§134-53 Butterfly
knives; prohibitions; penalty. (a)
Whoever knowingly carries concealed on the person, or in a bag or other
container carried by the person, any butterfly knife shall be guilty of a
misdemeanor.
(b) Whoever
knowingly possesses or intentionally uses or threatens to use a butterfly knife
while engaged in the commission of a separate felony or misdemeanor shall be
guilty of a class C felony; provided that a person shall not be prosecuted
under this subsection when the separate felony or misdemeanor is an offense
otherwise defined by this chapter.
(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) It shall be a
defense to a prosecution under subsection (a) that the person was lawfully
present in the person's own home at the time of the offense.
(e) For the purposes
of this section, "butterfly knife" means any knife having a blade
encased in a split handle that manually unfolds with hand or wrist action with
the assistance of inertia, gravity, or both. [L 1999, c 285, §1; am L
2024, c 21, §6]
Notes of Decisions
Andrew Teter v. Anne E. Lopez, 76 F.4th 938 (9th Cir. 2023).
· cites it 2× “Haw. Rev. Stat. § 134-53 (a). Because the possession of butterfly knives is conduct protected by the plain text of the Second Amendment, and because Hawaii has not demonstrated that its ban on butterfly knives is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of regulating…”
Andrew Teter v. Anne E. Lopez, 125 F.4th 1301 (9th Cir. 2025).
· cites it 2× “LOPEZ of section 134-53(a) provided for the punishment of anyone who “knowingly manufactures, sells, transfers, possesses, or transports in the State any butterfly knife,” Haw. Rev. Stat. § 134-53 (a) (1999), House Bill 2342 sought to narrow that prohibition to cover only those…”
Teter v. Connors, 460 F. Supp. 3d 989 (D. Haw. 2020).
· cites it 61× “The Hawai`i legislature passed HRS § 134-53 in 1999 in response to a Hawai`i Supreme Court decision, In the Interest of Doe, 73 Haw.”
Haw. Rev. Stat. § 134-53(a): 1 case
Teter v. Connors, 460 F. Supp. 3d 989 (D. Haw. 2020).
“The Hawai`i legislature passed HRS § 134-53 in 1999 in response to a Hawai`i Supreme Court decision, In the Interest of Doe, 73 Haw.”
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.