Gun owners in Hawaii may have breathed a sigh of relief earlier this month when a House bill banning most semi-automatic long guns that can accept detachable magazines failed to be heard in a Senate committee before the legislature''s crossover deadline last month, but thanks to a shady parliamentary maneuver that gun ban bill is still alive and well. Even worse, it only needs one more step to be sent to the desk of Gov. Josh Green. 

As NRA's Institute for Legislative Action reported earlier this week, "anti-gun legislators used procedural maneuvers to bypass deadlines and the committee hearing process by stuffing language from a defeated semi-automatic firearm ban bill into a new bill." 

The original bill, House Bill 893, did not receive a committee hearing in the Senate by the legislative deadline and should have been defeated for the year. On March 13^th, however, the Chair of the House Committee on Judiciary Committee inserted the language from HB 893 into SB 401, thereby bypassing a Senate committee hearing on the bill.

Since the Senate has already approved the original version of SB 401, it doesn't need to be re-heard in any Senate committees. Instead, it heads directly to the Senate floor for a concurrence vote on the changes made by the House, which could happen at any time. 

Second Amendment advocates in Hawaii are blasting the move, rightfully arguing that any sweeping legislation like a ban on almost every semi-automatic rifle and shotgun sold in the state should go through the regular legislative process instead of anti-gun politicians using sleight of hand to move the bill forward. Even if that had, happened, of course, those advocates say the SB 401 is patently unconstitutional.

Jon Abbot with the Hawaii Firearms Coalition says the proposal was written without practical knowledge about the kind of firearms often used for hunting in Hawaii.

He points to an M-1A civilian use rifle. He said it holds a magazine with 20 rounds, has a threaded barrel for accessories and a bayonet mount, all features that would define the rifle as an assault weapon under the latest version of Senate Bill 401, which bans assault weapons sale or importation.

Abbot said many rifles would fall under that definition.

“Right now, we’re facing a complete ban on the most common firearms that are available,” Abbot said.

The architect of the gun ban language, Rep. David Tarnas, meanwhile, is accusing gun owners of waging a misinformation campaign about the gun ban bill. 

He uses a color handout to explain his plan does not ban all semi-automatic rifles, only those with what he calls military-style features.

“Like pistol grips and threaded barrels so you can put silencers or flash suppressors on or a forward grip that you use when it’s shooting automatic rounds,” he said. “The other prohibited feature is a magazine that’s more than 10 rounds.”

Abbot said the magazine limit would affect many owners, and holds up another rifle as an example: “This is the venerable M1 carbine. It takes a 30-round magazine, so that would be banned.” 

Abbot said 10-round magazines aren’t made for that model.

But Tarnas argues that his bill isn’t a ban, because weapons legally registered before it takes effect would be grandfathered in.

“You can’t purchase one after this law goes in place, but if you own one, you can keep it,” he said.

Tarnas gives the game away when he slyly mentions that the ability to accept a detachable magazine is one of those supposedly "military style features" that would designate a rifle as an "assault weapon." His gun ban language is basically a variation of the GOSAFE Act introduced in Congress by Sens. Martin Heinrich of New Mexico and Angus King of Maine, which would prohibit the sale and manufacture of any gas opertated semi-automatic long gun capable of accepting a detachable magazine. 

Tarnas's bill also includes a features test, so in addition to the ability to accept a detachable magazine a semi-automatic rifle would also have to have one of the following featuers to be labeled an "assault weapon". 

(A)  A folding, telescoping, or detachable stock, or a stock that is otherwise foldable or adjustable in a manner that operates to reduce the length, the size, or any dimension, or otherwise enhances the concealability of the weapon;

          (B)  A pistol grip or thumbhole stock;

          (C)  Any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand;

          (D)  A flash suppressor;

          (E)  A shroud that is attached to or partially or completely encircles the barrel and permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the second hand without being burned, but excluding a slide that encloses the barrel;

          (F)  A bayonet mount;

          (G)  A grenade launcher; or

          (H)  A threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward hand grip, or silencer.

Who knew that a barrel shroud that helps protect gun owners from burning their hand or a flash suppressor that can hep protect their eyesight are actually "military style" features? 

As for Tarnas's contention that his bill isn't a gun ban because current owners are grandfathered in, I'd say that prohibiting the sale of those guns in the future is still a ban. When Prohibition took effect, Americans were able to keep any alcohol they had on hand. They just weren't allowed to purchase any more, at least not without a doctor's prescription. No one in their right mind would say that mean alcohol wasn't banned, and the same holds true here. Besides, what's stopping lawmakers from going back and amending this language to remove that grandfather clause, as California did with its magazine ban a few years ago? 

I have no idea what the Hawaii Senate will do with the amended version of the gun ban bill, but 2A advocates in the state need to be melting down the Senate phone lines and demanding the upper chamber reject this language. If it does become law it will certainly be subject to a court challenge, but with SCOTUS dithering on taking up a semi-auto ban, who knows how long it might take to undo the damage SB 401 will cause if its enacted.