Hawaii is known for some of the strictest gun regulations in the nation. Among them: Gun owners are required to pass a background check and register their weapon with the county. There are restrictions on specified types of firearms, and although there is a provision for issuing permits to carry a gun, they’re almost never given, outside the realm of law enforcement.

Lawmakers this session are hoping, however, to tighten a few of the loopholes that remain. Most of them represent reasonable efforts to ensure that an abundance of caution is shown preceding the point of issuing a permit.

However, one of the measures, House Bill 1813, should be set aside, at least until the federal government corrects a lack of transparency and due process that can only be handled at that level.

The measure “temporarily prohibits a person listed in the federal Terrorist Screening Database from owning, possessing, or controlling a firearm or ammunition.” The database is a watchlist administered by the Federal Bureau of Investigation; this large list includes the better-known “no-fly list.”

The key word here is “temporarily.” According to the bill, the state would “rescind the disqualification upon the removal of the person from the watchlist.”

What’s lacking here is any clear understanding about how one is placed in the database to begin with, or any established process for getting inclusion in the database rescinded.

And there have been notorious mistakes. The American Civil Liberties Union has sued the federal government on behalf of Rahinah Ibrahim, a doctoral candidate at Stanford University, who was placed on the no-fly list due to a clerical error. A federal judge has found “the absence of any meaningful procedures” for list appeal to be an unconstitutional violation of due process.

The case, still on appeal, would be moot if the lack of notification, process and transparency was fixed. However, that failing is a federal issue and beyond the reach of state agencies to correct.

So a state law that hinges on a federal screening process essentially puts a Hawaii resident’s constitution- al rights to gun ownership on hold without providing a clear route to relief.

Other bills have been better tailored to make narrow, needed fixes:

>> HB 626 would bar a person with “actual physical possession” of a gun from drinking alcohol while away from home or temporary lodging or residence, such as a hotel room.

The Honolulu Police Department toughened its own internal policy prohibiting its own officers from this behavior after then- police Sgt. Anson Kimura, while off duty, allegedly shot a bar employee by accident almost a year ago. HPD supports the bill — for good reason.

Some opponents noted possible confusion over “physical possession.” The report filed by the House Judiciary Committee clarified that the term means “the firearm is on the person, in the person’s holster, belt, hand, briefcase, bag, backpack, or within arm’s length.” Including a fuller definition in the text of the bill itself would make sense.

>> HB 625 would add misdemeanor sexual assault and misdemeanor stalking to the list of criminal convictions that disqualify people from owning firearms or ammunition in Hawaii. State Attorney General Douglas Chin correctly noted studies indicating that three-fourths of the women who are murdered, and 85 percent of women who survived a murder attempt by a current or former intimate partner, were stalked in the year before the attack.

That clearly suggests that Hawaii should take this precaution. Passing this bill would put it in the company with the 11 states that already bar people who are convicted of stalking from owning guns.

>> Senate Bill 2956 and HB 2632 would mandate gun owners to “immediately surrender or dispose of” the firearms if they are disqualified from ownership due to mental illness. This includes the option to sell them to a licensed dealer or transferring them to a qualified owner, so this bill, too, is reasonable.

>> HB 2629 would establish “continuous background checks” to alert police when Hawaii gun owners have been arrested in another county or state. Police in Hawaii plainly need an alert system in the event that a registered gun owner is newly indicted or convicted elsewhere.

These latter provisions seem rational, strengthening boundaries that ensure responsible gun ownership. But lawmakers should take care that amendments don’t breach those boundaries — as HB 1813 would do.