Now Banning Sticks Too | Hawaii's Attack on the Second Amendment | Oppose SB433

Senate Bill 433 is the Aloha State's latest swing at restricting your right to carry anything sharper than a butter knife or heavier than a pineapple. This gem prohibits open and concealed carry of dirks, daggers, blackjacks, metal knuckles, bladed weapons, batons, cudgels, truncheons, police batons, collapsible batons, billy clubs, or nightsticks. A simple misdemeanor for toting one around, or a class C felony if in tandum with another “violation”. Nothing says "public safety" like turning a pocket knife into a felony enhancer.

Sweeping Carry Ban = A Direct Jab at the Second Amendment

The bill amends Hawaii Revised Statutes §134-51 to prohibit anyone (not authorized by law) from knowingly carrying (openly on the person, concealed on the person, or concealed in a bag/container) any "dirk, dagger, blackjack, metal knuckles, bladed weapon, or other deadly or dangerous weapon." It classifies these as misdemeanors. 

Provided: "that this subsection shall not apply to a billy." (“Billy" is defined as including cudgel, truncheon, police baton, collapsible baton, billy club, or nightstick.) So, those club-like items aren't banned outright under the carry rules... unless you're caught with them during another crime, which bumps it to a class C felony under subsection (b).

The Second Amendment's "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" isn't gun-exclusive. As Heller (2008) clarified, it “guarantee(s) an individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.". Bruen (2022) asserts “The right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense is deeply rooted in history, and no other constitutional right requires a showing of ‘special need’ to exercise it.” Blanket bans on carrying common self-defense tools also carry no such tradition. 

"Bladed Weapon" & Bags | Sharpening the Silliness

Hawaii's fix? Slap "bladed weapon" into the list, broadening it absurdly. Your steak knife in a picnic bag could qualify. Yes, the bill explicitly adds "bladed weapon" to the prohibited list, and extends the ban to concealed carry in "a bag or other container carried by the person." There is no clear definition for "bladed weapon in the proposed bill or correlating statute, meaning it would encompass utility knives, multitools, or even sheathed blades in backpacks. Founders carried bladed arms (think swords) freely for protection. There were no broad 18th-century bans on toting them in satchels or sheathes on thie person.

If Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016) clearly defined the Second Amendment protections to to include stun guns, knives and clubs are logically already covered. Instead, SB 433 treats non-gun arms like ticking time bombs.

Compounding Penalties

SB433 would make it a misdemeanor for these basic carry “violations”, but if you're possessing/using/threatening with these weapons (including billy now) "while engaged in the commission of a separate felony or misdemeanor" it would be considered a Class C felony, stacked on top (concurrent or consecutive). This enhances any other crime, holding the potential of a traffic stop with a blackjack to turn into felony territory. Our Founders fought against arbitrary escalations such as British arms seizures without cause. You can carry a blunt stick around without misdemeanor risk... until you jaywalk with it. 

"Affirmative Defense" = Guilty Until You Prove You're a Good Guy with a Good Weapon

Here's the bill's "generous" twist: Defenses galore, but affirmative ones, meaning you prove them after arrest. This flips Due Process (Fifth/Fourteenth Amendments) by removing presumption of innocence. 

• Subsection (g): Gives you “permission” in your own home. 

• (h): For open carry, if the weapon "is currently in common use in this country for lawful self-defense purposes"—but not in "sensitive locations" (per §134-9.1, gun-style bans) or if displaying it "causes alarm." 

• (i): For bag/vehicle carry, if locked in a hard-sided container for transport.

The bill nods to Bruen's common use test for guns, but applies it as a defense you must affirm in court, not a presumption.

Was it in your possession or used for self-defense? Okay then, you’ll have to prove it's "lawful" after the cuffs click. Compare this to the Second Amendment's proactive right to bear arms for security instead of retroactive courtroom haggling. This so-called "defense" is a dud, mocking liberty by making you beg for it post-arrest. 

Post-Wolford v. Lopez: Hawaii's Stubborn Surf on Slippery Sands.

Wolford v. Lopez (9th Cir. 2024) is torching Hawaii's post-Bruen gun bans in "sensitive places" like parks and bars and their default private-property ban. SB 433 imports those same "sensitive location" limits into non-gun bans via the affirmative defense. Plus, Section 4 mandates constitutional construction. Not a smart play, since the bill's setup invites lawsuits mirroring the inevitable Wolford fallout.

Oppose SB433. It is a snub to the parchment that protects us all. The state’s police force is already, by their own admissions, overrun with work and lacking in staff. Should we really add stick-chaser to their list of duties?

Oppose SB433:

Take action by following the steps:

1. Click on the hyperlink to familiarize yourself with the bill text:Senate Bill 433 

2. Track & Testify: Our simple instructions make it easy!

Maps of districts and representative contact information can be found here.  

Join Our Team!

You don't have to do this alone. We are here to help your actions succeed and amplify the voices of Hawaii! Contact us today to get tailored advice, collaboration, and support. And don't forget to let us know what issues matter most to you. Keep an eye out as we continue to publish on topics that affect Hawaii's liberty.

Become an Official Member