Armed citizens get their 2nd Amendment point across to city council

by Doug Book,  staff writer

“All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.” This language from the Washington State Constitution failed to impress one city councilman from Oak Harbor as he demonstrated the petulance inherent in liberals by walking out of a January council meeting because one of the attending citizens was legally armed. (1)

At issue was a 2009 lawsuit filed by the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) against the City Of Seattle for having broken state law by placing a ban on the carrying of firearms in city parks.  A 3 decade old Washington State Preemption Law makes it illegal for jurisdictions within the state to pass any ordinance which conflicts with state law. As the State of Washington declares it legal to carry weapons in state parks, the Seattle ordinance against that law is illegal and therefore unenforceable. Such was the ruling both in state court and the District 1 Court of Appeals!  (2)  

But when the SAF informed the City of Oak Harbor that its own ban on guns in area parks was also in violation of the Preemption Law, city councilman Rick Almberg decided that peevish behavior was somehow his right and should take precedence over the law and the rights of Oak Harbor residents.

Testifying before the Council against the Oak Harbor ban, private citizen Lucas Yonkman agreed to answer Almberg when the councilman asked if the disabled, Afghanistan Veteran was armed. Upon responding that he had both a handgun and a license to carry a concealed weapon, Councilman Almberg immediately made a motion that weapons be banned at council meetings. When that failed, Almberg promptly picked up his belongings and left the room. (3)

But when the next City Council meeting took place in early February, “…a group of 160 citizens, many if not most of whom were armed…” crowded the council chambers, voicing support for Lucas Yonkman and demanding “…that the council rescind [the] local ordinance prohibiting guns from being carried on public property.”  (4)

One armed citizen attending the meeting offered a pointed statement when he told the council, “…if the fact that citizens who are merely exercising their right to keep and bear arms intimidates city officials, then they need to look within to determine why the rights of the people are so intimidating to them.” Indeed this question should be put not only to council members in Oak Harbor, Washington, but to politicians in D.C and throughout the nation. (4)

Two hundred years ago, Thomas Jefferson offered the famous statement, “When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny.” (5) Whether the City Council of Oak Harbor was or was not intimidated by the armed citizens they were elected to serve, “the council voted to remove the ban on guns in public parks and other public areas.” (4)

Americans must make it known to liberal politicians that neither churlish behavior nor unconstitutional legislation will intimidate citizens into relinquishing their God given rights. If that message must be delivered by armed envoys, so be it. After all, when elected officials uphold the rights of the American people it is a good thing, regardless of the means employed to make them do so.







Be Sociable, Share!

5 thoughts on “Armed citizens get their 2nd Amendment point across to city council”

  1. A bit off topic, but this place is a good sounding board to rouse the faithful.

    I wore a yellow Star of David with the words “Gun Owner” on it to a recent gun show and none of the media would photograph or make eye contact with me
    because it was a grim reminder of what can happen to a group of people the government demonizes. Just imagine the reaction of the City Council, et al, if everybody at that meeting wore one.

    Let’s use the “throw everything at the wall and see what sticks” tactic the antis use by proposing:

    1) Repeal of the 1968 GCA Act

    2) Allow licensed CCW holders to have firearms shipped directly to them as they have already passed a background check

    3) Allow licensed CCW holders to buy handguns across state lines for the same reason

    4) Allow firearms to be carried in schools and universities by the above

    5) Add you own pet law

    Of course most don’t have a snowballs chance, but the thing is, is to FIGHT BACK. The antis will be screaming about how crazy we are to demand the above – and that takes the focus off their agenda.

    Do this each time as a counter-demand and get the antis to the point they say “Good God, don’t propose any more anti-gun laws! Look what happened the
    last time!”

    Get on the horn and demand these from your pols. Even in hopeless anti-gun states you can at least give that bozo some heartburn.

    “Good guys finish last”. That’s why we have all these useless and restrictive laws now.

    1. oatka,

      Your suggestions concerning CCW license holders is right on the money. Holders of concealed carry licenses are, as a group, one of the most law abiding in the nation. WHY? Because one HAS to be in order to get a CC license in the first place. And contrary to the wild claims of the left, those who do acquire a license do NOT become the gun slinging, 1870s Wild West types Chuck Schumer & Co warn about!
      Here is a link to some info about CC holders:
      Thanks for reading Coach is Right

    1. bronzestar,

      Tyrants always display the greatest fear and mistrust of those “closest” to them! Obama is the Commander in Chief. The military should honor Obama, serve him and respect his every order. He knows very well that such notions are nonsense. The overwhelming majority of military members have utter contempt for Obama and mistrust him completely. Naturally, Obama is afraid the contempt he has earned will translate into bullets flying in his direction. Those worthy of the greatest mistrust always seem to DISPLAY the greatest mistrust!

  2. “the council voted to remove the ban on guns in public parks and other public areas.”
    “the council voted via emergency rule(s) to remove the ban on guns in public parks and other public areas.”

Comments are closed.