Honolulu Star-Advertiser

Friday, July 12, 2024 85° Today's Paper

Top News

Hawaii could be first to put gun owners in federal database

Swipe or click to see more


In this May 10, 2016, file photo, Jerry Ilo holds a gun that he uses to teach the Hawaii Department of Natural Resources hunter education training course in a classroom in Honolulu. Ilo was one of several Hawaii residents to speak out against a bill passed by lawmakers to allow Hawaii gun owners to be registered in a federal database that will automatically notify police if an island resident is arrested anywhere else in the country.

Hawaii could become the first state in the United States to enter gun owners into an FBI database that will automatically notify police if an island resident is arrested anywhere else in the country.

Most people entered in the “Rap Back” database elsewhere in the U.S. are those in “positions of trust,” such as school teachers and bus drivers, said Stephen Fischer of the FBI’s Criminal Justice Information Services Division. Hawaii could be the first state to add gun owners.

“I don’t like the idea of us being entered into a database. It basically tells us that they know where the guns are, they can go grab them” said Jerry Ilo, a firearm and hunting instructor for the state. “We get the feeling that Big Brother is watching us.”

Supporters say the law would make Hawaii a leader in safe gun laws. Allison Anderman, a staff attorney at the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said the bill was “groundbreaking,” and that she hadn’t heard of other states introducing similar measures.

Sen. Will Espero, who introduced the bill, and the Honolulu Police Department said Hawaii could serve as a model for other states if it becomes the first to enact the law.

Yet others say gun owners shouldn’t have to be entered in a database to practice a constitutional right.

“You’re curtailing that right by requiring that a name be entered into a database without doing anything wrong,” said Kenneth Lawson, faculty at the University of Hawaii’s William S. Richardson School of Law.

Legal experts say the bill could face challenges, but would probably hold up in court. Recent Supreme Court rulings have clarified states’ ability to regulate gun sales, said David Levine, a law professor at the University of California, Hastings College of the Law.

The bill will undergo a legal review process by departments including the Attorney General’s Office, which supported the bill, before Gov. David Ige decides if he will sign it into law, said Cindy McMillan, a spokeswoman for the governor.

The cost to enter names in the database will be covered by a fee paid by gun owners, which wasn’t defined in the bill.

Even though other states don’t enter gun owners in the database, Honolulu Police Department Maj. Richard Robinson said it will still benefit Hawaii police. Right now, Hawaii gun owners undergo a background check only when they register a gun, so police have no way of knowing if they’re disqualified from owning a gun in the future unless they try to register a new firearm.

“We were only discovering things by accident,” said Robinson, who helped draft the bill. “They happen to come register another firearm, we run another background check, and then we find out they’re a prohibited person.”

That happens about 20 times each year, he said.

Some local gun owners say the law confirms their fear that the government would know exactly who and where people keep their firearms.

“This is an extremely dangerous bill. Exercising a constitutional right is not inherently suspicious,” said Amy Hunter for the National Rifle Association. “Hawaii will now be treating firearms as suspect and subject to constant monitoring.”

77 responses to “Hawaii could be first to put gun owners in federal database”

  1. sailfish1 says:

    “Supporters say it would ensure guns stay out of the hands of criminals” – Really? I didn’t know criminals went to gun stores, bought their guns, and registered them.

    • etalavera says:

      So if a convicted felon is not allowed to own a gun, they should still be allowed to vote Democrat, right?

      • RetiredUSMC says:

        And the rich vote Republikan to keep the poor in their place!

        • laeboy says:


        • peanutgallery says:

          Did you bump your head?

        • palani says:

          And the rich have done very well under the Obama administration, at the expense of the poor and middle class. But, hey, don’t let the facts get in the way of your ignorance.

        • richierich says:

          If you mean on the path to self improvement then yes.

        • kolohepalu says:

          Exactly- and their working-class base continues to bump along cluelessly, swallowing Fox sound bites

        • Boots says:

          Palani, the rich generally does well regardless of who is in power.

        • Winston says:

          Oh, wait. How much did hillary rack up in “speaking” fees between 2013 and 2015??? Answer: $21MILLION. So, she’s definitely the anti-Republican you want to support!

        • robokuda001 says:

          Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg are all super rich and always vote Democrat.

    • krusha says:

      Just don’t get arrested in the first place and you don’t have to worry about this. Hawaii’s gun violence rate is way lower than anyplace else in the nation, so the other states should follow suit if they want the same kind of results there.

    • Manoa_Fisherman says:

      Currently, all the information relating to firearms registrants in Hawaii are deemed to be confidential under the Hawaii law covering firearms, Sec. 134-3(b), HRS and under Chapter 92, HRS. This includes the name of any registrant. This point was the basis for the opposition to this legislation by the Maui Prosecuting Attorney, because by allowing the counties the authority and the state agency, the Attorney General’s Hawaii Criminal Data Center, to essentially place all registrants names on this national data base would violate the such confidentiality protections since anyone with access to the data base would have access to registrants’ information and would not be bound by Hawaii’s laws relating to the confidential nature of this information.

      Additionally, the fact that the Federal government data bases have a notorious reputation for being easily “hacked” by nearly anyone with an internet connection. Placing the Hawaii registrants names on the Rap Back system is essentially publicly disclosing it to the world. For example, last year the Federal Office of Personnel Management (OPM) was “hacked” to the tune of over 22 million individual records stolen. The IRS had over 100,000 returns “hacked” this past March. Hacking the Rap Back system could be accomplished by a bunch of high school kids.

      The extent of the resources devoted to cyber security by United States financial institutions far exceeds anything the Federal government currently utilized, but continue to be vulnerable. In the private sector, even ADP, the payroll processing giant, was hacked last month and the W-2 data was stolen for over 720,000 people. Considering the resources devoted by ADP to protect such data, you can understand that the Rap Back system is essentially a public record.

      One glaring issue the HPD representative never disclosed in his testimony at the legislature. In his statements he claimed that there were over 300,000 registered individuals on HPD’s files. Well I can tell you that HPD has never determined which of those registrants are currently residing in the City and County of Honolulu. In fact, many of those registrants were military personnel who dutifully followed Hawaii law and registered their firearms upon reporting to duty in Hawaii. Many of them, after a tour here, left the State and now reside outside the State.

      Herein lies the problem. What liability does the State of Hawaii and its counties incur in placing those registrants on the Federal data base? What if those people don’t even own the firearms they registered in Hawaii? Is the State and the Counties required to put out information on the Federal data base that firearms were once owned by those individuals? In many cases, the registrants may have left Hawaii DECADES ago. How will the arresting jurisdictions suppose to react to this questionable information? Does the other jurisdiction execute a search of the registrant’s home for a firearm they no longer own? What happens if they send in a SWAT team and the registrant or his family member gets hurt over a non-existent firearm? What is the liability for Hawaii and the Counties for old information that the police departments have NEVER updated.

      Finally, considering the problem with data bases in general, what happens when there is a mix up and someone with the same name as a Hawaii registrant is arrested on the mainland? What if the local law enforcement storms a home looking for a firearm the person never even had and people are injured or killed? Believe me, the trial lawyers are going to have a field day suing the HPD, the counties and the State of Hawaii for the “wrong” information on the Federal data base.

    • sjean says:

      You’re right sailfish. No legal gun owner has ever committed a crime with their registered firearm. (except for the recent san bernadino terrorists; and thousands of others)

  2. admiral says:

    This is great. For all our problems Hawaii often has been ahead of the rest of the country on social issues, from capital punishment and abortion to indigenous issues, gay rights and more. In recent years the legislature has been overly cautious–even reactionary–on such matters. It’s time we reclaim the Hawaii tradition of being ahead of the curve on social issues such as this.

    • paradiddle says:

      Yes. Hawaii certainly is a State where the minority overrules the majority more often than not. Let that thought simmer in your mind…

    • dtpro1 says:

      Yes our State and City Govt apparently cannot manage well, with one state govt.scandal after another. We have not figured out homelessness, cost of living, choke neck traffic, our sub par educational system and in general all aspects of State management are well below average. But we can claim to be tops in social engineering. Hawaii already has the most and strictest gun controls, now add controversial. Let’s work on real problems and leave the social engineering to New York and California.

    • kuroiwaj says:

      Admiral, if the legislation becomes law, this will eventually be another case for the U.S. Supreme Court to decide years from today. Federal Registration of private property is an interesting case for the Courts, especially private and legal guns. Now, the Hawaii Democrats will have to face the Hawaii and National citizen gun owners.

  3. cojef says:

    Relinquishing State sovereignty to Federal Government. What happens to local autonomy? An insidious act by liberals to socialize the Country. First our educational system is good example, failure comply, denied funding and the likes. Producing zombies that march to their tunes.

    • klastri says:

      Are you simply afraid of everything?

      • kuroiwaj says:

        Klastri, you and Boots (Peter) are on the same side and yet Peter is the one “afraid of everything”. China or Tonga will take over Hawaii without this legislation becoming law, give me a break.

      • d_bullfighter says:

        Another inane reply from klastri. Just because cojef expressed a concern regarding local autonomy, it does not logically entail that cojef is “afraid of everything.” To propose such a broad generalization is ridiculous.

    • Boots says:

      So sad that you don’t believe in the Constitution. tell me Cojef, how is the state going to mobilize gun owners when we are attacked without this database? Are you just willing to let China or Tonga march right into Hawaii and take it over?

      • dragoninwater says:

        Boots, you sound like you’re trolling. In the event you’re actually delusional and truly believe that China or any other country will attack, we have a military to protect us and frankly a very big military presence.

        • Boots says:

          The fact is the US constitution calls upon gun owners to mobilize during an attack. (Militia) So why are you against following the constitution?

      • sailfish1 says:

        HPD has their own database of registered gun owners. At least they should since they get paid to register firearms. The FBI database is separate.

  4. noheawilli says:

    So known gun sales and registrations will drop yet gun ownership will increase as a result of this. So can you figure that one out oh wise ones?

  5. Boots says:

    Obviously this is a good idea. Assume if China or Tonga attacks Hawaii, with this database, Hawaii will be able to mobilize all its gun owners to repulse the attack. Isn’t this what the second amendment is all about? Why wasn’t this done earlier?

    • palani says:

      No, that’s not what the 2nd amendment is all about.

      • Boots says:

        Its not? Then what was behind it then? I know it was really slavery but many believe guns are needed for defense.

        • hawaiikone says:

          You routinely post absurdities yet you’ve outdone yourself with this one..

        • dragoninwater says:

          Here’s your answer as to why the 2nd ammendment exists —> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

        • Boots says:

          well thank you hawaiikone, now if you can only say why it is so absurd. I know, we don’t really need to follow the constitution. Let me remind you that males need to register when they turn 18. Why not people with guns? Country just does not need to be protected I guess. Let other people do it. So typical.

        • hawaiikone says:

          Well, bootie, when they sent me overseas, they provided me with a rifle. Didn’t need to bring my own. By the way, the 2nd’s intent was to provide the assurance to the citizens, ( you, know, those folks who actually allow the government to have powers ), that should their government get totally out of control, the citizens would retain the means to replace it. Interesting that you of all people would make a jab about protecting the country, since you were the very one that said anyone serving in the military was “stupid”, and you’d never do so.

        • hawaiikone says:

          Two identical responses to “bootie” remain in limbo, with “your comment awaits moderation” as the title. To “reword”: when I was sent overseas, I was provided with a weapon, didn’t need to bring my own. The 2nd was written with the intent of allowing the citizens, should the need arise, to replace the “powers that be”. An ultimate insurance policy against oppression from authority. If no longer necessary or practical, then an amendment needs to be proposed. And to have boots take a jab at someone for unwillingness to “protect” the country, may I remind him he was the one that labeled any who serve as “s t u p i d”, and he’d never do so himself.

    • Manoa_Fisherman says:

      This is a data base that is so full of antiquated information, it is a joke. 80% of the data is of military personnel who have left the state, some even decades ago, so good luck trying to “mobilize” non-existent residents.

      Also, you fail to realize that an intelligent invasion force will go straight to HPD and county PDs to get all the registered firearms owners in the islands names and round them up. Thus, in one fell swoop, eliminating any armed resistance to any invasion force. Invaders are not as stupid as you are.

      • dragoninwater says:

        Boots is a complete trolling quack job. As a matter of fact boots should never be permitted to own a gun. Someone so nutty to think that the few gun owning citizens of Hawaii can point their pistols/rifles at an army invading the islands with airplanes, ships and tanks loaded with high power ammo and bombs coming from China or other military force stop them needs to go back to their mental ward and get their daily coo-coo clock pills from their shrink. Don’t bother wasting precious time responding to boots.

  6. leoscott says:

    “subject to constant monitoring.” And what is wrong with that? If you own firearms you should be kept tracked of. And yes, I own two handguns for the last 30 years and I have no problem with the government knowing that I have them and where they are. Do people against the bill have something to hide? The people yelling big brother are usually the ones that got secrets and uses the constitution as an excuse for everything.

    • Boots says:

      I don’t know why anyone would be against this. Haven’t they read the constitution? How is the government going to mobilize the militia without this knowledge? We could be attacked by China or Tonga. We were already attacked by Japan so its not like it is impossible. Come on gun owners, show some loyalty.

      • opihi123 says:

        The main reason the right to bear arms was put in the constitution was to allow the citizens to protect themselves from the U_S_ government.

        • palani says:

          Exactly, based on the colonists’ personal experience with the British Empire. I’m sure that Empire would have loved these present day Tories who don’t understand the need for the Second Amendment.

        • Boots says:

          I suggest you google the second amendment and slavery. You might just learn something.

    • tsboy says:

      should Hillary become president, heaven forbid, and her new supreme court justice sides with the anti gun lobby to deny gun ownership to ordinary citizens, will you then turn in your guns when the feds give you notice to do so? that is the problem with this database.

      • Boots says:

        Such an imaginary fear. Were you always so fearful? This law is obviously the first step to really follow the second amendment. Funny that people can’t see the obvious. Next step will probably be training.

    • DeltaDag says:

      leoscott, I believe even legal gun owners would seriously consider approval of such a law IF they could be assured that REAL criminals (those people that have already demonstrated a predilection for violence, theft, legal and prescription drug abuse and destruction of private and government property) would be forced to submit to federal or state monitoring and inclusion in a public or private database. How about it? Why not demand ALL convicted criminals have their faces plastered for all to see on the Internet? Wouldn’t you want to know if your own neighbors are murderers, thieves, spouse abusers, graffiti “artists,” meth addicts or DUI violators? If you disagree, then why?

      Don’t you think it’s high time Hawaii’s lawmakers worried about real criminals for a change? We already treat our convicted sex offenders to public shaming and monitoring do we not?

  7. yhls says:

    Stupid, idiotic, left-wing, local, liberal lawmakers wasting time and money to create new laws for problems that don’t exist in Hawaii. They want to score brownie points with Washington.

  8. Kailuadad says:

    Unless this article is wrong this is very worrisome.
    Why should it matter if someone is ARRESTED?
    If someone is CONVICTED and found guilty of crime that’s another thing. Even prosecutor Kaneshiro was explaining how being arrested, indicted etc is just an accusation..

    • dragoninwater says:

      Well, there is some legitimacy to the arrest part. There usually is a big time gap between an arrest and being possibly convicted so in the event that someone posted bail in another state for a misdemeanor like battery their arraignment in court could be a few weeks away so it would be possible for someone to purchase a gun during that window and go after the victim before being convicted.

    • bleedgreen says:

      The problem is the public’s reaction to an “accusation” which is taken as guilty. It attacks the character of the person. If not guilty for this offense, but guilty for another that we don’t know about. Like the Kealas.

    • DeltaDag says:

      The silly idea that citizens of this country are innocent until proven guilty is unfortunately lost on some otherwise smart and influential people.

  9. lokela says:

    All gun owners in every state should be put in a database at the point of sale. Those who are caught and not in the database should be fined or jailed. Probably thieves and druggies who stole the weapons. These days and times are different. It’s getting out of hand. More controls are needed.

    • DeltaDag says:


      While any fool can cut and paste links to any number of horror stories about the misuse of guns in America to convince you that you and your loved ones are in increased danger, the problem with your assumption is that it’s plain wrong. More and more guns are sold in this country each year, adding to the total number of legal guns in private hands, which is anywhere from 300,000,000 to 500,000,000 (nobody knows the exact number). Yet, the overall rate of gun crimes has shown a net decrease in recent years.

      I’ll grant there’s a widely held perception that you face an increased chance of being shot by a legally owned gun, but that’s all it is, a media-fueled perception, unless of course you live in benighted places such as SOME parts of Chicago or SOME parts of east Baltimore.

  10. choyd says:

    “Some local gun owners say the law confirms their fear that the government would know exactly who and where people keep their firearms.”

    I actually don’t have a problem with this IF it’s coupled with a nearly wholesale deregulation of what someone can and cannot own. Want to own RPGs, automatic shotguns, fully automatic machine guns? Sure. On the condition that you undergo semi annual psych evals, and the government gets to inspect how you secure and handle your firearms with violations resulting in temporary confiscation until proper storage facilities are procured. With great power comes great responsibility. If someone can demonstrate great responsibility, there shouldn’t be an issue with granting them great power.

    • tsboy says:

      government confiscation of privately owned weapons is the problem with a national database. that is what we worry about. Hillary would make all gun owners criminals as soon as she appoints the next supreme court judge.

      • choyd says:

        And you think Trump is better? You should look up just how “much” Trump thinks the Constitution and bill of rights are worth. You’re kidding yourself if you think Trump won’t be worse than Clinton. To think that a man who for DECADES openly hated civil liberties, given the chance to actually infringe them will let you keep your firearms? Delusional.

        How about, rather than worry about confiscation, you spend the time to elect people who are sane and won’t enact such laws?

        I never understood the people who worried so much about government overreach that they feel they need fire arms, but don’t work to ensure that their government doesn’t get that way. Make sure your government stays sane and you won’t have any concerns about a national database. Vote Johnson.

      • dragoninwater says:

        Nonsense! The fear of the US feds taking your guns one day is a myth strictly made up by quacks with anxiety disorders. There has never been a single case of the US feds EVER doing such an act and the fear of them potentially doing so from 300 million US residents in the future sounds preposterous and would likely lead to a revolt against the government itself from the fear and distrust citizens would start to feel.

        Think about what you’re saying, I hope you’re aware that if you buy or bring a gun into Hawaii must register it with your local police department within 5 business days. The police can just as easily forward your info to the feds if they wanted to. The local government already knows YOU have a gun/rifle/shotgun if you legally acquired it and registered it like you were supposed to. All they are proposing is to add your name to FBI’s database which might not be in sync with the local databases at the city level.

        Here’s the Hawaii LAW mandating your registration at the local level, many states have the same laws in place either at the local or state level: http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol03_Ch0121-0200D/HRS0134/HRS_0134-0003.htm

    • ALLDUNN says:

      Bring back the poll tax! This is the same thing and if the poll tax is illegal because you cannot tax a Constitutional Right then what is the difference here.

      • choyd says:

        You really believe the founders would have supported private citizens owning things like nuclear weapons, tanks, etc? The founders gave no argument that they believed that civil liberties were completely unrestricted. Stop with the asinine belief that any restriction is unconstitutional. Free speech isn’t completely unrestricted. Nor is freedom of the press.

        • hawaiikone says:

          Actually, it’s perfectly legal to own a fully functional T-72 battle tank, complete with a compliment of 10 projectiles. A nightmare of paperwork, a hefty bit of coin, registration with the ATF, and you’re good to go. Where, I don’t know…

        • DeltaDag says:

          True, a gentleman actually built a fully flyable supersonic F104 Starfighter jet fighter from spare parts he found lying around his workplace. He did hit a snag in finding a suitable jet engine free for the taking, but in time even that was overcome (but not for free however). No, this resourceful man did not go so far as to locate working air-to-air missiles to complete the project.

    • DeltaDag says:


      Before posting laughable comments like the above, maybe you should take about five minutes to find out what constitutes a “destructive device” by the ATF.

      Furthermore, some less benighted states DO in fact allow its law-abiding citizens to own machine guns (“fully automatic machine guns” is an ignorant and redundant term) and things that would horrify you like sound suppressors (aka silencers). Sure, there are applicable background checks and federal transfer taxes to be paid, but many civilians can and do legally possess and enjoy shooting fully automatic firearms such as real assault rifles, selective fire battle rifles, machine pistols, submachine guns, and even light, medium and heavy machine guns.

      The point is, with all these legal fully automatic weapons in legal private hands, just how many of them have been used to commit crimes of passion, bank robberies, drive-by shootings or any other mayhem you can name?

      Now go show us that you actually know something.

  11. stanislous says:

    So if you are “arrested”, the police come and take all your guns. Sure, if your proven innocent or the charges are dropped, or the arrest was just a mistake… you get your guns back… Problem is how much will it cost you to get your guns back and how long will it take… and God forbid, suppose some real criminal does a home invasion on your home while the police have your gun and you are defenseless. I see a big lawsuit and a big government pay out to gun owners in the future.

    • DeltaDag says:

      This presumption of guilt leading to the confiscation of legally held firearms has happened before. Does one think the Japanese Americans who were interned in relocation (or concentration, if your mind works that way) camps in the U.S. Mainland in 1942 were allowed to take their privately owned guns with them? No, they were compelled to surrender them to the police, or sell them or give them away.

      And what do you suppose happened in Hawaii? Legally owned guns (as well as shortwave radios and family swords) were confiscated by the authorities. Some of these items were never returned after the war. In the case of missing or “lost” firearms that belonged to Japanese Americans, it’s anyone’s guess where they ended up, though you could be right if you guessed some ended up in private collections on the Mainland.

      The problem with any state or federally held lists of firearms and their owners is not so much that our present forms of government will misuse them. The problem is that governments can change, and sometimes not for the better.

    • dragoninwater says:

      All the fear mongering with no answers to continues to spread more fear mongering to those that don’t read the laws and fail to educate themselves. Maybe those people aren’t responsible enough to own a gun? You’re going to hate my answer because it’ll kill your spread of fear mongering onto others. The answer is: The COST IS NOTHING and you can get your gun(s) back as quickly as seven days from the time of seizure.

      Here’s the entire law on that matter…

      [§134-7.5] Seizure of firearms in domestic abuse situations; requirements; return of. (a) Any police officer who has reasonable grounds to believe that a person has recently assaulted or threatened to assault a family or household member may seize all firearms and ammunition that the police officer has reasonable grounds to believe were used or threatened to be used in the commission of the offense. The police officer may seize any firearms or ammunition that are in plain view of the officer or were discovered pursuant to a consensual search, as necessary for the protection of the officer or any family or household member. Firearms seized under this section shall be taken to the appropriate county police department for safekeeping or as evidence.
      (b) Upon taking possession of a firearm or ammunition, the officer shall give the owner or person who was in lawful possession of the firearm or ammunition a receipt identifying the firearm or ammunition and indicating where the firearm or ammunition can be recovered.
      (c) The officer taking possession of the firearm or ammunition shall notify the person against whom the alleged assault or threatened assault was inflicted of remedies and services available to victims of domestic violence, including the right to apply for a domestic abuse restraining order.
      (d) The firearm or ammunition shall be made available to the owner or person who was in lawful possession of the firearm or ammunition within seven working days after the seizure when:
      (1) The firearm or ammunition are not retained for use as evidence;

      (2) The firearm or ammunition are not retained because they are possessed illegally;

      (3) The owner or person who has lawful possession of the firearm or ammunition is not restrained by an order of any court from possessing a firearm or ammunition; and

      (4) No criminal charges are pending against the owner or person who has lawful possession of the firearm or ammunition when a restraining order has already issued. [L 1996, c 201, §1]

    • DeltaDag says:


      Do you really think the unjust seizure of personal property is “NOTHING” as long as assurances are made that it will be rightfully returned in so many days? do you actually feel that being denied your personal property has no cost? If your assumption is predicated on a belief that it can’t happen here well, sorry, but Hawaii’s history proves you wrong. People believed in the idea of personal property back in the 1940s too.

      The main objection I have of putting the personal information of innocent people in yet another government database is that you cannot predict what sort of government will emerge in the future. History is replete with examples of national governments that “went bad” and turned on its own people.

      • dragoninwater says:

        You misread my post, I said it costs you NOTHING financially to get your guns back since “stanislous” was asking how much it will cost (monetary cost) to get your guns back in the event the cops take them if ever arrested and then released.

        You bring up a very valid point about the future government, I completely agree that the government can turn on it’s own people one day but that is the very reason the 2nd amendment is in place so we can form a militia against our own government if we ever need to but you can safely be assured that things aren’t going to end well should they try to confiscate weapons from the general public on a mass scale as the word spreads of such action.

        You must also realize the fact that the local government already has a database of all legal gun owners in it’s county so I fail to understand your point about the fear of having your name added to another database at the federal level. If anything, the feds have been far less restrictive on gun ownership than the state and local county government. Heck, the A.T.F. (a federal agency) itself even allows you to own a fully automatic 50 caliber machine gun with an ATF background check and getting a license transferred, something the state of Hawaii doesn’t allow.

        Based on what you stated and Hawaii’s past history, I fear the local government more than I fear the feds as the local government seems to break their own rules and confiscate weapons which the feds have not done so.

        I only wish the feds would force Hawaii into allowing concealed carry with a proper FBI background check and certification classes as in other states that allow CCP.

        • DeltaDag says:


          Please accept my apology for misunderstanding the intent of your post. As “cost” was left undefined, I assumed it meant much more than simply monetary cost.

          I’m well aware that Hawaii’s gun laws impose harsher restrictions upon its legal gun owners than federal regulations require – see my reply to choyd above posted at 12:33 pm. The most glaring example that impacts everyday purchases of many modern and not-so-modern handguns and rifles is obviously the 10-round magazine limit.

          I’m also fundamentally in opposition to the proliferation and maintenance of databases containing personally sensitive information of citizens who have committed no crimes unless extremely compelling reasons are made. Given that Hawaii already “knows” who the legal gun owners are and knows about some (but not all) of the legal guns they’re likely to have at home, what’s the harm of just another compilation of names and addresses you say? Well, as current events make clear, no federal, state or private business computerized system is immune from hacking, spillage, or inadvertent public access. We already have examples in the U.S. of media people openly publishing the names and addresses of legal gun owners for the whole world to see. What do you suppose could be the consequences if some disreputable individual or hate group or criminal organization were to access the database referred to in the article? Do you not see the risks? By the way, I’m one of the tens of thousands of citizens who received notification from the U.S. government that my personally identifiable information was compromised due to an illegal database intrusion. What kind of database? Why, a federal one of course.

        • dragoninwater says:

          IRT DeltaTag. I agree about the database breaches. Not much we can do as many databases have been breached ranging from your healthcare provider to almost every service imaginable. Our local government databases probably have been breached many times over and also likely that the internal cyber security team probably doesn’t even have a clue that they’ve been breached yet! haaaaa Then there are cowardly traitors like Snowden whom leak sensitive government details to our enemies and terrorists! Frankly, I just got used to the fact that all my data is available almost to everyone and as it doesn’t bother me that the world knows that I own guns. If anyone will try to get me they will at least know I won’t be a sitting duck and that won’t go down without a fight. Hopefully that will deter criminals to easier targets that are unarmed. Frankly, I might as well put this sign in my front yard: http://bit.ly/1Tv9MZr

  12. americantaxpayer says:

    If the idea is to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, how does this bill accomplish that? It’s already illegal to drive a car with insurance, yet the 2012 Insurance Verification Working Group estimates 11 percent of our drivers on the road drive without insurance in spite of stiff penalities. Uninsured drivers are involved in more fatalities and are more dangerous to law biding drivers than guns are to Hawaii Citizens. So why Sen Espero is focusing on guns is puzzeling. If Sen Espero and others are worried about “public safety”, stop invoking laws which only have adverse impact on the law biding citizens, and have no effect. Instead focus on laws that are more effective in controlling the behavior of the “non law biding” citizen.

  13. Uch808 says:

    “Molon labe.”

  14. bleedgreen says:

    Gee, thanks.

  15. jeanlafitte1 says:

    so you can require citizens to register for owning a gun, but you can’t require citizens to have voter identification in order to vote? crazy!

Leave a Reply