Oak Harbor City Councilman Rick Almberg walks out of City Council meeting. He refuses to follow his oath by supporting the laws of the State of Washington and our Washington State Constitution.

Author:Cliff Howard

At last Tuesdays City Council meeting a citizen commented during the citizens comment period encouraging the City Council to support the Second Amendment and to help educate our children about firearms and firearm safety.

In a rather disturbing display by Councilman Almberg this citizen was called back to the podium by Councilman Almberg and the councilman asked the Mayor to enquire if he was carrying a concealed weapon. After some discussion with the city Attorney about the legality of Councilman Almberg requesting a citizen return to the podium to be asked a question by the Councilman the citizen volunteered to answer any questions Councilman Almberg saw fit to ask him. After the citizens confirmed that he was lawfully and legally carrying a concealed weapon Councilman Almberg made a motion (during the citizens comment period yet) that he wanted to make a requirement that citizens coming to city council meeting check their firearms with either the police department or the Chief of Police before being allowed to attend the meeting. The Motion was seconded by Joel Servatius. After a long discussion the motion was presented for a vote with Councilman Almberg and Councilman Servatius voting yes and the remainder of the Council voted no. Immediately after the motion failed councilman Almberg excused himself and left the meeting.

We have a situation in our City Council where certain Council members feel that the oath of office they take is not meant for them. Councilman Almberg swore an oath when taking his position as a Councilman to support and uphold the laws and Constitution of our State, he has been repeatedly informed in council meetings that the State of Washington has preempted the ability of cities and counties to make laws that are in conflict with our state laws concerning firearms including restricting their carry in any areas that are not outlined in our State laws. City Council chambers are excluded from those laws. Rick Almberg has made it clear that he will refuse to honor those State laws and protections that we have against rogue Councilmen like Almberg making a patchwork of laws concerning firearms.

The proper method for Councilman Almberg to dispute the laws that we have is with the legislators of our state and not the citizens. If he feels the need to change these laws it should be done through a letter or other communication with our state legislators not through putting citizens on the spot during Council meetings and not by making motions for restrictions against firearm owners that are contrary to state law.

I would suggest to Councilman Almberg that now that he has made his point by walking out of a City Council meeting by grandstanding over this issue that he resigns his position as Council Member so that we can replace him with someone that does have an interest in following the oath they swore to uphold.

Citizens are not going to stop carrying concealed weapons into the Council chambers during council meetings until and if the laws of our State are changed. There are very good reasons the State has preempted local communities enacting restrictions that are more restrictive than state laws, this stops having a patchwork of laws that can trap lawful citizens carrying firearms. One of the major considerations for Concealed Weapon Holders is that if they are required to leave their weapons in their cars during meetings cars can be broken into and firearms can be stolen. We only have to look as far as Seattle to see what happens, the Chief of the Seattle Police Department had his service weapon stolen from his vehicle and as far as I know the weapon has never been recovered. No telling how much mayhem that weapon has caused because it was stolen by a criminal. We do not want that happening in our city due to a Council member who is obviously attempting to grandstand and make an issue where one really does not exist. Citizens have been carrying concealed weapons in city council meetings long before Councilman Almberg ever entered city politics and will continue to do so until the laws of our state are changed.

Below is a you tube video that has been edited for brevity and includes the important part of this discussion and shows Councilman Almberg leaving the meeting. Please follow this video to the end, the Mayors comments are in my mind especially important. He goes over the oath of office that all council member swear to follow and apologizes to the citizen who was placed in a position that no citizen should when volunteering comments to the City Council.

I would strongly suggest that Councilman Almberg review his Oath of Office before ever returning to the Council Chambers and that he also review Article 1 and Section 1 of our State Constitution which states:

“SECTION 1 POLITICAL POWER. 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.”

Maybe Councilman Almberg can explain as to why he refuses to follow his oath and also why the above article from our Constitution is appropriate.

View complete video of this meeting at the Oak Harbor City Website – CLICK HERE

Citizens Comments- CLICK HERE

Mayors Comments- CLICK HERE

The below video was edited for brevity and shows the issues relevant to this article:

 

Tags: , , , ,

111 comments

  1. avatar

    When Councilman Almberg walked out of that meeting he walked out on all of those who voted him. His personal childish irresponsible antics are not acceptable for someone entrusted with representing all Oak Harbor citizens and making on their behalf. He negated his oath of service along with his word and his credibility. Mr. Almberg should have tendered his resignation prior to leaving the meeting. An ethical, but highly upset, councilman would have at least resigned shortly thereafter.

    Good report Cliff. Thank you.

    1. avatar

      There are ways for local politicians like Mr Almberg to change the ways our laws work. He could ask the city attorney to draft a letter (with the councils permission of course) with his and the councils concerns and send it to our legislators to be placed on the legislative agenda.

      He chose instead to grandstand and make an issue where there is none, at least under the laws we presently have. His repeated refusal to recognize the laws of our state is troubling. For him to single out a citizen who is only commenting to the council and treat this citizen like he is Mr Almberg’s serf is even more troubling. I mean really, who does Mr Almberg think he is? This citizen came during an open citizens comment period and honestly and forthrightly expressed his concerns to the council and he was treated like he had broken some law.

      Mr Almberg should not only be ashamed of himself he should tender his resignation from the city council.

      We cannot let our political leaders EVER treat a citizen as Mr Almberg did ever again.

      “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”

      In the case of Mr Almberg he believes that the power resides with him and not the people and his display of attacking a citizen and then walking out of a council meeting when things did not go his way only shows he is not the type of person that should hold any position of responsibility in ours or anyone’s government.

      1. avatar

        I would suggest Mr. Almberg tender his resignation as he has violated his oath of office and clearly does not intend on upholding the US Constitution or that of the State of Washington. Should he fail to resign prior to the next city Council meeting or during said meeting. The Council must call for a vote of impeachment of Councilman Almberg

        1. avatar

          No need for all that impeachment stuff, too expensive and too slow, same for a recall vote. Just refer a complaint to County Prosecutor Greg Banks and he’ll find a way to deal with a politician who doesn’t honor his oath.

          1. avatar

            Grass roots, I agree and this afternoon, after the “old goats” meeting, I plan to stop in Coupeville to obtain the charging documents (including RCWs), as prepared by Greg Banks in the case against Mayor Larry Kwarsick.
            They may be very useful in presenting charges against other government officials who act as they are not subject to the constitution and laws of us mere mortals

            1. avatar

              Roger that Bill. Thanks.

              1. avatar

                I now have all 31 pages of every document County/Banks used to find Kwarsick guilty and also remove him from office when he refused to resign as Mayor
                They should be very helpful in understanding what is needed to rid our government of people who won’t obey their oath of office or think they are above the law
                They were guilty of a crime and potentially subject to RECALL…,wonder if Dudley would like a copy of these???

          2. avatar

            There is another law this councilman needs to be aware of, which I’m sure is basically the same in Washington as in my home state of Texas. It’s known as “official oppression” and is directed at public officials, whether elected or hired, who attempt to illegally impose their will on others by virtue of the authority derived from that position. Both the Police Chief and the local Prosecuting Attorney will be very familiar with it…

            1. avatar

              (quoting monty python)

              “help help, I’m being repressed!”

              Great idea there, George!

        2. avatar

          RCW.56.0 20, and RCW 9.92.120 removed Langley Mayor Kwarsick from office by a County Superior Court guilty conviction thus eliminating the need for a RECALL, RCW 26A.56.110:

          “Whenever any legal voter of the state or of any political subdivision thereof, either individually or on behalf of an organization, desires to demand the recall and discharge of any elective public officer of the state or of such political subdivision, as the case may be, under the provisions of sections 33 and 34 of Article 1 of the Constitution, the voter shall prepare a typewritten charge, reciting that such officer, naming him or her and giving the title of the office, has committed an act or acts of malfeasance, or an act or acts of misfeasance while in office, or has violated the oath of office, or has been guilty of any two or more of the acts…s…pecified in the Constitution as grounds for recall. The charge shall state the act or acts complained of in concise language, give a detailed description including the approximate date, location, and nature of each act complained of, be signed by the person or persons making the charge, give their respective post office addresses, and be verified under oath that the person or persons believe the charge or charges to be true and have knowledge of the alleged facts upon which the stated grounds for recall are based.
          For the purposes of this chapter:

          (1) “Misfeasance” or “malfeasance” in office means any wrongful conduct that affects, interrupts, or interferes with the performance of official duty;.
          (a) Additionally, “misfeasance” in office means the performance of a duty in an improper manner; and.
          (b) Additionally, “malfeasance” in office means the commission of an unlawful act;.

          (2) “Violation of the oath of office” means the neglect or knowing failure by an elective public officer to perform faithfully a duty imposed by law. “

          Maybe it’s time For Councilman Almberg , and his puppet Councilman Servatius have attitude adjustments. They are skating on thin ice.

      2. avatar

        I totally agree with this. Good article Cliff.

      3. avatar

        Not only was Almburg completely out of order, if he does not resign he should be relieved of his duties as a councilman, Theres a name for someone with ahead like his and they are both slick, but I will not go there out of respect for the office! I highly aplaude the Mayor for his stand!! We need more men with gonads.

    2. avatar

      Those council members should have been arrested immediately for attempting to pass an illegal order.

      1. avatar

        I disagree Jim. Two individuals made a mistake on a serious issue. It’s not a crime to have an opinion, or in this case, to publicize an opinion. (Be thankful for that, Shane Hoffmire!) It will be the voter’s responsibility to decide if Rick or Joel are to continue representing them.

        While comments have been directed to Second Amendment Rights, Citizens of Oak Harbor should take a moment to appreciate The First Amendment and the specific Right of Free Speech. The exercise of that Right permitted the discovery of Rick and Joel’s anti-Second Amendment opinions. Can anyone believe that their motion was not withdrawn after the opinion rendered by the Council’s legal counsel???

        1. avatar

          QUOTE: Two individuals made a mistake on a serious issue. It’s not a crime to have an opinion, or in this case, to publicize an opinion.

          Unfortunately these two folks did more then just express an opinion; they acted, under color of authority, to act on their opinion.

          It is the ACT, not the OPINION that is at issue here.

          1. avatar

            That is what I find appalling in all of this. Our state laws are very clear in that they control all aspects of firearm laws in our state. Mr Almberg knows this, he has been informed in several council meetings that this indeed is the laws of our State and of our city.

            He took it upon himself to act contrary to State and our cities laws in his attempt to pass a city ordinance that is on it’s face illegal. He did so knowing that what he is proposing is illegal. He acted in an illegal manner and directly against the laws we all follow.

            This is really simple issue. In 1996 our city adopted the State laws on firearms in it’s entirety. The parks code which was written in 1965 was not rewritten at the time of the adoption of the State firearm laws and remainders of our old laws were still retained in that parks code.

            Here is what our city code states:

            “6.05.370 Firearms and dangerous weapons.
            The following sections of RCW Title 9 as now in effect, and as may subsequently be amended, are hereby adopted by reference to establish crimes relating to firearms and dangerous weapons under the Oak Harbor criminal code:”

            This is a simple housekeeping issue, our city needs to amend the remainder of it’s code to reflect the fact that RCW 9.41 has been adoptedas the law of our city.

            Mr. Almberg et al is attempting to ride the wave of anti firearm hysteria that we have seen in our news media. He is attempting to bring attention to something that he has absolutely no chance of changing in our City Council chambers. He is wasting massive amounts of the Councils time grandstanding on an issue for no reason.

            Hopefully the exposure he has brought himself has taught him something. Next time he wants to act like a pompous *ss in our city council chambers I hope he thinks twice.

            GET ON WITH THE CITIES BUSINESS MR ALMBERG STOP GRANDSTANDING AND ACTING LIKE A FOOL IN FRONT OF THE WORLD.

    3. avatar

      My thoughts exactly. He broke his oath and therefore broke his covenant with the very people who put him in power. If he won’t resign he should be fired. We have way too many people like him in government offices, city, state and federal.

      They should be kicked out of office and sent home. We need, deserve and should DEMAND people who will uphold the constitution of the United States FIRST, and then whatever lower office they seek, to honor their rules, laws and policies.

      That, I believe, would eliminate 95% of the politicians we currently have in power now. Let’s take OUR power back and give it to ones who DESERVE it and will do our bidding.

    4. avatar

      There is another law that the councilmen and everyone else that has never seen it should be awarw of. the dick act of June 28th 1902 chk it out, U might want to open an acc. @ http://www.startpage.com first they dont record any search’s that u perform

      1. avatar

        The Dick act has been degraded by several more recent laws but the portion of the Dick Act that interests us the most is still quite alive. It places into our laws the fact that the unorganized militia is all US Citizens who are age 17-45. Yes this is the same Militia talked about in the 2nd Amendment.

        The Dick Act is codified in 10 USC § 311 and defines who is the militia. It states:

        (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
        (b) The classes of the militia are—
        (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
        (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

  2. avatar

    5:02 in of http://www.oakharbor.org/video-view.cfm?keyword=01-15-13&id=249 you can watch Garrett Newkook do his business.

    Good gawd

    1. avatar

      My response to Newkook’s latest rant: http://www.growlernoise.com/2013/01/heres-that-letter-people-are-getting.html

      Even has the Commish Emerson letter the usual suspects are torqued off over

      1. avatar

        Does Garret Newkirk have ANYTHING to do with this article?

        1. avatar

          I was talking about the video link.

          Bugging out NOW

        2. avatar

          Thanks Cliff, “Does Garret Newkirk have ANYTHING to do with this article?”
          Joe is a great supporter of the Navy and their operations.
          I agree with him on most all of those issues but recently he has been hijacking most every thread by diverting the subject to one of his Navy Support actions

          Come on Joe, you are respected for your Navy efforts but give other posters a break and stay on the topic being discussed with your comments
          This is not GrowierNoise.com
          ENUFF is ENUFF
          Bill

          1. avatar

            Roger that :-)

            GO NAVY LEAGUE!

  3. avatar

    Councilman Almberg’s public display seems more than ridiculous. For whatever reason he felt compelled to leave in the middle of this meeting after this vote was taken, I don’t see how anyone can perceive him to be “fit” to function as an elected a City Council member from this point forward. I certainly cannot do so. I’d also opine that Servatius should have likely joined Almberg in leaving to go to wherever it was more he thought was a better place to be instead of at the rest of that meeting. My opinion is based on a perceived trend in both Servatius and Almberg.

    “Oak Harbor councilman wants hats banned at meetings”
    http://www.whidbeynewstimes.com/news/146446205.html

    Ironically, as per that above-linked article, it was both Almberg and Servatius who both “pushed for closer adherence to parliamentary procedure and council rules” back in April, 2012. At that meeting, it was also Almberg and Joel Servatius’ – the same City Council dynamic duo – also who tried to make some kind of a big deal about citizens wearing hats at City Council meetings.

    Almberg and Servatius should both perhaps find a group more interested in controlling what people wear on their heads or what they carry in their pockets or whether or not they raise their hands when voting, since those things seem very, very important to them.

    I also wonder…which elected City of Oak Harbor officials or City of Oak Harbor employees have a legal Concealed Pistol License?

    1. avatar

      Hizon’s got one.

      Figures. GO NAVY LEAGUE

    2. avatar

      Jim Campbell has a concealed carry license

    3. avatar

      Frankly Guy’s I don’t kno why you need permission from gov. to carry , I was born with permission from my heavenly father, I won’t give up my right for a priviledge, Maybe Almburg should wear a hat so no one get blinded by reflection

  4. avatar

    Telling someone that you’re carrying concealed kinda defeats the purpose of carrying concealed. I wonder how many council meetings have had one or more concealed weapons in attendance? General public knowledge of the requirements to obtain a concealed weapon is nil, but thousands are discovering those requirements as application for permits has ballooned. I believe that concealed carry permitting is a preferable option to open carry. Most observant people feel no safer being in a room or building with an armed security guard as they know the uniformed guard will just be the first (probably unsuspecting) target.

    1. avatar

      “I wonder how many council meetings have had one or more concealed weapons in attendance?”

      I know that every Council meeting I have attended there has been someone present with a CPL…

    2. avatar

      I have often asked myself(since this latest go-round)—I wonder how many people have been to our meetings in the past and we didn’t know or maybe care then

    3. avatar

      I have often asked myself(since this latest go-round)—I wonder how many people have been to our meetings carrying in the past and we didn’t know or nor maybe not care then

      1. avatar

        And you would probably be still wondering and not be concerned if it were not for the histrionics of one of the other Council members. I am of the school that believes you and those with nefarious intent should always wonder who is, where and when people are carrying and that is part of the success story of CPL licenses. By enacting “gun free zones” we are instead enacting “kill free zones” in my mind.

        I can understand your request at the meeting where you asked citizens to please not come armed if they have a choice. I think that was appropriate and a reasonable request of the citizens but you have to understand that if it comes down to leaving your handgun in your car while attending a meeting or carrying while attending the meeting the far safer alternative is to carry into the meeting. There is no safer place to keep a handgun safely secured but on your person. Leaving a handgun in a vehicle unattended is only asking to eventually have that handgun stolen so I would ask you to also consider that when speaking of alternatives to citizens carrying into the Council Meetings. It should be a requirement for those who wish to ban concealed carry on their premise to supply safe storage for firearms in lieu of allowing them to be carried as we do in our courthouses. This is the only safe alternative and with any firearm issue safety and keeping firearms out of the hands of those who should not have them should always prevail.

        Thanks again Jim for being the only sane voice in the room at these council meetings.

        1. avatar

          I understand that the safest place for a piece is on your hip. It also does not bother me if people come armed to a Council meeting

          1. avatar

            Mr.campbell, i am so glad that you support our second amendmet rights.
            If you welcome our suport me and my buddys will attend the upcoming coincil meetings. We will back you with a show of force like no other. We need to show this anti gun council how many guns there are . At least 20 of us will open carry if you want our support, just give us the word.

            1. avatar

              I very much like it when citizens attend our meetings and I encourage citizen participation

              An agenda item to make our gun ordinance constitutional will be on the agenda at our meeting on 5 February. This is an especially volatile issue, as I’m sure you are aware, and feelings can run high during discussion. I ask only that you not lose sight of the fact that we must maintain a level of decorum in order to get the City’s business done. Also, please be sensitive to the fact that there are many different views on the subject of gun regulation and respect both sides’ views.

              I will do all that I can to assure that the City of Oak Harbor abides by the Law of the Land, and that we protect the rights of all the citizens of Oak Harbor. We convene at 6:00 PM. I hope to see you there.

              By the way I am at Whidbey Coffee every Thursday morning at 9:00 AM to meet with any Citizen who would like to discuss issues facing the Council.

            2. avatar

              Showing support is definitely needed but I did want your group to contemplate showing up with badges that state”I carry” (or something to that affect) instead of flooding the room with armed citizens. You can bet that others will already be armed so that base will be covered. But you can show we gun owners can take others concerns into consideration so everyone can focus on the issue at hand instead of the guns.

              I attended last months rally at the capitol with my gun on my hip but this is a different venue and we have seen open carry in situations like this backfire before. What we need now more than ever is level headed approach. I personally believe your group can make a bigger more helpful statement showing up unarmed while making it clear you usually are.

              1. avatar

                I agree.
                This issue needs to be de-escalalated and it appears that the gun owners are the only adults in the room.

          2. avatar

            It certainly makes sense to me NOT o be bothered about whether someone is armed, or not – whether it’s at a City Council meeting or anywhere else state law says it is okay to do so. I have to begin to question, seriously, the mental stability of people who appear to be terribly upset or bothered about the possibility that someone in public may or may not be carrying a weapon, legally, and, in this case, that would include the two City Council members who voted “aye”.

          3. avatar

            Jim
            I want to applaud you and the mayor on you positions on this issue. Bravo!

  5. avatar

    Almberg needs to start hiding under his bed, and not come out in public. Who knows how many people in his vicinity may be armed at any given moment.

  6. avatar

    Going through the loops and hoops, then paying the fee for the CPL is fine. Carrying a fire arm where it is allowed is also just fine. The big news from the council meeting is being over looked. It was all the cities work that was done without all the Councilman Almberg BS questioning of projects, extra reports and delays to make the mayor look ineffective. If I realized he would leave the meeting, I would have shown up last fall, just to get the Fire Chief’s rescue vehicle approved. Someone armed needs to show up at every meeting.

    Asking the citizen to surrender his weapon was just stupid. Its easy to give a weapon to the Chief. Its much harder to get it back, and also probably allot of detailed paperwork before you get it back.

    1. avatar

      I agree John. I will never, ever, under any circumstances other than criminal prosecution, surrender my weapon to ANYONE for ANY reason.

      That is the reason we have a CWP process in the first place. If I am not fit to carry a weapon on my person, I would not have applied for or obtained said CWP. That permit is affirmation of my legal right to carry a weapon under my jacket or in my waistband and if someone doesn’t like it…….too bad.

      I often wonder in amazement why these people such as Almberg are so upset that the good guys are carrying a weapon. One would think that he would be relieved to know that a person that was in the US military was armed and ready if one of these crazy people showed up with a weapon to do harm to the members of the council for whatever reason a crazy person would have.

      Great work on being correct Mayor and the rest of the council. I just wish our elected officials in DC had as much intestinal fortitude as you folks have.

  7. avatar

    Anybody notice that Mr. Almberg made the KIRO 7 news this evening? Nice little clip of him walking out.

    1. avatar

      Can’t find this news piece. John could you please send me the url address
      Thanx

      1. avatar

        I saw it on the TV while visiting my father-in-law in the hospital last night, so I don’t have a URL. It was on the evening news and I think it was a story on today’s 2A rally.

  8. avatar

    “Asking the citizen to surrender his weapon was just stupid.”

    It’s also most likely a heavily contrived and unnecessarily confrontational approach – and thus quite consistent with Councilman Almberg’s long-demonstrated modus operandi of “BS questioning of projects, extra reports and delays to make the mayor look ineffective”.

  9. avatar

    I’d feel safer knowing that armed citizen was in the room than knowing the Police Chief was there. – No offense intended Sir. – The Police Chief, an administrator, in attendance serves a similar purpose to having the City Attorney or Fire Chief present. The Police Chief is not there to provide security anymore than the Fire Chief is to prevent or put out fires. Myself? I don’t feel particularly comfortable in the presence of individuals like Citizen Shane or Mr. Almberg. Perhaps news of this minor episode will increase citizen attendance at future council meetings? (or County Commissioner meetings?)

  10. avatar

    If you want a look at part of the problem with todays sociaty.
    You have a microcosim of it here on this site today, it has been stated that councilman almberg should hide under his bed because there are guns everywhere and another post claims that at least one armed citizen should be in attendance at every meeting to serve the purpose of intimidating councilman almberg from being able to perform a job he was elected to do.

    This type of behaivor is unacceptable and its one of the reasons that citizens are fearful to be in a room full of people and there strong opinions thats one thing but now you throw guns and bullets in the mix and its very uncomfortable.

    1. avatar

      Part of the problem is people like yourself. You and Mr Aimberg fail to understand that in this state there are currently over 360,000 citizens with concealed pistol licenses. We are evrywhere, we are in the market, we are in your church, we walk with you down our streets and we are at our city council meetings and you never know it. The only time you may ever find out is when a city councilman looking for an issue has a hissy fit and actually asks an honest citizen as in this case.

      Mr Almberg and possibly yourself should hide under your bed. Either you are deaf dumb and blind or you do not realize that the second amendment is alive and doing quite well thanks to our State laws and our Bill of Rights that reserve this right to the people.

      I have read the posts here, there is no “unacceptable behavior” there is no “intimidation” in any of the posts. The onlu behaviour here that is unacceptabloe is coming from yourself and it is unaceptable because you are living in a dream world that does not exist. You refuse to recognize that the right to have and carry firearms is a right the citizens themselves excercise without interference from the government.

      If you really want to live in a world without firearms, move to another country. Either that or change our Constitution and Bill of Rights which I think you will find will never happen.

      You are right, this is a microcosm of real life. You are just like a lot of others that we see in the national media. They make unsubstantiated allegations just as you have and also ingnore the facts of the issue just as you have.

      My suggestion is the same as as the original poster here that recommended that Almberg hide under his bed. Those that refuse to recognize a right that the people have have no alternative but to hide under the bed. Reality is we have over 360,000 CPL holders in this state and the number is growing, if you cannot reconcile that in your head then the only option is for you to join Almberg under the covers in his nice warm bed.

      1. avatar

        Did I say i was anti gun? Did you ever stop and think for a second that maybe I am a gun owner just as yourself?
        Well I’m not anti gun and I am proud gun owner.
        If you have seen my comments to our city council I have simply ask that they pass a resoulotion that would addres the growing trend in gun violence.
        In doing so I have stated that I dont think assault rifles should be allowed in a city park, that i dont think an official government chambers is an appropriate place to pack full of guns and bullets.
        I have also stated that I dont think you should be allowed to take a loaded firearm to a school full of kids.
        I have simply ask that they establish a legislative agenda and I have ask them to do so within our state laws.

        Honestly I am seeking middle ground so if its your wish to throw fuel on the fire and be unreasonable then you sir are a part of the problem.

        1. avatar

          “Did I say i was anti gun?”

          Your actions speak much louder than words Shane…

          “Dear Council Members,
          I write this letter with great concern and sincerity. It has recently been brought to my attention that there is a great possibility of factions within our city government recruiting individuals to attend upcoming council meetings armed to the hilt with firearms. I can’t confirm these reports but they come from no less than a half dozen sources, I have even seen where via a third party this reported recruitment process has been posted on a national website.
          It is crystal clear that given the current state of volatility, attending the February fifth city council meeting in particular would be a threat to the safety of all in attendance.
          I ask that you please accept this as my formal petition of the Oak Harbor City Council to have a change in venue for upcoming council meetings. It is my wish that until this current situation is figured out that the city council meetings be held in a location such as the local court or a local school where guns aren’t allowed. It is my belief that through this process, creating a gun free meeting is the only way for every citizen of Oak Harbor to feel comfortable participating in the democratic process. This is truly the only way that all citizens will have the opportunity to participate and certainly the only way for council to conduct business without being threatened and intimidated.
          I ask that you accept this petition so that I can participate in our local government which is my constitutional right and I feel it unnecessary to risk my life simply exercising that right.
          Respectfully,
          Shane Hoffmire”

          There is NO threat from legally armed citizens Shane especially by those that do legally carry concealed. There is NO “current state of volatility”. There is certainly NO “threat to the safety of all in attendance” and absolutely NO threat to you if firearm owners do attend the meeting. NO one is threatening you OR intimidating you. And that is the basis of your letter to the council.

          If you are not anti-gun you certainly have a very poor understanding about gun owners. Your above letter is written by somone who wants to make an issue where there is none. The wording and tone of the letter is so obvious it makes your claim about not being anti gun an amazing excercise in duplicity.

          Stop the histrionics Shane, it is VERY obvious exactly where you stand and that stance is against our State and Federal Constitution, the laws of this State, firearm owners everywhere and common sense. Not to mention your friends and neighbors who may be carrying concealed and you not even knowing about it…people have been carrying concealed to the city council meetings forever. The only reason you are complaining is because you found out about it and can make an issue out of it. For what purpose? Only Shane Hoffmire knows, we certainly don’t.

          1. avatar

            Believe what you must but you my friend are part of the problem as you wont seek any middle ground. This is not a second amendment issue as the second amendment already allows for restrictions on where guns are allowed.
            This is a state issue and needs addressed at the state level.
            Common sence would say that guns arent allowed in court buildings so why should they for a second be legal in official government chambers.
            As far as guns in a park. I have said I dont believe assault rifles belong in a park and I will stick by that.

            1. avatar

              No Shane YOU are the problem.

              YOU are the one who wrote the letter that stated that there is a “current state of volatility” and “threat to the safety of all in attendance”.

              There is no “current state of volatility” or “threat to the safety of all in attendance” As YOU stated in your letter.

              YOU are the one who refuses to change and accept the fact that citizens have a right, a pre existing right, to carry firearms wherever state law allows them to be carried.

              Excaberating the situation by sending a letter to the council and others with what everyone would call flat out lies does not give you much credence here or elsewhere.

              It is YOU and people like YOURSELF that is making this issue out of sheer cloth. And YOU are doing so with your inflamatory rhetoric.

              YOU “can’t confirm these reports” that YOU state in our letter but you sure are going to repeat those reports arent YOU Shane?

              Get a grip dude…

              1. avatar

                All the mass shootings around this country countless dead and yet you say this issue is being fabricated from sheer cloth. Wow!

                As far as the reports of reqruitment go they will be laid out in the form of written documentation by our city council.

                1. avatar

                  “All the mass shootings around this country”

                  And how many of those were committied by lawful concealed weapon carriers? NONE

                  You are comparing legal firearm owners and concealed weapons carriers to deranged criminals.

                  1. avatar

                    Oak Harbor Municipal Code:

                    1.04.010 Time and place of full council meetings.
                    “(3) Regular full council meetings will be held at City Hall in the city of Oak Harbor and shall start at 6:00 p.m. (Ord. 1578 § 2, 2010; Ord. 1559 § 1, 2009; Ord. 1407 § 1, 2005; Ord. 1308 § 1, 2002; Ord. 1070 § 1, 1996; Ord. 351 § 2, 1973).”

                    The change-of-venue game for City Council meetings and City Council committee meetings is a move last brought forward via the “Jim Slowik” school of municipal governance, of which Shane Hoffmire and Councilmen Almberg and Servatius have since morphed into the “get Scott Dudley” way of doing things.

                    1. avatar

                      It certain is a time waster. The city council needs to be doing the cities business and not grandstanding for the cameras.

                      We really don’t know what is next from this council, it is like watching a soap opera…

                      Hats? Check.

                      Blindly supporting school levy? Check.

                      Sewer plant on the main street downtown? Check.

                      Lawful Concealed Weapons Holders at council meetings? Check.

                      It is scary to think what else they may waste their time on…

                    2. avatar

                      Bill with all do respect if you think I am out to get Scott Dudley you are lost.
                      Scott is a friend of mine. With that said we wont agree on every single issue. I think as a whole mayor Dudley is doing a great job. Now I believe strongly in sensible gun laws and I will stand my ground when it comes to public safety.
                      Scott has already done marveles when it comes to public safety but I think this is an area were that record of public safety could be furthered.

                2. avatar

                  Shane Hoffmire wrote “part of the problem as (sic) you wont seek any middle ground.”

                  Technology already allows for “middle ground” on this issue about attendance at City Council meetings. If Shane does not want to attend these meetings under the current state law and municipal code, he can watch them on the internet and/or on television.

                  Shane simply needs to “man up”, or stay home. Same goes for Almberg and Servatius. Maybe Oak Harbor City Council meetings would generally go more smoothly if they did simply stay home.

            2. avatar

              I would think twice about attending a city council meeting knowing it was a “gun free zone”. It would be attractive to any criminal low life that wanted to make a name for them self. We have seen how well having a school as a “gun free zone” worked. I just don’t know why those criminals wont follow laws? It’s very perplexing!

              Just tie a little ducky to your head…..

        2. avatar

          Gun violence is actually NOT about guns. Regulating and controlling an inanimate object won’t work. Only law abiding citizens follow laws. It IS about criminals and the criminally insane. We must treat criminals like they ARE criminals, not like a puppy who wet the floor.

          We keep punishing law abiding, productive, upstanding citizens which just makes it easier for a crook to do their business.

          You are right about needing new laws. But they should be laws keeping criminals in prison longer. They should be law making it easier for teachers, guidance counselors, psychiatrists to publicly identify persons likely to do harm to others. We need laws to address a meaningful way to make sure that are not able to do so.

          The recent crimes committed with guns were not stopped by gun laws. The would not be stopped by any gun law we could enact.

          I’m sure this is just too much common sense for a lot of folk who just want an easy answer like “Ban guns, they are baddddd”.

        3. avatar

          And what is your “middle ground” on the 1st Amendment? The Fourth? The Fifth? Do you have a “middle ground” on all the Bill of Rights?
          How about the whole Constitution? What would have been your “middle ground” with George III? Alinsky would love you as an opponent. You think you are being reasonable, you are actually showing you have no principles you are willing to stand up for. I suggest you read the story of the Arab and the camel. Your quite ready to let the camel stick his nose in the tent.

          1. avatar

            This is not a second amendment issue, it is very clear that this is a state issue.
            The second amendment allows for restrictions of where guns are allowed.
            Currently guns are banned inside school buildings, courts, prosecuters offices, jails and so on
            All of these restrictions are legal under the second amemdment so regardless of what you try to make this. To say that those restrictions also applied in an official government chamber would be unconstitutional, just doesnt make sense.

            It is a state issue and I feel the law needs to be in adherance with common sence. I support the entire constitution and the fact that I believe there should be restrictions on where you and I are allowed to carry firearms is in compliance with our constitution.

            This is a good conversation to have and if we can do this without attacking those with opposing views then we can find common ground and make our world a safer place.

            1. avatar

              if it’s a state issue, the WA State Constitution is even more succinct than the US Constitution in this area.

              http://www.leg.wa.gov/LAWSANDAGENCYRULES/Pages/constitution.aspx

              “SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.”

              So, how about you delineate exactly which restrictions you think should additionally be enacted in WA State that are wholly consistent with the WA State Constitution, along with your justification for each additional restriction and explain exactly how each of those will, “make our world a safer place” and should be also be viewed as “common ground” by all.

              1. avatar

                I very much agree that the state constitition is more succint in this area.
                As I am sure you know unlike the U.S. constitution our state constitution can be changed by our state legislature.
                Bill, I have already thrown out quite a few ideas and I wont believe that there is nothing that we can do to make this world safer for our kids.
                If you would throw out some ideas aswell it would be appriciated.
                I know there is middle ground such as demanding that there be stricter penaltys for criminals or maybe a free training course to add for first time gun buyers to help inform them of which gun may be right for them or maybe we could make the cpl a picture I.D

                Let me know but I know there are ways we can be safer and I know it can be done in compliance with the second amendment.

                Give me a call I would love to brainstorm ideas with you as I know you have tons.

                1. avatar

                  Yeah Bill…”throw out” some ideas that will make it easier for Shane to further intimidate citizens of Oak Harbor with his lies and falsehoods.

                2. avatar

                  - “stricter penaltys for criminals” (sounds like a political platform)

                  – “free training course to add for first time gun buyers to help inform them of which gun may be right for them” (NRA training courses already exist, of many varieties)

                  – “make the cpl a picture I.D” (One must already show your WA State drivers’ license when getting one, and most people already carry picture ID with them).

                  These three are pretty hollow suggestions, but, of course, you have failed to include / justify all the restrictions you have stated elsewhere (e.g. prohibiting CPL weapons at City Council meetings)

                  The current laws in WA State in this arena seem pretty adequate to me, as-is. Read them for yourself, here:

                  http://www.atf.gov/publications/download/p/atf-p-5300-5-31st-editiion/States/atf-p-5300-5-washington-2010.pdf

            2. avatar

              Shane this about people using inflamatory rhetoric and out and out fabrications about firearm owners and getting people concerned about issues that do not exist. This has very little to do with the Second Amendment however it does have to do with people, people like yourself, ginning up a controversy out of thin air. Or I should say in your case no air at all.

              “All of these restrictions are legal under the second amemdment so regardless of what you try to make this.”

              They are illegal according to our State Laws. Grant Weed has made that very clear multiple times regardless what you “try to make of this”.

              You make comparisons with legal lawful gun owners to criminals.

              You speak of “factions within our city government recruiting individuals to attend upcoming council meetings armed to the hilt with firearms”

              You state there is a “current state of volatility” and by legal lawful armed residents attending a “city council meeting in particular would be a threat to the safety of all in attendance”.

              You also state that this is “the only way for council to conduct business without being threatened and intimidated”.

              Then you go onto state in your latest comment “This is a good conversation to have and if we can do this without attacking those with opposing views then we can find common ground and make our world a safer place.”

              So you really believe that you can insult legal lawful firearm owners and then in the next breath say we can find common ground? I don’t think so…you have proven yourself to be an dishonest player in this by your comments.

              The only way to defend against people like yourself is to make sure we stay true to the laws that have served us well for years and to make sure that they are not changed by hysterical rantings.

              1. avatar

                Cliff, if I was a dishonest player in all of this I would not have forwarded my pettition of the council to the press.
                Nor would I be doing an earnest job of contribiting to this conversation
                I am not affaid of law abbiding citizens but when a navy lieutenant comander is reqruiting people on a national website to “show up in force”
                And he says that this has been requested from within our city government. That is scarry and what scares me the most is how do we know who the bad guy is especially if they are coming from 600 miles away as one commenter claims to be.

                These people have said that maybe they should hurt people so John would give them an award.
                Nothing has been fabricated and it seems as if there is a legitimate threat.

                1. avatar

                  “Cliff, if I was a dishonest player in all of this I would not have forwarded my pettition of the council to the press.”

                  If you would not have sent a letter with falsehoods and inflamatory rhetoric based on those falsehoods to the Council and press you would be slightly more believeble. As it stands your letter is a pack of lies.

                  “Nor would I be doing an earnest job of contribiting to this conversation”

                  All’s you have done to contribute to this issue is to send inflammatory rhetoric and falsehoods designed to frightening people to take action on an issue that has never caused a problem.

                  “I am not affaid of law abbiding citizens but when a navy lieutenant comander is recruiting people on a national website to “show up in force””

                  Wow…astounding…a Navy Lieutenant Commander…yes Shane they are always a threat those Navy Commanders are. Especially when they stand up for their rights.

                  “Nothing has been fabricated and it seems as if there is a legitimate threat.”

                  Shane…everything you state is a fabrication. A Fabrication designed to get people worried over an something that does not exist except in your mind. A fabrication to get people afraid over something that does not exist.

                  You make comparisons with legal lawful gun owners to criminals.

                  You speak of “factions within our city government recruiting individuals to attend upcoming council meetings armed to the hilt with firearms”

                  You state there is a “current state of volatility” and by legal lawful armed residents attending a “city council meeting in particular would be a threat to the safety of all in attendance”.

                  You also state that this is “the only way for council to conduct business without being threatened and intimidated”.

                  Shane, it is you that is the problem not legal lawful firearm owners. It is you that is spreading falsehoods, it is you making the outragious claims that you are making and you are doing so to frighten people into doing your bidding. That is why I say you are being dishonest.

                2. avatar

                  “This is not a second amendment issue as the second amendment already allows for restrictions on where guns are allowed.”

                  It does? Hmmm. I must have missed that part…

                  WA State Constitution:
                  “The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.”

                  US Constitution:
                  “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”

                  Weird huh?

                  A law is neither legally permitted nor morally straight simply by virtue of its existence. Politicians have abdicated their oaths to the bill of rights. Laws restricting a citizen’s carrying of arms are a violation of a basic, natural human right that is subject neither to the democratic process nor arguments grounded in social utility.

                  1. avatar

                    The reading and original intent of the Second Amendment was to preserve a pre-existing right that would remain out of the reach of laws, politicians, State, Federal and Foreign governments. It is a Natural Right bestowed upon us by our creator and not the government, one that the people reserved to themselves when granting the enumerable powers our governmemt has over us.

                    Our State Constitution followed these beliefs when it was accepted into the union known as the United States.

                    How have we got to where we are today? The Constitution or it’s intents and meaning have not changed.

                3. avatar

                  Lol so tell me, what’s a “national website”?? Is that one that works everywhere in the country as opposed to some other website that only works in say a city or maybe some just stop working outside state lines. You keep just making things up to exaggerate your imagined threat. You don’t even know what you’re talking about.

                  By the way the “assault rifles” you keep wanting banned from the public parks as you’ve mentioned numerous times now, have been illegal since 1934. Why don’t you go read a book or something and quit making a fool out of yourself.

        4. avatar

          No Shane. YOU are the problem. There is no “middle ground” for a civil right. We have compromised the integrity of the second amendment far too much already.

          1. avatar

            Is this truely a “Civil” Right?

            I do believe it is considered a “Natural” right. I see Civil Rights as those created by people and Governments and Natural Rights are those that we have had since time began.

    2. avatar

      Reminds me of when Oklahoma amended their law to allow for open carry. The police association said that it would place police officers in more danger. Really? I find it humorous that the guns that are worn openly, or known about via some other method are considered by some to be of more of a danger to them then the guns quietly hidden under a shirt that they can’t see.

      It is catering to this out of sight, out of mind mentality by people who carry guns that has fueled the fear of inanimate objects that some people have. They just don’t realize how many people do responsibly take actions to protect themselves from criminals and that real supporters of the Second Amendment are the majority. We just tend to be the quiet, passive majority who have allowed the vocal anti-gun minority to steal the stage with their antics and propaganda pushed at whatever unsuspecting person they can corner for a few minutes. Enough is getting to be enough now. In 4 1/2 decades of gun control the government has proven they have no ability to protect Joe Citizen from the actions of a criminal. It’s time we came out of the closet and started taking back our rights in this country.

      1. avatar

        “Antics” is a correct description. “Histrionics” is another and quite fitting:

        Definition of HISTRIONICS
        1: theatrical performances
        2: deliberate display of emotion for effect

        That is what we have here and it does need to be called what it is.

      2. avatar

        I am from Oklahoma. Although they passed open carry (in March) the law went into effect in November to allow law enforcement time to understand the new law fully and develop appropriate procedures for handling interactions between the police and an armed individual.

        On Nov 1, I decided to open carry just to celebrate that increase in the degree of freedom allowed by the new law. I was expecting there would be a significant number of “Oh my God, he’s got a gun!” calls to the police. To help minimize risk to myself and the police, I got a lanyard to display my permit (even though that is not required by law). I figured it would be safer to show the officer my permit if I did not have to reach back in the vicinity of my gun.

        To my surprise, there were no such calls. I open carried all day and saw no reactions whatsoever. No shocked stares, no one changing direction to avoid me, no police wanting to see my permit. The entire day was a continuous non-event.

        I found that I enjoyed open carrying and have continued the practice since then. After 3 weeks (shortly before Thanksgiving), someone finally noticed that I was open carrying. He was with his family going into Walmart. He came up and said “You’re the first person I’ve seen open carrying. Thanks!” I asked why he was thanking me. He said he felt safer knowing people around him and his family were armed and unafraid to show it.

  11. avatar

    As a loyal Navy veteran, former member of Patrol Squadron 46, I strongly advise councilman Almberg to tender his resignation from the Oak Harbor City Council forthwith. Lacking that, I vehemently request that he be impeached and removed for office for his blatant refusal to honor his sworn oaths of office. To councilman Almberg I say, “Molon Labe, traitor.”

  12. avatar

    Shane Hoffmire wrote:

    “Scott (Dudley) is a friend of mine…when it comes to public safety…I think this is an area were that record of public safety could be furthered.”

    Shane Hoffmire’s endeavor to move City Council meetings to a different venue under the guise of improving public safety is a bogus attempt at that, since the record of public safety of City Council meetings under existing laws at the existing venue is perfect.

    Shane Hoffmire’s teaming up with Councilmen Almberg and Servatius – the core of the “get Dudley duo” on the City Council – on this “anti-gun” issue while also calling Mayor Dudley his “friend” rings just as true as when Shane Hoffmire (above) asked “Did I say i was anti gun?”, before he was completely exposed as having written an obviously “anti-gun” letter.

    1. avatar

      After watching Shane’s past duplicitous behavior it is no surprise. I really don’t think he even realizes how he appears to others and must not care. I do know that you cannot believe a word he says…

    2. avatar

      Exposed as having written an anti gun letter?
      The letter was not anti gun as I am not anti gun.
      The letter that you posted was sent to every council member, the city clerk, the police department and it was also sent to the whidbey news times and the olympian.
      So I fail to see how you would think the word exposed is appropriate when it is clearly a public record.

      If you would like to talk about the truth please give me a call as this back and fourth online bantter is useless.

      1. avatar

        You wrote a letter to the city council and others claiming:

        “factions are recruiting individuals to attend upcoming council meetings armed to the hilt with firearms” but you cannot confirm those reports.

        “given the current state of volatility, attending the February fifth city council meeting in particular would be a threat to the safety of all in attendance.”

        “This is truly the only way that all citizens will have the opportunity to participate and certainly the only way for council to conduct business without being threatened and intimidated.”

        So Shane you have now taken the discussion to another level. By mentionong “armed factions” “current state of volatility” and “threat to the safety of all in attendance” and “threatened and intimidated”
        you have proven to be no friend of gun owners and no friend of the Second Amendment, our State Consitution and laws or the facts.

        While you may claim you are “not anti gun” you are in fact someone who will escalate this issue to another troubling level by making claims that are inflamatory, false and untruthful.

        And as for giving you a call and talking with you about “the truth”? No Shane, your letter was SO untruthful and inflammatory you are one person who I would never expect the truth from in a conversation so why would I ever bother?

        Do you even realize what you said in your letter? And now you come back here stating your not anti gun?

        As usual you are dealing from both sides of the deck Shane, take your conversation elsewhere we are done with your lies here.

      2. avatar

        “The letter was not anti gun as I am not anti gun.”

        Flawless logic, skippy. I think your definition of “anti-gun (see what I did there?)” is a bit disconnected from the *actual* pro-RTKABA community.

  13. avatar

    It matters not what your position on this subject might be and I know I don’t really have to say this but I want to remind everyone that you are welcome to come to our City Council Meeting February 5 starting at 6 PM at City Hall.

    1. avatar

      E pluribus unum

  14. avatar

    Councilman Almberg should be recalled by his constituants.

  15. avatar

    Banning guns in city council meetings is why so many were killed in Kirkwood Missouri.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirkwood_City_Council_shooting

    The council member should resign his position.

    1. avatar

      Another example of a so-called “gun free zone” in action?

  16. avatar

    FYI..This local incident is also being discussed at:

    “Oak Harbor City Council CCW Showdown”
    http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/01/robert-farago/oak-harbor-city-council-ccw-showdown/

  17. avatar

    Thank you Mayor Scott Dudley! We need more elected Representatives like you. Far too many of our elected Representatives seem to have forgotten their oath of office in which they solemnly swear or affirm that they will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution and Laws of the State of Washington. Those that violate their oath of office should not be allowed to continue to hold their position in office.

    Our Second Amendment Rights are under intense attack right now. All people need to realize that if the Second Amendment is weakened or removed from our Bill of Rights, the Constitution and the rest of the Bill of Rights just become some historical scribbles on a piece of paper; we will no longer be a free people.

  18. avatar

    I came here from an old car enthusiast web site. I WISH I could vote against the 2 morons, Almberg in particular, for that motion. Mr. Almberg has proven himself to be a coward, scum, unfit to wear the title of “Man”. He should go hide behind the skirts of some of our female service members, not to mention the rest of them. And I think he owes Mr. Lucas Shaunkman (sp?) a huge apology. It’s service members like him who still define ‘honor’ in our society. It’s whiners like Almberg who deserve our public scorn.

  19. avatar

    Scott Dudley for District 2 County Commissioner in 2016!

    Lucas Yonkman for County Sheriff when Mark Brown retires.

  20. avatar

    Time to take out the trash Oak Harbor! Remove this 5th columnist ASAP!

  21. avatar

    No, Shane, it doesn’t allow for restrictions on where guns are allowed. Even though many state laws do list many places where concealed carry is not allowed, that does not make those laws valid, nor does it prove that 2A allows for such restrictions. “… shall not be infringed.” Period. Not “shall not be infringed except by any state or local legislation to the contrary”, not “shall not be infringed in any place outside of places X, Y and Z”, just plainly and simply “shall not be infringed”.

    You also claim that “people like us” are unable to find a middle ground. Also false. The fact is that we have not taken up arms in rebellion against the unconstitutional legislation requiring all the hoops we have to jump to get permits, to get guns, to get ammunition. And by choosing not to take up arms over the issue, we have demonstrated a willingness to find some reasonable compromise.

    The people who are unwilling to find a middle ground are those who, no matter what concessions are made, demand more and more restrictions on guns, ammunition, location, etc. People like you, Shane Hoffmire.

  22. avatar

    A Concealed Handgun License Holder:

    has never been convicted of a felony.
    has never been convicted of a crime of violence.
    has never been convicted of domestic violence.
    is not an addict nor a convicted user illegal drugs.
    has not been committed to a mental health institution.
    is not under any indictment or a fugitive from justice.
    has passed both state and federal background checks.

    What do you know about everyone else in the room?

  23. avatar

    Although I do agree with the discussion that Mr. Almberg should tender his resignation, I do not believe he would willingly do so. As for other disciplinary recourse, I am also unsure. I do believe that the citizens of Oak Harbor need to vote him out of office as soon as the opportunity arises. I read his profile and am concerned such a motion could come from a veteran. He lists four primary “rules” for decision making on his web site. One of the four is “Preserve our quality of life.” His actions to limit citizen’s rights are in direct contradiction to that “rule” he claims to purport.

    VOTE RICK ALMBERG OUT OF OFFICE. HE IS A THREAT TO INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM AND LIBERTY.

  24. avatar

    Since this council member won’t stay in a meeting if he knows some one is carrying a legally concealed firearm, I would suggest someone that has a concealed weapons permit attend the meeting. If he keeps leaving or not attending then he is in violation of his oath and can be removed from his position.

  25. avatar

    So, would this would on the National Level? Say with Senator Feinstein? Further if any of our Senators from the State of Washington either co-sponser her Bill or vote in favor of it could then this be used against them as well?

  26. avatar

    Bravo Cliff et al.

    Absolutely laughed my buns off watching that uptight council member think he was going to have someone lawfully carrying cough up his weapon.

    Stick to your ‘guns’, pun intended, y’all :)

  27. avatar

    Shane Hoffmire has to be trolling. Also, please vote that hypocrite Almberg out of office. He should resign and be ashamed to call himself an American. He is very Un-American.

  28. avatar

    I love that the brave citizen spoke his mind and also that the mayor had the marbles to stand up for the citizen’s God given constitutional right. Those two council members are pure cowards through and through and make me sick to my stomach.

  29. avatar

    Wow, when your mayor and gun happpy owners speaked up about their right, they called heroes and stand up citizens but when the councilman speak up his mind you people called him coward, I guess free speech is not apply in this backward island county. a bunch of moron.

    1. avatar

      The councilman did not just speak his mind. He made a motion, a stupid illegal motion, which was illegal in the eyes of the Washington State laws which we all live by.

      If it was just that he gave his opinion you would have never heard of this incident or seen the video. He went beyond that and into the realm of actually making a motion that he knew was against Washington State law and what is right.

      He grandstanded and he lost in the arena of public opinion.

    2. avatar

      TC Shield wrote: “free speech is (sic) not apply in this backward island county. a bunch of moron (sic).”

      Not only is the US Constitution’s 1st Amendment alive and well in Island County, WA, so, too, is the 2nd Amendment, along with the ability to write using proper English.

  30. avatar

    The problem that we face today is the unwillingness of elected officials to start any proceedings of law to eliminate other officials from their positions if they violate oaths of office. It’s up to the mayor and other councilmen to begin proceedings to remove any councilmen that will not uphold their oaths of office. Lets see if they do this or just become part of the circus of inept and unscrupulous politicians.

Comments are now closed.