Hawaii Revised Statutes

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 134-51 (2026)

 

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section HI-LEGcapitol.hawaii.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

[PART III.  DANGEROUS WEAPONS]

 

     §134-51  Deadly or dangerous weapons; prohibitions; penalty.  (a)  Any person, not authorized by law, who knowingly carries concealed on the person, or in a bag or other container carried by the person, any dirk, dagger, blackjack, metal knuckles, or other deadly or dangerous weapon shall be guilty of a misdemeanor; provided that this subsection shall not apply to a billy.

     (b)  Any person who knowingly possesses or intentionally uses or threatens to use a dirk, dagger, blackjack, metal knuckles, or other deadly or dangerous weapon, or a billy, while engaged in the commission of a separate felony or misdemeanor shall be guilty of a class C felony.

     (c)  A conviction and sentence under subsection (b) shall be in addition to and not in lieu of any conviction and sentence for the separate felony or misdemeanor; provided that the sentence imposed under subsection (b) may run concurrently or consecutively with the sentence for the separate felony or misdemeanor.

     (d)  Upon conviction of a person for carrying or possessing a deadly or dangerous weapon pursuant to this section, the deadly or dangerous weapon shall be summarily destroyed by the chief of police or sheriff.

     (e)  Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary, this section shall not apply to:

     (1)  A firearm, whether loaded or not, and whether operable or not;

     (2)  A switchblade knife as defined in section 134-52;

     (3)  A butterfly knife as defined in section 134-53; or

     (4)  An electric gun as defined in section 134-81.

     (f)  For purposes of this section, "billy" includes a cudgel, truncheon, police baton, collapsible baton, billy club, or nightstick.

     (g)  It shall be a defense to a prosecution under subsection (a) that a person was lawfully present in the person's own home at the time of the offense. [L 1937, c 123, §1; RL 1945, §11114; RL 1955, §267-25; HRS §727-25; ren L 1972, c 9, pt of §1; am L 1977, c 191, §2; am L 1983, c 267, §1; gen ch 1985; am L 1989, c 211, §10; am L 1990, c 195, §3 and c 281, §11; am L 1992, c 87, §4; am L 1993, c 226, §1; am L 1999, c 285, §2; am L 2024, c 21, §4]

 

Case Notes

 

  Probable cause for violation of section when police officer saw gun in vehicle stopped for speeding.  430 F.2d 58 (1970).

  License to carry weapon as justification.  10 H. 585 (1897).

  Weapons discovered in automobile lawfully stopped for traffic offense; legality of search and seizure considered.  50 H. 461, 443 P.2d 149 (1968).

  Mentioned in connection with arrest without warrant after seeing pistol in automobile.  52 H. 497, 479 P.2d 800 (1971).

  "Other deadly or dangerous weapon" is limited to instruments whose sole design and purpose is to inflict bodily injury or death.  55 H. 531, 523 P.2d 299 (1974).

  A "diver's knife" is neither a "dangerous weapon" nor a "dagger".  "Deadly and dangerous weapon" is one designed primarily as a weapon or diverted from normal use and prepared for combat.  56 H. 374, 537 P.2d 14 (1975).

  Cane, butterfly and kitchen knives are not deadly or dangerous weapons.  56 H. 642, 547 P.2d 587 (1976).

  Sheathed sword-cane and wooden knuckles with shark's teeth were "deadly or dangerous weapons".  58 H. 514, 572 P.2d 1222 (1977).

  Statute does not require that weapons be "concealed" within the vehicle.  58 H. 514, 572 P.2d 1222 (1977).

  Vehicle stop being proper, seizure of weapons in plain view was authorized.  58 H. 514, 572 P.2d 1222 (1977).

  Shotgun is a deadly or dangerous weapon.  61 H. 135, 597 P.2d 210 (1979).

  A .22 caliber rifle is a "deadly or dangerous weapon".  63 H. 147, 621 P.2d 384 (1981).

  Nunchaku sticks are not per se deadly or dangerous weapons.  64 H. 485, 643 P.2d 546 (1982).

  The crime underlying a subsection (b) offense is, as a matter of law, an included offense of the subsection (b) offense, within the meaning of §701-109(4)(a), and defendant should not have been convicted of both the subsection (b) offense and the underlying second degree murder offense; thus, defendant's conviction of the subsection (b) offense reversed.  88 H. 407, 967 P.2d 239 (1998).

  "Billy" as used in this section refers to "policeman's club" or "truncheon"; a club-like implement designed for purpose of striking or killing fish is not a "billy"; section extends only to weapons deadly or dangerous to people.  10 H. App. 404, 876 P.2d 1348 (1994).

  Cited:  43 H. 347, 367 (1959); 10 H. App. 584, 880 P.2d 213 (1994).

 

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 25 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1974–2021 · leading case: State v. Brantley, 56 P.3d 1252 (Haw. 2002).
State v. Brantley, 56 P.3d 1252 (Haw. 2002). · cites it 24× “2d 239 (1998), this court relied on the Jumila analysis in unanimously reversing a defendant's conviction of and sentence for the offense of "use of a deadly or dangerous weapon in the commission of a crime," in violation of HRS § 134-51(b) (1993), where, in the same proceeding,…”
State v. Medeiros, 665 P.2d 181 (Haw. App. 1983). · cites it 24× “In Rackle the defendant was carrying a flare gun when he was arrested by the police and charged with carrying a deadly weapon in violation of HRS § 134-51. [7] On defendant's appeal from a guilty verdict, the supreme court held that a flare gun was not a deadly or dangerous…”
State v. Ganal, 917 P.2d 370 (Haw. 1996). · cites it 12× “Under section 2 of Act 195 (codified as HRS § 134-6(a)), to "knowingly possess of intentionally use or threaten to use a firearm while engaged in the commission of a felony, " 1990 Haw.”
State v. Ogata, 572 P.2d 1222 (Haw. 1977). · cites it 10× “The defendants appeal from the judgment and sentence of the trial court based upon their convictions for the offense of carrying a deadly weapon, in violation of HRS § 134-51. The recovery of a sheathed sword-cane, which was found lying against the raised transmission tunnel in…”
State v. Muliufi, 643 P.2d 546 (Haw. 1982). · cites it 22× “The State of Hawaii (hereinafter State), appeals from an order entered in by the District Court of the First Circuit which dismissed a criminal charge brought against Isaako Muliufi, defendant-appellee (hereinafter appellee), for violating HRS § 134-51, carrying a deadly weapon.…”
State v. Sanchez, 923 P.2d 934 (Haw. App. 1996). · cites it 7× “HRS § 134-51 (1993) provides: § 134-51 Deadly weapons; prohibitions; penalty.”
State v. Christian, 967 P.2d 239 (Haw. 1998). · cites it 8× “5 (1993) (Count I), 1 one count of use of a deadly or dangerous weapon in the commission of a crime in violation of HRS § 134-51(b) (1993) (Count II), 2 and one count of attempted theft in the third degree in violation of HRS §§ 705-500 (1993) and 708-832(l)(a) (1993) (Count…”
State v. Rackle, 523 P.2d 299 (Haw. 1974). · cites it 14× “Defendant Lee Rackle was tried in district court on May 3, 1973, and found guilty of violating HRS § 727-25 (now HRS § 134-51), which prohibits the carrying of a deadly weapon.”
State v. Weldon., 445 P.3d 103 (Haw. 2019). · cites it 5× “Circuit Court Proceedings 1 On November 4, 2013, the State charged Weldon via an amended complaint with one count of carrying a deadly weapon in violation of HRS § 134-51(a). 2 *107 On April 21, 2014, Weldon filed a Motion to Suppress Evidence (Motion to Suppress), and argued…”
State v. Kapoi, 637 P.2d 1105 (Haw. 1981). · cites it 7× “The sighting of the handgun from his public vantage point gave the officer cause to believe a crime probably had been committed; the presence of the firearm on the floor of the vehicle rendered it likely that either HRS § 134-6 or HRS § 134-51 [12] *1114 had been breached by the…”
State v. Bonds, 577 P.2d 781 (Haw. 1978). · cites it 6× “The State attempts to justify the search of the vehicle as incidental to a lawful arrest, which in turn is dependent on whether the nunchaku sticks are in fact a deadly or dangerous weapon within the meaning of HRS § 134-51.”
State v. Vinge, 916 P.2d 1210 (Haw. 1996). · cites it 4× “1992); 5 (5) second degree criminal property damage, in violation of HRS § 708-821(l)(b) (1993); 6 (6) prohibited possession of a firearm, in violation of HRS § 134-7(d) (1993); 7 and (7) use of a deadly weapon in the commission of a crime, in violation of HRS § 134-51(b)…”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 134-51(a) — 2 cases
State v. Weldon., 445 P.3d 103 (Haw. 2019). “Circuit Court Proceedings 1 On November 4, 2013, the State charged Weldon via an amended complaint with one count of carrying a deadly weapon in violation of HRS § 134-51(a). 2 *107 On April 21, 2014, Weldon filed a Motion to Suppress Evidence (Motion to Suppress), and argued…”
State v. Palisbo, 3 P.3d 510 (Haw. App. 2000).
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 134-51(b) — 6 cases
State v. Brantley, 56 P.3d 1252 (Haw. 2002). “2d 239 (1998), this court relied on the Jumila analysis in unanimously reversing a defendant's conviction of and sentence for the offense of "use of a deadly or dangerous weapon in the commission of a crime," in violation of HRS § 134-51(b) (1993), where, in the same proceeding,…”
State v. Ganal, 917 P.2d 370 (Haw. 1996). “Under section 2 of Act 195 (codified as HRS § 134-6(a)), to "knowingly possess of intentionally use or threaten to use a firearm while engaged in the commission of a felony, " 1990 Haw.”
State v. Christian, 967 P.2d 239 (Haw. 1998). “5 (1993) (Count I), 1 one count of use of a deadly or dangerous weapon in the commission of a crime in violation of HRS § 134-51(b) (1993) (Count II), 2 and one count of attempted theft in the third degree in violation of HRS §§ 705-500 (1993) and 708-832(l)(a) (1993) (Count…”
State v. Sanchez, 923 P.2d 934 (Haw. App. 1996). “HRS § 134-51 (1993) provides: § 134-51 Deadly weapons; prohibitions; penalty.”
State v. Vinge, 916 P.2d 1210 (Haw. 1996). “1992); 5 (5) second degree criminal property damage, in violation of HRS § 708-821(l)(b) (1993); 6 (6) prohibited possession of a firearm, in violation of HRS § 134-7(d) (1993); 7 and (7) use of a deadly weapon in the commission of a crime, in violation of HRS § 134-51(b)…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.