(a) An act or omission by a firearm industry member in violation of this part shall constitute an actionable cause of action.
criminal case

Have a question?
Click here to chat with a criminal defense lawyer and protect your rights.

Terms Used In Hawaii Revised Statutes 134-103

  • county: includes the city and county of Honolulu. See Hawaii Revised Statutes 1-22
  • Damages: Money paid by defendants to successful plaintiffs in civil cases to compensate the plaintiffs for their injuries.
  • Defendant: In a civil suit, the person complained against; in a criminal case, the person accused of the crime.
  • Evidence: Information presented in testimony or in documents that is used to persuade the fact finder (judge or jury) to decide the case for one side or the other.
  • Firearm: means any weapon, for which the operating force is an explosive, including but not limited to pistols, revolvers, rifles, shotguns, automatic firearms, noxious gas projectors, mortars, bombs, and cannon. See Hawaii Revised Statutes 134-1
  • Firearm industry member: means a person, firm, corporation, company, partnership, society, joint stock company, or any other entity or association engaged in the manufacture, distribution, importation, marketing, wholesale, or retail sale of firearm-related products. See Hawaii Revised Statutes 134-101
  • Firearm-related product: means a firearm, ammunition, a firearm precursor part, a firearm component, or a firearm accessory that meets any of the following conditions:

    (1) The item is sold, made, or distributed in the State;
    (2) The item is intended to be sold or distributed in the State; or
    (3) The item is or was possessed in the State and it was reasonably foreseeable that the item would be possessed in the State. See Hawaii Revised Statutes 134-101
  • Jurisdiction: (1) The legal authority of a court to hear and decide a case. Concurrent jurisdiction exists when two courts have simultaneous responsibility for the same case. (2) The geographic area over which the court has authority to decide cases.
  • Lawsuit: A legal action started by a plaintiff against a defendant based on a complaint that the defendant failed to perform a legal duty, resulting in harm to the plaintiff.
  • Reasonable controls: means reasonable procedures, acts, or practices that are designed, implemented, and enforced to do the following:

    (1) Prevent the sale or distribution of a firearm-related product to a straw purchaser, a firearm trafficker, a person prohibited from possessing a firearm under federal or state law, or a person who the firearm industry member has reasonable cause to believe is at substantial risk of using a firearm-related product to harm themselves or another or of possessing or using a firearm-related product unlawfully;
    (2) Prevent the loss or theft of a firearm-related product from the firearm industry member; and
    (3) Ensure that the firearm industry member complies with all provisions of federal or state law and does not otherwise promote the unlawful manufacture, sale, possession, marketing, or use of a firearm-related product. See Hawaii Revised Statutes 134-101
(b) A person who has suffered harm in the State because of a firearm industry member‘s violation of this part may bring an action in a court of competent jurisdiction.
(c) In addition to any lawsuit filed against a firearm owner pursuant to section 663-9.5, the attorney general or any county attorney or public prosecutor may bring a civil action in a court of competent jurisdiction in the name of the people of the State to enforce this part and remedy harm caused by a violation of this part.
(d) If a court determines that a firearm industry member engaged in conduct in violation of this part, the court may award any or all of the following:

(1) Injunctive relief sufficient to prevent the firearm industry member and any other defendant from further violating the law;
(2) Damages;
(3) Attorney’s fees and costs; and
(4) Any other appropriate relief necessary to enforce this part and remedy the harm caused by the conduct.
(e) In an action alleging that a firearm industry member failed to establish, implement, and enforce reasonable controls in violation of section 134-B(b), there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the firearm industry member failed to implement reasonable controls if the following conditions are satisfied:

(1) The firearm industry member’s action or failure to act created a reasonably foreseeable risk that the harm alleged by the claimant would occur; and
(2) The firearm industry member could have established, implemented, and enforced reasonable controls to prevent or substantially mitigate the risk that the harm would occur.
(f) If a rebuttable presumption is established pursuant to subsection (e), the firearm industry member shall have the burden of showing through a preponderance of the evidence that the firearm industry member established, implemented, and enforced reasonable controls.
(g) An intervening act by a third party, including but not limited to criminal use of a firearm-related product, shall not preclude a firearm industry member from liability under this part.

  Previous
Next  
 Part VI Contents