Oak Harbor City Council February 5 meeting will be held at the Oak Harbor Fire Department.

Author:Cliff Howard

This was sent to us by Councilman Jim Campbell.

From the City of Oak Harbor:

In anticipation of larger crowd than usual, the February 5th Council Meeting will be held in the vehicle bay of the Oak Harbor Fire Department, 855 East Whidbey Avenue.  

We will start to advertise this change via Channel 10 and our website today. It will also be announced via the Agenda Summary sent to Whidbey News Times.

Tags: , ,

51 comments

  1. avatar

    Hmmm, at the Fire Department? They must expect things to get a little hot.

    1. avatar

      For some idea as to how widespread this local issue has become, check out how many “hits” there are on this YouTube video:

      “Washington city councilman walks out on council meeting because of citizen with CCW”

      http://youtu.be/kKpLhNiC8zg

      1. avatar

        The video has been taken and reposted over and over again on youtube. From the copies I can find on youtube it has been viewed at a minimum of 283,229 times on youtube alone. Considering that this video has been embedded on many major news outlets and website acreoss the world we can assume that it has been viewed over a million times or more….

    2. avatar

      I, for one, hope Councilman Almberg very much “sticks to his guns” and attends neither this City Council meeting, nor any other future City Council meetings. Oh, and Councilman Servatius should very likely join him.

      1. avatar

        Bill, what time is the meeting? Do you know?

        1. avatar

          Oak Harbor City Council:

          Meets: 1st & 3st Tuesday of each month
          Time: 6:00 pm

          http://www.oakharbor.org/page.cfm?pageId=446

          ;-)

        2. avatar

          Our next meeting will be 5 Feb at 6 PM at the Oak Harbor Fire House on Whidbey Ave

    3. avatar

      Groan…

  2. avatar

    Should this article title say “February 5″ instead of “March 5″?

    1. avatar

      It should have said February 5th…..it is corrected now. Thanks Bill!

  3. avatar

    Tuesday, February 5, 2013

    Almberg/Servatius Appreciation Night (Unofficial) Bring a friend.

  4. avatar

    We need to get this info out to everyone we know.

    I have a feeling that the local Seattle news media will be there (this means national coverage) and that the local and off-islander gun banners will be there early to prevent the pro-gun people from speaking.

    I for one am going to be there at 1600 to scout it out.

    I was thinking of buying a Bullhorn from a local store just in case. ;-)

    Is anyone up for a pre-meeting rally to be held in front of the fire department?

    1. avatar

      Oh yeah…should be a real zoo…here is what the local Democrat party recently put out:

      “Voices and bodies needed for the Oak Harbor City Council meeting Feb. 5th
      Pam Fick, Democratic PCO for No. Whidbey 3, is asking for help getting together as many people as possible to attend the Oak Harbor City Council meeting on Feb. 5th.
      Apparently they will be discussing the gun issue and rumor has it the mayor is calling for gun advocates to attend carrying their guns. Pam has a vision of filling the room with unarmed people so the armed people have no room to enter. If you have any questions or suggestions please feel free to call Pam 360 -675-5379.
      It is apparent that some, if not several, will be in attendance armed. If this is an issue for you you can help by joining the calling effort to the mayor’s office regarding sensible gun laws.”

      Interesting that this meeting is for discussing a law that the city council does not have the power to change isn’t it? What a waste of city resources….

      1. avatar

        Bring a video recorder! Wouldn’t want the Seattle media or any other media outlet have exclusive film coverage!

      2. avatar

        “Apparently they will be discussing the gun issue and rumor has it…”

        As of this date, neither an agenda nor a reading packet are publicly posted for that meeting, so what is “apparent” is not actually yet completely “apparent” (for those of us who deal in facts versus innuendo). ;-)

        I am sure, however, Pam has a “vision”…perhaps, many of them.

        1. avatar

          Pam has not only a vision but a rumor mill to feed. So far the rumors have been flying fast and furiously and all of them generated by Pam or her cohorts:

          “rumor has it the mayor is calling for gun advocates to attend carrying their guns.”

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

          “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”

          ” the only way for council to conduct business without being threatened and intimidated.”

          All of those statements are false on their face and only designed to create animosity between 2nd Amendment supporters and those who wish to take those rights away.
          .

          1. avatar

            Well, this is just another example as to how the Island County Democrats pretty much do business: false rumors, fear-mongering and intimidation seem almost always to be a central theme of their political agenda.

            1. avatar

              Well BillB, I totally agree.

              I see the same misinformation campaign being done by for instance Garrett Newkirk where blatantly misleading information is passed on to the Island County Commissioners.

              Methinks Democrats know when reality comes to fruition, conservative ideas win.

          2. avatar

            Caution: Concerning the alleged rumor that the Mayor wants those who believe in the 2nd Amendment and have Concealed Pistol Permits to “bring your guns”. First I don’t believe the Mayor said that. Second beware this could be a trap for those bearing arms at the meeting. The firehouse is very close to I believe two schools. Weapons are not allowed with in 1000′ of a school. I don’t know the distance from the school to the firehouse, but we need to consider where to park and the school will probably be the best opportunity. So a word to the wise be smart. I wouldn’t want to see an unsuspecting citizen arrested for carrying in a “NO GUN ZONE”.

            1. avatar

              There is no restriction on carrying firearms within 1000′ of schools.
              If firearms were not allowed within 10000′ of a school what would all those people do that live within that radius?

              I have seen this repeated before and I think it is an attempt to lump firearm owners in with drug dealers who are penalized under the law with a mandatory sentence for selling drugs within 1000′ of a school.

              Read RCW RCW 9.41.280
              http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.280

              (1) It is unlawful for a person to carry onto, or to possess on, public or private elementary or secondary school premises, school-provided transportation, or areas of facilities while being used exclusively by public or private schools:

              1. avatar

                Cliff thanks for your reply. the 1000yards may be incorrect and I suspect you are right, but if you are forced to park in a school parking lot, it would not be a good idea to be armed.

                1. avatar

                  That is a VERY good point!

            2. avatar

              The Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990 (18 U.S.C. § 922(q) ) states:

              (A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.

              (B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm—

              (i) on private property not part of school grounds;

              (ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;

              (iii) that is— (I) not loaded; and (II) in a locked container, or a locked firearms rack that is on a motor vehicle;

              (iv) by an individual for use in a program approved by a school in the school zone;

              (v) by an individual in accordance with a contract entered into between a school in the school zone and the individual or an employer of the individual;

              (vi) by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official capacity; or

              (vii) that is unloaded and is possessed by an individual while traversing school premises for the purpose of gaining access to public or private lands open to hunting, if the entry on school premises is authorized by school authorities.

              (3) (A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), it shall be unlawful for any person, knowingly or with reckless disregard for the safety of another, to discharge or attempt to discharge a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the person knows is a school zone. (B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the discharge of a firearm —

              (i) on private property not part of school grounds;

              (ii) as part of a program approved by a school in the school zone, by an individual who is participating in the program;

              (iii) by an individual in accordance with a contract entered into between a school in a school zone and the individual or an employer of the individual; or

              (iv) by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official capacity.

              (4) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as preempting or preventing a State or local government from enacting a statute establishing gun free school zones as provided in this subsection.

              Definitions

              Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(25)

              term “school zone” means—

              (A) in, or on the grounds of, a public, parochial or private school; or

              (B) within a distance of 1,000 feet from the grounds of a public, parochial or private school.

              Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(26)

              term “school” means a school which provides elementary or secondary education, as determined under State law.

              Penalty

              18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(4) establishes the penalty for violating GFSZA:

              Whoever violates the Act shall be fined not more than $5,000, imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the term of imprisonment imposed under this paragraph shall not run concurrently with any other term of imprisonment imposed under any other provision of law. Note: A conviction under the GFSZA will cause an individual to become a “prohibited person” under the Gun Control Act of 1968. This will bar them from legally owning firearms for the rest of their life.

              1. avatar

                And the point?

                The point is that in the State of Washington the legislature has preempted local authorities from enacting laws such as 18 U.S.C. § 922.

                Why?

                To stop local authorities from creating a patchwork of laws that will trap unsuspecting firearm owners. If individual localities have the ability to create their own laws on firearms every firearm owneer would need to research the local laws before entering these cities. There would be no standard for them to go by and they very well could be trapped by these local firearm laws.

                While 18 U.S.C. § 922 is an applicable Federal law it is not applicable in the State of Washington because the legislature has not allowed it’s implementation. We have strong protections in our State Constitution that has in effect protected firearm owners from a patchwork of laws that stops each individual city or county making laws on their own that would adveresely affect firearm owners and those that do excercise their Right to carry concealed.

                This is why the discussion in our local city council is nothing more than an excercise in futility. We have elected officials in our city that have ignored this principle, ignored our States preemption laws and the laws that are designed to protect lawful firearm owners.

                If the city of Oak Harbor wishes to change these laws the correct path is to lobby the legislature to change those laws. By even discussing making laws in our city concerning firearms they are doing outside the authority vested in them by the legislature and our State Constitution.

                The correct and only path for Oak Harbor is to send a letter to the legislature to recommend changing the laws we all live by if that is their wish. I would not support them in this.

                1. avatar

                  The washington state constitution states that the U.S. constitution is the surpreme law of the land and that no state law may prempt federal law.
                  Also made very clear within 18 U.S.C. 922 is that no state may prempt
                  These laws.
                  Im not a lawyer but I think the city by choosing this venue had made citizens pottentialy vulnerable to legal action.
                  All I am saying is that my understanding of the law is the same as former paratroopers.

                  1. avatar

                    If you believe that to be true then leave your firearm at home….our State Laws are very clear and define “school Zone” and “School Property” quite well…

                    In 1995 the Supreme Court voided the law, ruling it (quite correctly) to be an unconstitutional overreach of federal power. Congress quickly passed a revised version of the act which included the stipulation that the firearm had, “moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce.”

                    SCOTUS has alread spoken on 18 USC 922

                    Our state laws are very clear on firearms in school zones and those zones are limited to school property and need to be posted that firearms are not allowed.

                    Again read RCW 9.41:
                    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41

                    Our laws are designed to be perfecty clear on this issue.

                    1. avatar

                      Seems to me by following Shane’s “1,000 foot buffer” logic, people cannot even legally drive down a street upon which any school might be with a firearm in their car, since that most likely be within that 1000′ radius, and I know that’s NOT the case.

                      This has got to be, I think, at least the THIRD time either you or I have referred Shane to the actual laws of WA State regarding firearms, yet he seems wholly unable to actually read and absorb them with any degree of acumen.

                      Maybe he’s taking lessons from Rick Almberg and Pam Fick?

                    2. avatar

                      And that was the reasoning for the SCOTUS to say that the original US Code was unconstitutional. The newer rewrite of the law is just as bad but has not been before judicial review yet. They attempted to make it legal with the additional wording with the stipulation that the firearm had, “moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce.”

                      Congress re-enacted the law in the GFSZ Act of 1995 following the SCOTUS ruling, correcting the technical defects identified by the Court by adding section 3(A) placing the burden on the prosecutor to prove an additional element that the gun, ” has moved in or otherwise affects interstate commerce.” This was done to bring this into the jurisdiction of the Commerce Clause…

                      So far there have been no arrests under this new rewrite of the law because it is impossible for a citizen to know whether or not the firearm they possess affects interstate commerce and the prosecutors know this. As US Code 18 U.S.C 922 starts out with the statement (2)(a) “It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows , or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.” It makes it pretty clear that this law is moot. Ask any citizen if they know that a firearm they own affects interstate commerce and they will look at you with a blank stare…that blank stare means it is not prosecutable… and that is my understanding of the interpretation of 18 U.S.C 922…But remember I am not a lawyer or a prosecutor. Interestingly enough under (2) (B) (ii) of this law it is also legal under Federal (but not State) law to carry in school zones if you are in possession of a concealed weapons permit or any other license by any authority….

                      Bottom line is our State laws are very clear on this subject and if the Feds had a beef with our laws they certainly would have let the state know.

        2. avatar

          Bill, The agenda and reading packet will be published on the Oak Harbor web page either Thursday or Friday this week. They are always published on those days the week before the meeting.

          1. avatar

            Thanks. ;-) That was kinda’ my point: Pam can see the “apparent” future??

      3. avatar

        “Pam has a vision of filling the room with unarmed people so the armed people have no room to enter. If you have any questions or suggestions please feel free to call Pam 360 -675-5379.”

        Since most people who carry firearms carry concealed pistols or revolvers, if anyone cares to call Pam, would you ask her how she fully intends to differentiate between the “unarmed people” and “armed people”? Does she think they are all going to wear a scarlet “A”?

        1. avatar

          I am going to dress up in a tie dye t-shirt and mingle…too bad I cut my hair and beard…then I would fit right in.

      4. avatar

        Hey Cliff,

        I just got a “threat” of legal action from Ms. Fick’s daughter. For posting”posting personal” information. I took a screen shot, immediately re-posted it to my Facebook page and reported it as a “threat” to Facebook. Is there anything else I should do? Really, telling lies about me is absurd.

        I’ve just received this “warning” from Patricia Fick: Warning, Kat. Post my mothers information (MY information) online again and I have no problem pressing charges on you for cyber bullying and posting personal information without permission. Take your bitterness elsewhere and stop being a petty wench.

        The image below is a screen capture of the Facebook comment:

        1. avatar

          Interesting…..threats from our local Democrats?

          I do not believe that it was you that posted her phone number, it was myself. Interesting that they are threatening you and not me…

          For your information Pam Fick is an elected Democrat PCO here in Island County, her phone number is on the Democrat Party website so that her constituents can easily get in touch with her. Maybe she does not want her constituents to call her? If so she should not publish her phone number as contact information for an elected PCO.

          The e mail I posted from the local Democrat party was widely distributed to all…I guess they thought they were going to get support from this e mail and the request to call Pam Fick and that others were not supposed to call…

          Threats eh? How typical of our local democrats…

          1. avatar

            Lovely, I get threatened over something her own party put out? I’ve sent a letter of complaint to them. I doubt they will even read it.

            1. avatar

              I would just ignore them. They are nothing but blowhard bullies.

              Without lies and threats they really don’t have anything.

        2. avatar

          I have been similarly previously threatened by Pam and Patricia Fick on the Whidbey News-Times Facebook forum. I never stopped saying what I was saying and the threats from them just kept coming.

          Making threats, like this mother-daughter duo Pam and Patricia Fick routinely do, happens when they don’t like what is being said about an issue. This is just another example as to how our local Island County Democrats do business.

          These two folks, like many people, have all sorts of so-called “personal information” already posted to the internet.

          For example: “North Whidbey 03 353 Pam Fick fick.cnp@comcast.net

          That’s at: http://islandcountydemocrats.wordpress.com/about-us/officer-and-pcos/

          Here is some more “personal information” about Pam Fick:

          “Pamela Fick was born in 1957. Pamela currently lives in Oak Harbor, Washington. Before that, she lived in La Puente, CA from 1998 to 2003. Before that, she lived in Tustin, CA from 1994 to 2009.”

          That’s from: http://www.mylife.com/pamela_fick

          Here’s some more information on Pam Fick:

          “Pam Fick, a 20-year Oak Harbor resident and Navy veteran, who is also a gun owner and keeps it in her house, objects to the notion of guns being carried in parks. She told this column Tuesday via telephone, “We’re trying to fill the room. That’s the only intention we have to make a point that they don’t belong in there.” Her name and phone number were posted online at IslandPolitics.org, which she called a local “GOP Inquirer”.”

          That’s from: http://www.examiner.com/article/oak-harbor-antis-fail-to-exclude-gun-activists-from-debate

          Oh, and here is:
          3089. Oak harbor 2643 olympic dr Pamela Fick

          That’s from: http://www.locatefamily.com/Street-Lists/USA/WA/98277/index6.html

          And, here, too, we have:

          “Curt Robert Fick was born in 1957. Curt currently lives in Oak Harbor, Washington. Before that, Curt lived in San Clemente, CA from 1988 to 1992. Before that, Curt lived in La Puente, CA from 1999 to 2002.
          Curt Robert Fick is related to Pamela Fick, who is 55 years old and lives in Oak Harbor, WA. Curt Robert Fick is also related to Patricia Fick, who is 35 years old and lives in Oak Harbor, WA.”

          That’s from: http://www.mylife.com/c-807342948

          Also, here’ some “personal information” about Patiricia Fick:

          “Patricia Fick, 2643 Olympic Drive, Oak Harbor, Washington 98277-8027″

          That’s from: http://address-search-us.com/patricia-fick-olympic-drive-oak-harbor

          Now, are they going to threaten me, again, too? I would not be surprised if they did. It’s their “thing”.

          1. avatar

            So Pam Fick has made her address, phone number and history available to all on the internet but threatens others when it is used? Nice set of double standards she has. Public information is public information…

  5. avatar

    Oh yea, is anyone planning on carrying a firearm?
    Open or concealed.

    Please don’t post that information up in public.

    I only ask to remind everyone to be safe and follow the 4 basic rules of safe firearm handling:

    1. Always treat all firearms as if they were loaded.

    2. Never allow the muzzle of any firearm to point at anything you are not willing to destroy.

    3. Never put your finger near the trigger until you are ready to fire. Do not depend on any mechanical device for safety!

    4. Always be sure of your target, and what is behind and in front of it.

    1. avatar

      Are guns illegal within 1000 feet of a school in many scenerios?
      I thought that if a person didnt have a cpl then the answer was yes.
      I guess it could be helpful to have that information out there.

      1. avatar

        The laws that Washington State Citizens follow in regards to firearms is RCW 9.41. The same set of laws that Oak Harbor adopted in it’s entirety in 1996.

        RCW 9.41.280 states as follows:
        (1) It is unlawful for a person to carry onto, or to possess on, public or private elementary or secondary school premises, school-provided transportation, or areas of facilities while being used exclusively by public or private schools:
        Source= http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41

        There is no 1000 yard restriction. Firearm owners are not drug dealers who do have to “honor” the 1000 yard radius around our schools…

        1. avatar

          Thanks, I was unsure exactly what the law read in that area.

          1. avatar

            All of our firearm laws statewide are encompassed in RCW 9.41 except for very the few exceptions where it specifically allows for local government control in a specific area.

            That is why this City Council meeting about guns in parks is about a moot point. Oak Harbor accepted in it’s entirety RCW 9.41 in 1996. Councilman Almberg can not change our city code with any ordinance whatsoever except to bring that code into compliance wih RCW 9.41.

            This was a very simple housekeeping matter for the city council that was blown out of proportions by a grandstanding councilman.. The council needed to update the 1961 Parks code to reflect the 1996 acceptance of RCW 9.41 in it’s entirety, it was obviously a forgotten part of city code that was not changed in 1996 to reflect the total acceptance of state laws in our firearm laws.

            But no…..it cannot be so simple in Oak Harbor. We have to have council members that think they are above these laws to create the dissention we have today. All of this hullballooo is over nothing, except for those councilmen like Almberg who have no compunction to follow our laws.

      2. avatar

        Shane Hoffmire, you are missing your reference.

        Here’s mine (notice it doesn’t say anything about a 1,000 foot buffer, open carry or otherwise):

        RCW 9.41.280
        Possessing dangerous weapons on school facilities — Penalty — Exceptions.

        (1) It is unlawful for a person to carry onto, or to possess on, public or private elementary or secondary school premises, school-provided transportation, or areas of facilities while being used exclusively by public or private schools:
        (a) Any firearm;
        (b) Any other dangerous weapon as defined in RCW 9.41.250;
        (c) Any device commonly known as “nun-chu-ka sticks”, consisting of two or more lengths of wood, metal, plastic, or similar substance connected with wire, rope, or other means;
        (d) Any device, commonly known as “throwing stars”, which are multi-pointed, metal objects designed to embed upon impact from any aspect;
        (e) Any air gun, including any air pistol or air rifle, designed to propel a BB, pellet, or other projectile by the discharge of compressed air, carbon dioxide, or other gas; or

        (f)(i) Any portable device manufactured to function as a weapon and which is commonly known as a stun gun, including a projectile stun gun which projects wired probes that are attached to the device that emit an electrical charge designed to administer to a person or an animal an electric shock, charge, or impulse; or

        RCW 9.41.300
        (b) Cities, towns, and counties may restrict the location of a business selling firearms to not less than five hundred feet from primary or secondary school grounds, if the business has a storefront, has hours during which it is open for business, and posts advertisements or signs observable to passersby that firearms are available for sale. A business selling firearms that exists as of the date a restriction is enacted under this subsection (3)(b) shall be grandfathered according to existing law.

        http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41

    2. avatar

      No need to carry a firearm to this event, open carry or otherwise. I’ll just position myself next to Pam Fick or Steve Erickson, and use them as a human shield knowing full well that they can take out any of Steve’s “potential bad guys” with their high capacity motor mouth.

      Pam Fick, you have no need to worry about getting shot by some yahoo that thinks he is a superhero since NOBODY is obligated to save your sorry ass.

      Knowing that, I “feel” much safer using you as a human shield when I charge the perpetrator while you busily discharge your secret weapons of mouth destruction.

      Pam and Steve, your posthumously awarded medals await you!

      1. avatar

        I am really concerned about poor Pam Fick’s safety in attending the council meeting because all of you who, as Pam said, “have no idea what you’re talking about”
        You have heaped a heavy burden of her deligate shoulders with your gun lover Cowboy attitudes
        I am sepecially worried about her making the trip to the meeting safely to make her speech during the comments period

        She has an important message that all of you who “…have no idea what you’re talking about” will hear and become learned citizens
        To assure that she will arrive at the meeting safe and sound, how about 3 or 4 of you concealed pistol packing, gun-toting cowboys, with an ounce of brains and compassion for the underdog in your hearts, assemble at PAM’s house, 2643 Olympic Dr about 4 PM and escort her safely to the meeting
        She deserves to be heard, especially by the likes of you

        “If she doesn’t succeed, she runs the risk of failure”…Right PAM???

        You could then give her a 21 gun salute as she departs the Fire station
        She’d be so proud and so would her DEM handlers; it’d bring a tear to her sweet daughter’s eye

        1. avatar

          Be carefull Bill. You cannot legally discharge a weapon within the city limits of Oak Harbor…

  6. avatar

    This being a patriotic event, would it be possible to schedule a Growler fly-by as part of a NOLF mission? G O N A V Y !!!

    1. avatar

      I thought the same thing!!!

      I want a Growler flyover too for you guys on Oak Harbor’s Gun Appreciation Night. Just so the progressive agitators get the message: BUZZ OFF!

      Let me tell you I had last December a Growler flyover of the Island County Commissioners’ HQ right at 1000 Hours that made me stomp my feet, cheer and think I was part of the NFL ready to sack Garrett Newkirk. Needless to say, Garrett wasn’t too pleased. Oh and I had a big game that day!

      An encore performance by me is planned for 10 AM, 4 Feb. at Coupeville’s Island County County Commissioners HQ. Growler flyover please! Followed by an afternoon of Growler touch n goes @ OLF Coupeville!

      Make sure to watch this about NFL flyovers: http://youtu.be/cc41WrV-qx8 :-)

  7. avatar

    Please contact Pam at 360 -675-5379 and let her know you will be armed and attending the meeting! She really wants to hear from you and fellow gun owners.

Comments are now closed.