{"data":{"id":"us-hi/haw.-rev.-stat.-134-103","jurisdiction":"us-hi","citation":"Haw. Rev. Stat. § 134-103","heading":"[ § 134-103] Violations; who may sue; relief.","body":"[ § 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.\n\n(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.\n\n(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.\n\n(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:\n\n(1) Injunctive relief sufficient to prevent the firearm industry member and any other defendant from further violating the law;\n\n(2) Damages;\n\n(3) Attorney's fees and costs; and\n\n(4) Any other appropriate relief necessary to enforce this part and remedy the harm caused by the conduct.\n\n(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:\n\n(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\n\n(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.\n\n(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.\n\n(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.","path":["HI Code","Division 1","Title 10","Chapter 134"],"source_url":"http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol03_Ch0121-0200D/HRS0134/HRS_0134-0103.htm","current_through":"2026-08-14","vintage":"open-us-law v2026.08, retrieved 2026-09-14","retrieved_at":"2026-09-14T18:32:11Z","sha256":"8bbc28cc839aaaea5ec379cef7214ff313bcf00a50f51dee989ae91bb87b7ccd","source_id":"us-hi","stale":false,"prev":"us-hi/haw.-rev.-stat.-134-102","next":"us-hi/haw.-rev.-stat.-134-104"},"notice":"GroundRules: Original legal text. Not legal advice."}