Haw. Rev. Stat. § 134-103
This is the official text of Haw. Rev. Stat. § 134-103, part of Hawaii’s Rev. Stat — part of the compiled statutory law of Hawaii, published by the state as "Rev. Stat." Browse the sections below, each linked to its official government source.
Not legal advice. This page reproduces the official text of a government statute for reference only. Laws change, and how a statute applies depends on your specific facts. For advice about your situation, consult a licensed attorney in your state.
[ § 134-103] Violations; who may sue; relief.
Official statutory text
[ § 134-103] Violations; who may sue; relief. (a) An act or omission by a firearm industry member in violation of this part shall constitute an actionable cause of action.
(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 134-102(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. [L 2023, c 28, pt of §1]
(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 134-102(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. [L 2023, c 28, pt of §1]
Status: in_force · Read it on the official government site
Need a lawyer in Hawaii?
Find a Hawaii lawyer
About this page: Statute text is reproduced from official government publishers via the
Open US Law dataset
(Vaquill AI, snapshot v2026.08, CC BY 4.0). Primary legislative text like this is public domain under the government-edicts doctrine
(Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). We link every section back to its official source so you can verify it independently.