HILO — Wayson Ioane was tired of people driving into the area near Lehia Beach Park at the end of Kalanianaole Avenue in Hilo to take drugs.
HILO — Wayson Ioane was tired of people driving into the area near Lehia Beach Park at the end of Kalanianaole Avenue in Hilo to take drugs.
So he and several others who live down the Kapoho Coast Road put up a makeshift roadblock Friday at the start of the unpaved path, near the former Puumaile Hospital, to keep them out.
“I got to beat them, and don’t let them beat me,” Ioane said Saturday.
“I’m going to fight these guys until pau.”
The checkpoint, which he said would be up for the holiday weekend, doesn’t block access to the ocean or the undeveloped park.
Ioane said all others are welcome, but the barrier is needed since the gate at the end of Kalanianaole Avenue is broken or no longer locks, and it’s attracting unwanted guests.
“If you close the front gate, that’s half our problem already,” he said.
The land belongs to the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands but Ioane said the gate is the county’s responsibility. (A call to county Managing Director Wil Okabe late Saturday afternoon wasn’t returned by deadline.)
Ioane said he lives in a village with about 20 families down the coast near the Puna district boundary. He said they have a right-of-entry permit with DHHL.
Ioane said they notified police of what they were doing, and have spoken with county officials about the issue.
Email Tom Callis at tcallis@hawaiitribune-herald.com.
There are times when you have to stand up and take matters into your own hands, because the “authorities” will not bother or are told not to bother.
That is why the right to self defense is our 2nd Amendment.
Stand strong guys.
Yhea try exercising it here. You will be locked up.
You’d have to be in your house and have no way out, with an invading ice head brandishing a deadly weapon, and then you’d still need a lawyer. These guys at their “checkpoint” will be in jail in a second if they brandish or use a firearm.
Wrong.
Our 2nd Amendment is, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Has nothing to do with self-defense. It’s all about a militia (predates our armed services) being necessary to the security of a free State (government). It has, of course, been expanded greatly in interpretation by the courts over the years, but the original 2nd Amendment is all about supporting the State, and not about individuals and self-defense.
There is no reasoning with someone so over the edge on the statist side vs. individual liberty. Your abject ignorance of the history of our BOR is pathetic, but you do not let that stop you.
No clue as to the history of the country, the revolution, and the Bill of Rights.
You were the one thrashing about endlessly about your hatred of cats. You are not a very stable person and should be watched..
Classic attack the messenger instead of refuting the message. Very weak strategy…pathetic, actually.
Read the 2nd and tell me where I’m wrong. It demonstrably does not refer to self defense in it’s wording.
Self defense not explicitly stated? Perhaps it was so obvious that to state it would have been a joke. I very much doubt they could imagine liberals in later years pouncing on that as some sort of “proof”.
Neither does the 2A refer to hunting or protection from predators. Liberals often claim that hunting is all that bearing arms is valid for.
Are you really claiming a laundry list of reasons should have been included? The other 9 amendments are about the rights of the individual and just this one is about supporting the state?
No doubt you fancy yourself as some sort of Constitutional scholar. But you are just another leftist desperately trying to parse a hated amendment to suit your agenda.
Your copying bloomturd, HCI, and other anti-2A statist talking points is a joke, but your narcissism demands you keep at it.
Post away, I am done with your drivel. You made a fool of yourself hating on feral cats (half of 70 posts) as you just have to have the last word. You have a desperate need to do that, like some other liberals here. Do not expect me to read anymore of your statist drivel.
There you go again–the third time–attacking the messenger instead of dealing with the substance of what is being discussed on the thread. That’s what makes PunaPerson’s post worthy and interesting–s/he discusses the issues and uses a reasoned approach. You attack people, while avoiding the substance of the debate. Again, that’s a very lame and pathetic approach. You use tired, boorish left vs right talking points (woefully incorrectly, I may add) and take a tribal, oppositional stances. Must be hard living in a world that you see as you vs. “them”.
I do not “debate” with liberals, just skewer their lies.
You lose liberal. You are not a “messenger”, just a leftist looking to spew your agenda and talking points. Get nailed and you squeal.
Your hypocrisy is hilarious and ironic.
Now go away to wherever it is you usually lurk.
Now, I thought you weren’t going to read any of my posts.
I’m not a liberal, nor have I ever been one. I’m also not a reactionary right-winger either (as you appear to be)
I deal in facts, reasoned argument, thoughtful discussion and do not attack people based on stupid, sixth grade playground-like name calling.
See, you run out of thoughtful arguments (maybe never have) so you need to resort to attacking people. It’s the hallmark of a narrow mind and basal
level of intelligent discourse.
The irony in your posts is stunning, but not so much as your total lack of awareness. Very well, I have no patience, I will grant that. last word it yours narcissist, you are now blocked.
Oh, but you were so much fun. The more your wrote, the more hilarious you became. I almost don’t believe you’re a nutso reactionary (despite your childish, 2016 “Lock Her Up” icon and framing everything you didn’t like as “liberal”.) You couldn’t possibly have been serious and really believe what you wrote. I bet you’re an intelligent, balanced individual that likes to play the ogre for fun. I’ll miss your role playing of the village idiot…now that I have received the honor of being blocked by you….Oh, but wait, you can’t see this!
Continue the name calling. Shows your true colors. You’d be much more interesting and persuasive if you just stuck to the issues and figured out your insecurities that have compelled you to insert your anti “liberal” rants into every thread, even when they have no remote relevance to what is being discussed. Oh, wait, I’ve been blocked by you…so at least I won’t be able to chuckle at another name-calling response from you! Stay classy!
It would require a very lengthy essay, but in very very brief: The rights listed in the Bill of Rights in the Constitution “are not granted, nor are they dependent upon that document” (Cruickshank SCOTUS). According to the Founders those rights are all “pre-existing”, inalienable, and “natural” or “god-given”, that is, every human is born with those rights and none of them may be infringed by the government. One of the debates between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists was over the very idea of a list, as this could be seen as limiting, whereas the intent was to make clear that no pre-existing rights of any kind, listed or unlisted, were subject to government infringement.
As for the prefatory clause, that has also been debated, and the original intent was clearly only to list one of the Founders’ most important reasons for individuals to have military grade weapons was to defend against any enemy, foreign or domestic (the British had been the government that was violently overthrown). That prefatory clause in no way can intellectually honestly be claimed to be the single reason that the pre-existing right to keep and bear arms was included.
Thus, even without any constitution or bill of rights or any other document, the Founders believed that every individual had those rights, and they were merely making an attempt to make into law that fact and that the government was thus prohibited from infringing on any natural, god-given, pre-existing rights.
Besides if you believe it WAS, then every single adult should be able to possess all the currently available military personally bearable weapons, as all adults (at least the males) are members of the militia. I’d be for that.
Yes, the rights in the BOR were explicit and and said to inalienable. That’s obvious and not a matter of question.
You say that the prefatory clause “A well regarded Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state” “in no way can intellectually honestly be claimed to be the single reason” just doesn’t make sense.
Why is it there then? That’s the beauty of our Declaration of Independence and BOR and the Amendments–clear, concise documents with nothing more or nothing less than the framers intended. Our interpretation, 250 years hence has certainly changed, but the original documents were explicit and the “well regarded Militia” is there for a reason.
Why did our forefathers just not leave it out: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”? If that were there intent–keep and bear arms for any reason–they certainly would have gone for the more parsimonious wording, which would have guaranteed very broad rights to own firearms.
At that time, they were concerned about the British and our ability to defend from foreign sources and, in Virginia and the slavery states, uprisings. Madison explicitly used the word “militias” for those purposes–to protect the country from foreign enemies and white people (in the form of militias) from slave uprisings. Those are the historical facts.
But, this begs the point, gun ownership is not a guarantee for “self-defense” purposes. It’s not an absolute, inalienable right, as you say. Many states, counties and municipalities have very strict gun ownership laws, which have passed Constitutional challenges. Hawaii, as you know, is very restrictive with background checks, gun registration, storage requirements, and zero open carry permits issued. As we have seen, the “self-defense” hurdle is very high for the shooter (in contrast to stand your ground states).
We don’t allow convicted felons, those with domestic violence convictions, children, open carry, concealed carry, high magazine rifles, sawed off shotguns, firearms with no serial numbers, possession by those deemed to be mentally ill and possession of firearms in schools or government buildings. So, three points 1) the BOR was written with the intent of prefatory clause with supporting militias, and 2) yes, the courts have broadened these rights substantially, 3) those rights are not absolutes and come with many, many restrictions.
The “self-defense” argument was decided with a very narrow interpretation, in 2008, but even Scalia, wrote in his decision that it’s not an absolute, inalienable right; governments can (and do…almost everywhere) put limits and restrictions on the exercise of those rights. The “self-defense” argument has only “been on the books” for 10 years, and did not exist–in fact, it has been restricted many times over the last 250 years–in 1789.
My response is being censored by the newspaper.
If too much (I don’t know how much) of the text is copied from other sources – for example block quoting parts of the Constitution, they tend to block it. There’s some magic ratio of original to copied text. They also block links. Bummer, as I have enjoyed your thoughtful post. I have a feeling we disagree very little about the right to own firearms.
No copying and pasting. Only thing over a word or two in quotation marks is the title of a book. My experience in the past is when they give the “waiting to be approved” message they really mean “waiting to be disappeared”.
There is no sense writing to some odd character that sees “No right to self defense” in our Constitution. Only rights of the state.
I suspect even many liberals would shun this character.
As I’ve written on other threads, I’m not really writing in any attempt to convince the person with contrary opinions or mistaken “facts’, but rather to provide valid arguments and facts for other readers who may be interested but not particularly informed about the subject. Too bad the site won’t publish my responses.
This one sees any disagreement as “atacking the messenger”. As if he/she were an unbiased provider of truth rather than an overly emotional individual that cannot tolerate opposing views.
Had far too much of these creeps to be patient with their lies. My congrats that you choose to tolerate their insane emotions. Soon as I see that narcissit insisting on having the last word, I will block them. There is no communication with someone that just wants to keep on shouting the same thing over and over.
The problem is our police force goals and mission are not being upheld because the county council accepts federal grants to tie up officers time with victimless traffic “crime” enforcements such as cell phone, seatbelt and safetycheck stings which divert officers from actually responding and solving real crimes with real victims that have existed in the same neighborhoods for years with impunity.
Home invasions, robberies, domestic violence, car-jackings and chop-shops, missing persons, murders, assaults, drug houses etc. all take a back seat to meeting extortion quotas for federal traffic grant programs not geared to protecting and serving the public.
Judging form the abuse that stop sign has taken, this could end very badly for someone!!