call this “discriminatory” of people under 21. But that’s a bit of a misnomer. It uses the process of discrimination – distinguishing between two or more things – to unduly punish people under 21. And it stands as a giant middle-finger-salute to the Second Amendment as well as the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unlawful searches and seizures. It is an insult to the protection of due process that is explicitly mandated in the Fifth Amendment. It breaches the prohibition against the taking pf private property without “just compensation” that is supposedly insured by the same Amendment. It’s a breach of the Sixth Amendment’s requirement for a timely trial by jury, and it is a breach of the Eight Amendment’s prohibition against excessive fines or undue punishments.

---   Which brings us to the second statute, SB1466, the Hawaiian version of the “Red Flag” “Protective Order” statutes that have been passed by collectivists in seventeen states, and proposed in six.

    …would allow for co-workers, educators, medical professionals or family members of an individual thought to be at risk of hurting themselves (sic) or others to ask a family court in the state for a GVPO. If granted in a hearing that doesn’t require the subject of the order to be present, the individual would have their gun rights suspended for a year.

More: https://www.mrctv.org/blog/leftist-state-hawaii-institutes-dangerous-and-draconian-anti-gun-statutes

Offline thackney

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,267
  • Gender: Male
The existing under 21 federal law is confusing to me.

https://www.atf.gov/questions-and-answers/qa/may-individual-between-ages-18-and-21-years-age-acquire-handgun-unlicensed

May an individual between the ages of 18 and 21 years of age acquire a handgun from an unlicensed individual who is also a resident of that same State?

An individual between 18 and 21 years of age may acquire a handgun from an unlicensed individual who resides in the same State, provided the person acquiring the handgun is not otherwise prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. A Federal firearms licensee may not, however, sell or deliver a firearm other than a shotgun or rifle to a person the licensee knows or has reasonable cause to believe is under 21 years of age.

There may be State or local laws or regulations that govern this type of transaction. Contact the office of your State Attorney General for information on any such requirements.

[18 U.S.C. 922(b)(1)]
Life is fragile, handle with prayer

Online Elderberry

  • TBR Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 24,420
The existing under 21 federal law is confusing to me.

https://www.atf.gov/questions-and-answers/qa/may-individual-between-ages-18-and-21-years-age-acquire-handgun-unlicensed

May an individual between the ages of 18 and 21 years of age acquire a handgun from an unlicensed individual who is also a resident of that same State?

An individual between 18 and 21 years of age may acquire a handgun from an unlicensed individual who resides in the same State, provided the person acquiring the handgun is not otherwise prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. A Federal firearms licensee may not, however, sell or deliver a firearm other than a shotgun or rifle to a person the licensee knows or has reasonable cause to believe is under 21 years of age.

There may be State or local laws or regulations that govern this type of transaction. Contact the office of your State Attorney General for information on any such requirements.

[18 U.S.C. 922(b)(1)]

I'm sure they'll close that loophole if they ever push thru a Background Check for Private Gun Sales Bill.

Bill Cipher

  • Guest
The existing under 21 federal law is confusing to me.

https://www.atf.gov/questions-and-answers/qa/may-individual-between-ages-18-and-21-years-age-acquire-handgun-unlicensed

May an individual between the ages of 18 and 21 years of age acquire a handgun from an unlicensed individual who is also a resident of that same State?

An individual between 18 and 21 years of age may acquire a handgun from an unlicensed individual who resides in the same State, provided the person acquiring the handgun is not otherwise prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. A Federal firearms licensee may not, however, sell or deliver a firearm other than a shotgun or rifle to a person the licensee knows or has reasonable cause to believe is under 21 years of age.

There may be State or local laws or regulations that govern this type of transaction. Contact the office of your State Attorney General for information on any such requirements.

[18 U.S.C. 922(b)(1)]

What is confusing in that?

Offline dfwgator

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,487
Make Hawaii A Monarchy Again.

Offline thackney

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,267
  • Gender: Male
What is confusing in that?

Gramp can give the kid a handgun for a HS graduation gift, but if he owns the guns shop he got it from, he cannot.

Legal to have but not legal to buy from the gun store.

Life is fragile, handle with prayer

Bill Cipher

  • Guest
Gramp can give the kid a handgun for a HS graduation gift, but if he owns the guns shop he got it from, he cannot.

Legal to have but not legal to buy from the gun store.



Very true. It doesn’t seem that the text itself confuses you, but the underlying policy justifications.  Most likely it’s because the intrastate gift between private individuals could not as clearly be regulated by the federal government as could the commercial conduct of the licensed seller - i.e., Commerce Clause considerations.  It may also have been a policy judgment that gifts would be too difficult to police whereas sales by a licensed dealer could.