Lawmakers trained their sights on an assault weapon ban throughout the 2025 regular session, but an 11th hour amendment sparked dissent on the floor Wednesday, pushing a once-promising shot far off target. In the aftermath, Hawaii is no safer from gun violence than it was in January — or over the years since 2004, when a federal prohibition on such weapons expired.
Senate Bill 401 began life as a moderate proposition to amend state law, putting into place a sales and possession ban on firearms (excluding certain antiques and muzzleloaders) capable of firing a .50-caliber cartridge or larger. Due to comparatively high weapon system and ammunition costs, and limited utility in civilian applications, such rifles and pistols are somewhat exotic in the islands. There are similar laws on the books in other states, including California and Delaware, and while a small cadre of sport shooters and Second Amendment rights activists would undoubtedly chafe at the prospect, passage of the bill was unlikely to stir undue controversy.
A trip to the state House and SB 401 gained real teeth. Instead of stopping at .50-caliber-and-higher firearms, an amended draft set assault rifles and assault shotguns in its crosshairs. A major deviation, but a practical one considering a nationwide rise in mass shootings involving these types of weapons. While Hawaii has so far avoided tragedy, eliminating variables that contribute to such events is a step in the right direction.
But concise, correct language is essential when dealing with firearms legislation and enforcement. Jurisdictions with bans are often too loose and fast with their lawful interpretation, and catch a wide swath of innocuous gun models while leaving glaring holes for equally deadly firearms to remain on the table.
SB 401 borrowed language from these existing laws, and was thus less than efficacious. It construes an assault rifle as a semi-automatic rifle, 30 inches or shorter, that includes any of the following: widely adjustable or convertible stock, pistol grip or thumbhole stock, under-barrel or vertical grip, barrel shroud, threaded barrel, bayonet mount or grenade launcher.
There are flaws inherent in any law seeking to terminate use of what are deemed assault rifles, and much of it comes down to design. Simply put, to many, AR-15 style and AK-style rifles appear menacing. To be sure, that is part of the draw for many hobby shooters. Why this aesthetic is subjectively more intimidating than “classic” semi-automatic rifles is best left to psychologists and researchers, but the fact remains that AR-style platforms are as prized for their appearance as they are performance.
Compared to bolt-action sporting rifles and pre-Vietnam War era semi-automatics, AR-style rifles are a different breed. Designed to efficiently deal death, these weapons are typically chambered to accept high-impact, high-velocity rounds and deliver them quickly and accurately down range. This ammunition can tear through tissue, obliterate bone and liquefy organs, causing exponentially more destruction than a small-caliber gunshot wound. Not widely discussed, though they should be, are more traditional semi-auto rifle designs that accept identical rounds.
However flawed SB 401 was in its pre-floor vote, it offered base-level prohibitions that could have served as ramparts for more surgical laws down the road. But that fell apart on Wednesday. A floor amendment lodged during Senate proceedings would have allowed dealers to sell, repair, service or transfer weapons, and owners to transfer weapons to certain parties, before a Jan. 1 deadline. It also added carve-outs for traditional or cultural subsistence hunting and invasive species control. The amendment was adopted in a dramatic 13-12 vote — tabulated on a recount. That effectively put the bill on ice as no similar amendment was being considered in the House.
With a special session likely, there is still time to get this right, but it’s up to lawmakers to ensure a viable and enforceable bill with succinct language reaches the governor’s desk.
“Compared to bolt-action sporting rifles and pre-Vietnam War era semi-automatics, AR-style rifles are a different breed. Designed to efficiently deal death, these weapons are typically chambered to accept high-impact, high-velocity rounds and deliver them quickly and accurately down range. This ammunition can tear through tissue, obliterate bone and liquefy organs, causing exponentially more destruction than a small-caliber gunshot wound.”
What a profoundly ignorant statement. So you’re telling us that an M1 Garand (30-06 cal) or M-14 (7.62 cal), both semi auto rifles with muzzle velocities virtually identical to the 5.56 round typical of the AR rilfes are less lethal and destructive of bone, organs and tissue and not so good at dealing death? Tell the GIs from WW2 & Korea that.
If you possessed the slightest rational knowledge about firearms and munitions you would know that the weight of the larger caliber rounds at 175-180 grains are a little more than three times that of the 5.56 at 55 grains and are fully capable of massive damage. You would also understand that ANY rifle or handgun (or knife or baseball bat for that matter) can be used to “assault” someone. But no, you and the other anti-2nd amendment types seem to be obsessed with the AR platform. An obsession fueled by ignorance or reality and disregard for the fundamental self defense rights of law abiding people.
RSW