BREAKING: Hawaii Set to Create a Federal Gun Owners Registry

Hawaii 5-0 (courtesy

“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,” reports. “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.” The FBI describes the system thus . . .

The Rap Back Service provides authorized agencies with notification of criminal, and, in limited cases, civil activity of individuals that occurs after the initial processing and retention of criminal or civil transactions. Rap Back does not provide new authority to agencies, including the FBI, for collection of biometric and biographical information. It does, however, implement new response services to notify agencies of subsequent activity for individuals enrolled in the service. Including a more timely process of confirming suitability of those individuals placed in positions of trust and notification to users of criminal activity for those individuals placed on probation or parole.

I’m not exactly sure who can access this database, but the Firearms Owners Protection Act is completely clear on its prohibition against ANY federal database of guns or gun owners.

No such rule or regulation prescribed [by the Attorney General] after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or disposition be established.

Now a clever man might wonder WTF. The paper records of firearms sales — recorded on ATF Form 4473 — violates FOPA. And I wouldn’t argue the point. But Hawaii’s move is in direct contradiction of FOPA’s mandate. Which hasn’t stopped its supporters from a) proposing it and B) trumpeting it as the shape of things to come.

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.

Surely the courts will strike this down! Don’t call gun control advocates Shirley.

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.

If the Aloha State legislators’ legal advisors can read the U.S. Constitution, and not ignore what they read, this one won’t pass muster. But the smart money’s on Hawaii — the island state where gun rights go to die — passing this bill. Will the FBI play ball? Watch this space.

In any case, this move proves that the fight for gun rights in one state is a fight for gun rights in every state. In case you’re one of those let-California-stew-in-its-own-tyrannical-juices types.


  1. avatar pwrserge says:

    … yet another case that desperately needs the proper application of the 2nd amendment. Me thinks these petty tyrants wouldn’t dare pass this sort of garbage if their necks were literally on the line.

  2. avatar lew says:

    dang…i have family in Hawaii….i will have them ship their guns to me. I have been salivating over that Winchester model 94 /22 that I grew up with for years.

  3. avatar tdiinva (now in Wisconsin} says:

    Technically they are registering gun owners and not guns. If you have a CHL or a hunting license for firearms the state knows you have something just not what and how many.

    1. avatar Robert Farago says:

      True dat. Headline amended.

    2. avatar jwtaylor says:

      I don’t know about other states, but Texas Parks and Wildlife doesn’t ask if I am hunting with a gun or a bow or a muzzleloader. Only one of those is considered a firearm.

      1. avatar tdiinva (Now in Wisconsin) says:

        Now that I think about it, that is true. The most they would know is if you owned a shotgun if you have a bird stamp.

    3. avatar Sam I Am says:

      FOPA covers registry of gun owners.

    4. avatar K says:

      Actually Hawaii has a 100% registration of firearms.

  4. avatar Geoff PR says:

    I’d be interested in what Eugene Volokh’s opinion on this would be…

  5. avatar Joe R. says:


    1. avatar Pg2 says:

      The average native Hawaiian would love to be “kicked” out of the U.S.

      1. avatar Ironhorse says:

        And then they would subsequently regret it, after their economy (which is entirely dependent upon the mainland) collapses.

  6. avatar MeRp says:

    Form 4473 probably skirts FOPA because a) it isn’t a single registration point (of transactions) and b) it isn’t a government that keeps the records (it is the FFL). A liberal (as in classically liberal; politically what we’d probably call libertarian int he US today) reading of FOPA would still stomp that sucker into the ground; but the people who are in charge of interpreting these things are mostly statists, always working towards greater power for the state.

    1. avatar Another frustrated realist says:

      and this is why I chuckle every time I see a comment (or an entire Question of the Day) where someone blows off steam about being a 2A absolutist and that infringements are unconstitutional, blah blah blah. Fact is we have ’em and while they will never go away completely – our job should be to limit them as much as possible where and when we can.

      Hell – even the great conservative, Justice Scalia wasn’t willing to go the no infringements whatsoever route. If he was not going to walk that path – ain’t no chance we’re going to get there and constantly harping on it makes a person look like a loon not to be taken seriously.

      1. avatar AJ187 says:

        Well, just because your happy with a little of the shepard’s prodding doesn’t mean everyone else is.

      2. avatar Kyle says:

        The only reason Scalia put in the “reasonable restrictions” bit was because of Kennedy. Otherwise, Scalia I’d say was pretty absolutist.

      3. avatar Mr. 308 says:

        “where someone blows off steam about being a 2A absolutist and that infringements are unconstitutional, blah blah blah. Fact is we have ’em and while they will never go away completely”

        Huh? So as we believe the constitution should be applied as written and it currently isn’t makes us harping loons that shouldn’t be taken seriously? Is that what you are saying?

        That’s great right there. Obamacare is unconstitutional, so I am a loon for believing this? Progressive taxation is unconstitutional, so I am a harping unserious person for thinking this? Laws written and enforced by bureaucracies are unconstitutional, I take it you think I should just shut up and do what I am told by my betters because you think all of these things are not going to go away, is that about right?

        To me, someone who accepts tyranny by saying things like ‘we have ’em and [while] they will never go away’ are the words of a serf and a subject. Perhaps you would like to go back to being ruled by King George, I mean those rulers at the time were ‘we have ’em and [while] they will never go away’ back then also, n’est-ce pas?

        Do you have a closet full of white flags you keep on standby just in case you need to make your intention to surrender visible at a distance? How do your knees feel?

        Better wipe that brown stuff off your nose.

  7. avatar Mmmtacos says:

    Remember, gun confiscations and gun registrations don’t happen*. You’re paranoid if you think they do.

    *Except in CA, HI

    1. avatar peirsonb says:

      *statement void where allowed by law

  8. So what is wrong with prevent crime and saving lives?

    Why is it that these heartless (If they had any) gun nuts think arming every man, woman and child going to stop a criminal or terrorists despite lots of statistics proving that the “good guy with a gun” is complete and utter crap.

    NRA myths debunked:
    From 2000 to 2013, 21 active shootings were stopped by unarmed citizens, while just one was stopped by an armed civilian. And only 13 percent of mass shootings from January 2009 to July 2015 took place in a gun-free zone.

    You’re head would be spinning so fast your dirty old NRA baseball cap would fly off

    1. avatar Dev says:

      If you’re happy with the governmet registering everything you own then maybe freedom and this country isn’t for you.

      1. Your comment looks like it was typed by a first grader.

        Ironically, These so called “gun free” countries have statically higher freedoms, education. healthcare and lower violent crime rates versus this country in general.

        Are NRA members so stupid?

        1) As popular a notion as this is among gun nuts and NRA worshippers, the facts prove otherwise.
        2) When I see manipulation of data, I’m not afraid to call anyone out.

        1. avatar Tile floor says:

          Typed by a first grader? Pot, meet kettle.

          So what is wrong with prevent (ING) crime and saving lives?

          You’re (*Your) head would be spinning so fast your dirty old NRA baseball cap would fly off

          It’s one thing to dime somebody out, but quite hypocritical to make grammatical errors yourself whilst doing so.

          Monica, you can go stick your head in the sand with the rest of the gun grabbing libs. Leave me and my freedom alone.

        2. avatar Kyle says:

          Your comment looks like it was typed by a first grader.

          Ironically, These so called “gun free” countries have statically higher freedoms, education. healthcare and lower violent crime rates versus this country in general.

          “Statistically higher freedoms?” In what way? You do not have near the rights in most other countries that you do in the United States. Try refusing to talk to the police in the likes of the UK, Spain, France, Japan, etc…you do not have the rights to speech, privacy, ability to not have to act as a witness against yourself, etc…in those countries near to what you have in the United States.

          In terms of education, the United States has the best universities in the world. The only reason our universities and colleges cost so much right now is because we started subsidizing them, which drove up the cost. If we had never done this, then college would be as it used to be, where a degree actually meant something and a person could work their way through college.

          In terms of healthcare, again that is extremely debatable. Also, you have to take into account that the only reason these countries can even afford their universal healthcare systems is because the United States essentially subsidizes their defense.

          As far as violent crime rates, that has nothing to do with the amount of guns in a society. The vast majority of the violent crime in the United States occurs in the inner cities due to problems far unrelated to firearms.

          Are NRA members so stupid?

          1) As popular a notion as this is among gun nuts and NRA worshippers, the facts prove otherwise.
          2) When I see manipulation of data, I’m not afraid to call anyone out.

          You ought to get a load of the manipulation of facts and data that the gun control side does.

      1. Sorry, I refuse to click links to hostile websites.

        Niether you nor that idiot have given me no actually defense as to why you oppose Hawaii’s firearm laws…

        Such chicken little complexes the kool-aid drinking gun-sheeps have on here.

        1. avatar Mark N. says:

          Because in practice, it equates gun owners with criminals before they are convicted of a crime. Merely being accused of a crime, or being sued, will result in a “rap back” that may be (likely will be) enough for Hawaii police to come into your home and seize your firearms without due process of law. Which they can do because all firearms (except those smuggled in by criminals) are registered with the Hawaiian police.

        2. avatar neiowa says:

          Then why are you here?.

    2. avatar JD says:

      Considering you backed up your statements with nothing, here are 12 mass shootings since 1997 stopped by a citizen with a gun. At least 3 of the 12 were in a gun free zone too.

      1. When truth and facts I spout become “propaganda” and all you can say is an NRA slogan, it’s time for you to retire from the NRA, Sheep.

        Let me help you with your “database” of news articles that you claim are an accurate account of gun-related incidents in the U.S. It’s worthless. You cannot possibly believe that news accounts of gun incidents are complete, accurate, and exhaustive.

        Furthermore, if you’re going to manipulate the facts by “leaving out” shootings at “places of commerce” entirely, then you aren’t reporting facts at all. You may like guns, you may even love them. But you cannot logically ignore the factual data involved that in fact the vast majority of mass shootings do not happen in gun free zones and they are not stopped by armed citizens.

        1. avatar Snake Plissken says:

          Does your mommy know you’re playing on the computer again?

        2. avatar neiowa says:

          End of the school year so it gets to stay up until 9.

        3. avatar Kyle says:

          But you cannot logically ignore the factual data involved that in fact the vast majority of mass shootings do not happen in gun free zones and they are not stopped by armed citizens.

          Just how are you defining “mass shooting?” Because in terms of all the mass shootings that make the news, the vast majority HAVE occurred in gun free zones. However, if you’re going by the definition of mass shooting used by the gun control proponents, then mass shootings happen all the time in the inner cities due to gang violence. In which case, one can derive two things:

          1) Gang violence is often by default in a gun free zone because often those cities essentially have guns outlawed, or restricted to so few people that they might as well be considered outlawed as far as the general public is concerned

          2) Gang violence shootings are not stopped by armed citizens, that is correct

    3. avatar RocketScientist says:

      If I didn’t already know you were full of shit and probably just pulling numbers out of your ass, I’d be curious to see what your sources are, how they define “mass shooting” and why, when discussing the effectiveness of guns in combating mass shootings, you distinguish between who is using the gun. You specify “civilian” while I’m pretty sure you mean non-police (since policemen are, ya know, civilians). Giving you benefit of the doubt and assuming you AREN’T claiming that police have only stopped one mass shooting since 2000, but are just an idiot who doesn’t realize that the police and the military are two different organizations, why is the distinction made between police who used a gun to stop a mass shooting and non-police who used a gun to stop a mass shooting? If a gun works at stopping a mass shooting, it works at stopping a mass shooting. If your supposed belief is that guns are not effective to the task, why not group together all events where guns have stopped mass shooting PERIOD? If it is because you believe your average Joe cannot be trusted with the awesome responsibility of carrying a gun and only the highly vetted, law respecting and responsible police force can be so trusted… what do you think about the fact that between 1987 and 2012, those with concealed carry permits committed misdemeanors and felonies at ONE-TENTH the rate of active police officers in the State of Florida? Well maybe they’re not more law-abiding or trustworthy than the average Joe, but certainly they’re highly trained in use of force and accuracy with a gun? I’m sure the rash of recent police brutality cases, unjustified shootings, and the NYPDs historic 18% (thats EIGHTEEN out of a HUNDRED) hit rate with rounds fired by on-duty police don’t bother you at all.

      1. I call crap on this….

        If you read the statistics and links I showed provided they don’t get censored like my last few posts did.

        The “good guy with a gun” is complete and utter crap and statistically “armed good guys” make the situation worse.

        And also why do gun manufacturers get governmental protection from lawsuits when no other industry does?

        As far as your “difficult to provide the product” statement that has not stopped products from other manufacturers that are sued in other industries.

        Why would you criticize me? See, that doesn’t work in your favor. You’re just trying to silence a voice of truth and reason.

        I swear what is the NRA kool-aid drinkers doing to top me when they have not even beaten me on this debate.

        1. avatar RocketScientist says:

          Alright. You’ve confirmed for all of us youre a total f***ing idiot. Your response to my post has NOTHING to do with my post WHATSOEVER. Presumably you’re responding to someone else’s post, but hit the reply button under mine? You cant figure out how to properly work the comment section on a website, but you expect anyone to think you can manage to effectively research and understand the issue of gun rights.

          And I’m not really sure of the context of this (since, again, I have no idea which comment you were actually replying to), but this statement is so ridiculously asinine:

          “The “good guy with a gun” is complete and utter crap and statistically “armed good guys” make the situation worse.”

          You realize police are god (presumably) guys with…. wait for it… guns. So police never stop violent crimes or mass shootings or anything? good to know. Thanks for playing.

        2. avatar Mark N. says:

          The contention that gun manufacturers get protection from lawsuits when other industries don’t is an out and out legal lie. The only protection afforded gun manufacturers is freedom from suit when their products are used by a third person to commit a crime. The fact of the matter is that hammer, baseball bat, ax, hatchet, machete, pipe, car, truck, etc manufacturers, don’t get sued when someone uses their product to intentionally (i.e. criminally) maim and/or kill. When this law was enacted, gun manufacturers were being sued regularly when a criminal used a gun to injure or kill. The plan of the plaintiffs was not to get damages–there was no legal liability under well-established rules of law–but to force gun manufacturers out of business by suing them to death. And this is exactly why Hillary wants the law repealed. Gun manufacturers are still liable for any injury or death arising from a defectively designed or manufactured firearm (i.e., strict products liability), just as any other manufacturer.

        3. avatar ACP_arms says:

          “…If you read the statistics and links I showed…”

          You did NOT link to anything.

        4. avatar Sian says:

          “If you read the statistics and links I showed provided they don’t get censored like my last few posts did.”

          You must not be very familiar with this site. Unlike the #GunSense folks who are vigilant about maintaining their echo chamber, and aggressively bans anyone with a dissenting opinion, this place doesn’t censor things its readership disagrees with. Flames and personal attacks may get redacted, but when they do, it’s clearly marked.

          You provided nothing supporting any of your specious claims. Don’t blame the site administrators for your laziness and intellectual dishonesty.

          You’re rushing headlong towards your own ban, though. Keep it up!

      2. avatar Kyle says:

        The “good guy with a gun” is complete and utter crap and statistically “armed good guys” make the situation worse.

        By what statistics do armed good guys “make the situation worse?” When has an armed citizen ever made a situation involving an armed criminal worse. HOW does an armed citizen make the situation worse?

        And also why do gun manufacturers get governmental protection from lawsuits when no other industry does?

        They don’t. You can sue a gun manufacturer if they created a product that is dangerous, such as a gun that fires when it shouldn’t. What the law protects gun manufacturers against are frivolous lawsuits designed to try and drive them out of business, such as suing a gun manufacturer because a criminal used their gun (that would be like suing GM because a bank robber led police on a chase in a Corvette, and saying that GM “should have known better” than to manufacture such a fast car.

        The gun industry has such a law to protect it because it is one of the only industries that has a sizeable amount of people who want to outlaw its product.

    4. avatar Accur81 says:

      Oh, I’ll play. First of all, I have actually stopped armed criminals with a firearm. So have tens of thousands of armed civilians in the US every year. But I wouldn’t want to trouble you to referring you to a “hostile website.” I understand that you might not have much time left on your mom’s computer.

      Secondly, the game isn’t just about mass shooters, which easily fall under the subset of armed criminals that can be stopped with a firearm. The game is about living, and world governments and their authorized agents are the most prolific and effective mass murderers in the last 150 years. That’s millions murdered in places like Nazi-controlled Germany.

      Your comments sound like someone who is completely ignorant of world history. Time for me to put on my brand new NRA cap. If I’ve got to stop another criminal today I actually have the means to do that.

    5. avatar Frank in VA says:

      Did it ever occur to you that in order for it to be a mass shooting as defined by the FBI standard of 4 or more people murdered, which is the standard used in the Everytown for Gun Safety data you seem to be citing, the killer would have to NOT be stopped by a bystander with a gun before he killed that number of people?

      In other words, if a would be mass shooter opens fire and kills only one, two, or three people before he is shot or confronted by a concealed handgun carrier, it would not count as a mass shooting, and therefore not count in your source data as a mass shooting stopped by a gun owner. Because it never became a mass shooting, thanks to the armed citizen. Suck on that for awhile, genius.

      Whats that? You want some examples of mass shootings prevented by good guys with guns? OK, here are twelve at the link. Nine of them were prevented by civilians with guns. Know how many would be counted in your data? None. Because none of the body counts ever got to four, thanks to the armed response.

      1. avatar Frank in VA says:

        Regardless of whether you like the examples I linked to or consider the original news sources that are linked to on that site ‘accurate or complete’, the original point I made stands. If an incident never reaches ‘mass shooting’ status because of an armed response, then it doesn’t get counted as a ‘mass shooting’ stopped by a good guy with a gun. Not by the standards used by some major anti-gun organizations, at least.

    6. avatar awdwynn says:

      If you think the US is such a terrible place to live please move to one of the great countries you cited. As for me although I don’t buy all the statistics everyone uses, you included unless you provide a source for where you are getting them history does indicate that gun registries have almost no impact in terms of safety. I am not giving the right to protect myself, my family and my property. I would however encourage you to start by registering all known criminals and joining the police if they are willing to make regular checks of those individuals to ensure they do not have firearms and to confiscate any they might find. Admittedly that is a very dangerous proposition but hey it will probably be more effective in reducing gun violence than attacking the rights of law abiding citizens.

  9. avatar Shire-man says:

    How would this make Hawaii a “leader in safe gun laws”?
    The inability to pass a background check hasn’t stopped anyone from killing with a gun.
    The ability to pass a background check is no guarantee a person will not kill another with a gun.
    Any registry is 100% guaranteed to be incomplete as criminals would not register and we’ve seen in CT/NY/Aus that many normal folk will simply not comply.

    All I see is a huge money pit and time sink that will result in no net gain for “safety.”

    Haven’t we seen at least three “gun registries” crash and burn in the last few years? Canada, Maryland, Chicago. Maybe others.
    It’s one thing to show up late to the party. It’s an entirely different thing to show up after the party ends and insist on drinks and loud music.

    1. avatar A Hill says:

      Sadly, the only reason the long gun registry was finally put out of its misery was 1) the conservatives are generally gun owner friendly and 2) Vic Toews (along with Steven Blaney) the Public Safety Ministers were actually decent people who allowed facts and not emotion to influence them. Had the Libs stayed in; we would probably still be throwing money at the black hole of fail.

  10. avatar Ralph says:

    Probably the Hawaiian government only wants to report haoles.

    1. avatar radar says:

      Yep, like the Indians of Montana ( that years ago sold real estate parcels on the Reservation To anyone………) The Native Islanders would probably like to have the Islands back to themselves too!

  11. avatar radar says:

    How can a State create or define a Federal registry ( of any type)?

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      they can’t. What they do is to report names into the rap back system, which can be criminals or “trusted persons.”The index is just a list of names. I am guessing that Hawaii doesn’t have to tell the FBI WHY it is adding to the list of names (i.e., that they are listed because they own guns) that the FBI already has, only WHO to add..

      1. avatar HiCarry says:

        Actually the police will have to tell the FBI the reason for the entering the data into the system, and from my research (I live in Hawaii and am an active gun rights supporter who is involved in the legislative process) into the matter that will be: “firearms purchase”

  12. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

    “In any case, this move proves that the fight for gun rights in one state is a fight for gun rights in every state.”

    How is that….exactly? I’m not a Hawaii resident. This doesn’t affect me one bit. And yes, let Hawaii and California and the rest of them stew in their own juices.

    The sooner those socialists failed states collapse altogether, the sooner the rest of us can disolve the union through constitutional convention and start fresh without them.

    1. avatar radar says:

      Snowball effect! Kommiefornia, New York, Conn, to a lesser , (but continuing onward restrictions) Washington, Oregon, and ………………………………
      So yes it does matter, just because it is another State doesn’t mean the Sh!7 won’t Splash on YOU too!
      St. Helens is in Washington State, but when it blew it top, its ash went many far reaching directions.

  13. avatar FormerWaterWalker says:

    Book ’em Dano. Why do the places with the best weather turn into unlivable hellholes?

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      Because places with good weather are perfect for fruits and nuts.

      1. avatar Jon in CO says:

        “Mr. Carville, your rebuttal.”
        “We have no response, that answer was perfect.”

    2. avatar Pg2 says:

      Exactly, seems more than coincidence.

    3. avatar Yellow Devil says:

      Reminds me of the quote about Columbia (paraphrase): “God made the country so beautiful, the people had to be that much more terrible.”

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        To borrow from old Ben Rumson (who is getting married today), “God made the mountains. God made the sky. God made the people. God knows why. He fixed up the planet as best as He could. Then along come the people and gum it up good.”

  14. avatar Martin Gomez says:

    This is actually a good idea. As we know, almost all gun crime is caused by gangs and other street criminals. Just get those criminals to voluntarily register that they have guns and — voila! — problem solved.

  15. avatar Timmy! says:

    Hawaii? Is that still a thing?

  16. avatar jwm says:

    Readytoblowbill16 proves we’re winning. They know hillary and gun control are a dying cause and it scares them.

  17. avatar Rand says:

    As an act of good faith I registered my pistol in Hawaii so I could have it in my place of lodging on vacation. Now, they want to open the database to everyone. Put my name on a lawsuit please.

  18. avatar S.CROCK says:

    Still aint got nothing on the Cali level of stupid.

    1. avatar jwm says:

      Whoo-hoo. We’re number…….Aw, shit, that ain’t a good thing. Is it?

  19. avatar neiowa says:

    As close as you can get to Oz.

  20. avatar the ruester says:

    a perfect chance to show Grace Park in a bikini and you blew it.

  21. avatar Sprocket says:

    In retrospect it wouldn’t have been a bad idea to let the Japanese have it.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email