That is exactly right.  I seriously doubt if any of our spineless, gutless political leaders would have the nerve to make such an order.

If the site is part of Volcanoes National Park, Trump could send in guard troops and end this.  That would save face for the local swamp critters afraid of the public backlash.

Guess the police will just have to do their job and remove the guns. And follow orders.

Because the gun owner, at that point is now a criminal, refusing to follow the law.

If the site is part of Volcanoes National Park, Trump could send in guard troops and end this.  That would save face for the local swamp critters afraid of the public backlash.

What cop is gonna go move this guy out of the way?



Actor Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, center, greets community leader Pua Case as opposition leader Kaho'okahi Kanuha watches at far left during a visit to the protest site blocking the construction of the TMT telescope on Wednesday, July 24, 2019, at the base of Mauna Kea on Hawaii Island. (Jamm Aquino/Honolulu Star-Advertiser via AP)

I know someone who could take out the rock while drinking a beer at the same time! 

1 of 2 things will happen if command gives the order:

1) Followed to the T because "just following orders"
2) Those who do disagree will not say anything because they don't want to get fired.  So they will just wait outside, instead of going inside the home/office to confiscate the guns.  That way they can say "I didn't confiscate anything, the other guy did".

There are many more possibilities. Open defiances, allowing the person to have their firearms seized so as to go through a legal means of fighting it, etc.

A lot of constitutional case law is set because someone did something unconstitutional. In some ways had the government never violated the constitution we may not have the same established rights today.

The constitution isn't exactly some document that give clear answers to every issue. Our understanding of the constitution has evolved over time with free speech being one of the most interesting examples. In the cases of law enforcement a lot of the time the officer doesn't clearly know something is constitutional or not until it makes its way up to a supreme court.

There are many more possibilities. Open defiances, allowing the person to have their firearms seized so as to go through a legal means of fighting it, etc.

A lot of constitutional case law is set because someone did something unconstitutional. In some ways had the government never violated the constitution we may not have the same established rights today.

The constitution isn't exactly some document that give clear answers to every issue. Our understanding of the constitution has evolved over time with free speech being one of the most interesting examples. In the cases of law enforcement a lot of the time the officer doesn't clearly know something is constitutional or not until it makes its way up to a supreme court.

The bill of rights is pretty clear on the 2nd amendment, as well as the 1st.

https://www.kitv.com/story/40845923/state-lawmaker-tmt-supporter-clash-over-racism-colonialism

Ing is heard off camera asking the man, "So you're saying Mauna Kea is not sacred?" Rostel responds, "No, it's a rock. What's sacred is the pursuit of knowledge."

Ing told KITV4 this was a racist comment, and he wrote these words on Twitter that correspond with that video post: "Our movement is about stopping the TMT, and moving beyond this sort of colonial, white supremacist thinking."

and he throws down the racist card...for what?

It has turned into an all-out "Hawaiian vs haole" war.

A further irony is that I suspect it's a rather small percentage of those supporting "sovereignty" and even claiming to be "hawaiian" that would actually turn out to be eligible for citizenship under the purported resurrected "kingdom" citizen requirement that one have PROOF of being a direct descendant of someone who was a "kingdom" CITIZEN prior to 1893. According to one writer on the subject, if the "kingdom" is restored (the "sacred" "mauna" is merely step one of many ("blockades") to follow) anyone not proving direct lineage will have their property seized and be deported from the "kingdom". Sure, that's gonna happen. Many (most?) of these people are delusional.

What Hawaiian said that property held by all non-Hawaiian nationals would be seized and people deported should the Kingdom government of Hawaii be restored?  Either you are talking to a very mistaken Hawaiian or are making things up.

Hawaiian is not a race or ethnicity, but a nationality; hence, all nationals that can trace their lineage to the Kingdom as well as the short-lived Republic of Hawaii have rights as being Hawaiian nationals; including, by the way, the descendants of Thurston and all the other American-born Hawaiian insurgents that overthrew Queen Liliuokalani!  All other people whose descendants arrived and took residence in Hawaii after the illegal annexation of Hawaii 1898, would not be considered nationals, but rather visitors who could elect permanent residency or apply for citizenship, as most nations offer today.

Only lands currently occupied by the US federal and state government would revert back to the exclusive control of the Hawaiian government.

https://www.kitv.com/story/40845923/state-lawmaker-tmt-supporter-clash-over-racism-colonialism

Ing is heard off camera asking the man, "So you're saying Mauna Kea is not sacred?" Rostel responds, "No, it's a rock. What's sacred is the pursuit of knowledge."

Ing told KITV4 this was a racist comment, and he wrote these words on Twitter that correspond with that video post: "Our movement is about stopping the TMT, and moving beyond this sort of colonial, white supremacist thinking."

and he throws down the racist card...for what?

What Hawaiian said that property held by all non-Hawaiian nationals would be seized and people deported should the Kingdom government of Hawaii be restored?  Either you are talking to a very mistaken Hawaiian or are making things up.

Such irony! For this person was just like you, i.e. claimed to know it all! I'm sure he'd challenge you and assert that you "are very mistaken". I don't care if you believe me or not, it's a real person who claims some degree of "hawaiianess". "When I asked him who was going to come and seize my property and deport me he cited some international law claiming that the U.S. military would be obligated to do the seizures and deportations. I'm not making it up. He knows everything.

Hawaiian is not a race or ethnicity, but a nationality; hence, all nationals that can trace their lineage to the Kingdom as well as the short-lived Republic of Hawaii have rights as being Hawaiian nationals; including, by the way, the descendants of Thurston and all the other American-born Hawaiian insurgents that overthrew Queen Liliuokalani!  All other people whose descendants arrived and took residence in Hawaii after the illegal annexation of Hawaii 1898, would not be considered nationals, but rather visitors who could elect permanent residency or apply for citizenship, as most nations offer today.

So you're acknowledging that all those signs we see and claims made all over the place (such as by Ing above) about "hawaiians" having been and being subject victims of "racism" are false, because they aren't a "race". Good to know. Thanks. What kind of efforts have you made to correct the liars or those who are "very mistaken" about their "race" claims?

By your definition, there is no way to "naturalize" non-Hawaiians.  That's a great prescription for ensuring the "nation" of Hawaii eventually gets bred out of existence.  Native American tribes faced that very prospect.  Only intermarrying with non-Natives (reduces the off-chances of inbreeding), greater longevity due to improved healthcare, and changes in what qualifies a person as "Native-American" reversed the downward spiral into oblivion.

Well, China has done very well without "naturalizing" non-Chinese.


Living on an island doesn't insulate Hawaiians from the realities of mixing races and some of those mixed-race people having children born here.  The "nation" of Hawaii needs to rethink their future if they intend to have a future at all.  As long as the state is under US control, race-based discrimination will become more and more illegal, which cuts into many long-standing state, trust and school rules, ceded lands (Mauna Kea) which were under a now nonexistent monarchy included.

That is why it is in the best interest of Hawaiians to end the illegal occupation of Hawaii by the US.