Let me get this straight:

The story I find goes that in 1782, Kamehameha, a very physically imposing nobleman in his 40's and ruler of Hawaii Island, but who had not yet conquered any other islands, was personally pillaging a village on Hawaii Island, and pursuing "commoners" who were attempting to escape the village, when the commoners fought back and nearly killed him with a canoe paddle.

Twelve years later these commoners were brought to Kamehameha, and it was apparently surprising that instead of executing them, he exonerated them on the grounds they were justified in their armed self-defense against a noble. And then he enacted the law of the splintered paddle, which said something along the lines of "if you harm somebody sleeping by the roadside you'll be killed".


How is this story invoked as an example of why citizens should be prohibited from having weapons for self-defense?

It's literally a story of a citizen using a weapon to defend their lives, to defend their lives from a murderous kleptocrat of all things, and then the official himself indicating that defending themselves was a totally justifiable thing for them to do at the time.

I completely fail to see how story doesn't illustrate the importance of having and using weapons in self-defense, from the state even, and how this story doesn't demonstrate that Kamehameha recognized a right to armed self defense, even from the state. What am I missing?

Let me get this straight:

The story I find goes that in 1782, Kamehameha, a very physically imposing nobleman in his 40's and ruler of Hawaii Island, but who had not yet conquered any other islands, was personally pillaging a village on Hawaii Island, and pursuing "commoners" who were attempting to escape the village, when the commoners fought back and nearly killed him with a canoe paddle.

Twelve years later these commoners were brought to Kamehameha, and it was apparently surprising that instead of executing them, he exonerated them on the grounds they were justified in their armed self-defense against a noble. And then he enacted the law of the splintered paddle, which said something along the lines of "if you harm somebody sleeping by the roadside you'll be killed".


How is this story invoked as an example of why citizens should be prohibited from having weapons for self-defense?

It's literally a story of a citizen using a weapon to defend their lives, to defend their lives from a murderous kleptocrat of all things, and then the official himself indicating that defending themselves was a totally justifiable thing for them to do at the time.

I completely fail to see how story doesn't illustrate the importance of having and using weapons in self-defense, from the state even, and how this story doesn't demonstrate that Kamehameha recognized a right to armed self defense, even from the state. What am I missing?

The story usage is BS made up by HI because they have no "history/tradition" laws.  HI was not a state when this took place.  Like other states who are anti 2a, to show history/tradition, they're throwing everything they can at the judge in hopes that 1 will work.  Look at the St.Benetiz and CA using over 200+ examples of laws for history/tradition.

Don't get your head wrapped around it.

Just consume product you peasant.  No questioning authority.

The law isn't about "the people" defending themselves from any attackers.  It's specific to wartime encounters.

[The law] has become a model for modern human rights law regarding the treatment
of civilians and other non-combatants during times of war.

The law was created as a result of an incident when Kamehameha was on a military
expedition in Puna. His party encountered a group of commoners on a beach. While
chasing two fishermen who had stayed behind to cover the retreat of a man carrying
a child, Kamehameha's leg was caught in the reef. One of the fisherman, Kaleleiki, hit
him mightily on the head with a paddle in defense, which broke into pieces. Kamehameha
could have been killed at that point, but the fisherman spared him. Years later, the same
fisherman was brought before Kamehameha. Instead of ordering for him to be killed,
Kamehameha ruled that the fisherman had only been protecting his land and family,
and so the Law of the Splintered Paddle was declared.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C4%81n%C4%81wai_M%C4%81malahoe

From what I can see, it legalized self defense, but only of a civilian/noncombatant acting against those engaged in war who attacked them for no legitimate military purpose.

It would have been different if some of the men being chased were fighting against Kamehameha and his forces without provocation -- i.e. mutual military combat.