Oak Harbor Changes City Ordinances to follow our State Laws on Firearms

At the City Council meeting on February 6th 2012 Oak Harbor had a very contentious Meeting. The council chambers were packed with gun rights supporters demanding that our city council follow the laws and Constitution of our State by bringing our city codes into line with State Law.

I would estimate the attendance was well over 250 people. 120 were allowed in the council chambers and overflow area, 50 seats were downstairs watching the proceedings on a video fees and many more were milling about in the foyer upstairs and outside.

The testimony given during the public comment period was overwhelmingly supportive of the city following our state laws with of course the exception of our token troublemakers Shane Hoffmire and Pam Fick.

After the public comment period which was previously extended to 30 minutes by a motion of the council had expired a motion was made by Jim Campbell to extend the public comment period for another 30 minutes. He received no second and the public comment period was closed much to the chagrin of those that had taken tme out of their lives to come and comment.

The issue of amending the city code to reflect the adoption of the state laws on forearms was brought to the floor as an emergency motion and passed by all the council including Rick Almberg and Joel Servatius. There was NO public comment taken on this motion and the meeting was then quickly adjourned leaving all other city business scheduled for the council session without talking any action.

Apparently the city council felt they had enough exposure on this issue. As all the major news media was on hand for this event it is very apparent that the city council did not want to take any more comments on this issue and have the major news media available to see their ridiculous behavior.

In one of the more interesting moments in the meeting, one of many, and after several of the public commenter’s had spoken of the desire to see Rick Almberg resign his position for not following his oath. Jim Campbell made a motion for Rick Almberg to speak to the questions from the citizens about his resignation. Rick Almberg defended his actions by calling on an audience member and Attorney Grant Weed to recall a legal opinion that he had been given that he had not broken his oath. Mr. Weed seemed to agree with Mr. Almberg that he did not break his oath but it seems to me that the question was not phrased correctly. I will review the recordings and correct if necessary.

After Jim Campbell made his motion and there was a brief discussion about Rick Almbergs behavior Mr. Almberg made a motion that Mayor Scott Dudley should apologize to him publically for the Mayor saying that he had broke his oath. In reviewing the video in question the Mayor never spoke directly about Mr. Almberg although he did mention a “couple of council members” and “their possible actions”.

Mr. Almberg was again out of line asking for an apology from the Mayor. This was obviously an attempt by Mr. Almberg to deflect the fact that he indeed had violated his oath to the people. Rick Almberg really does need to resign for the good of the city, his childish actions are far below the standard we need to set for our council members.

There will be more on this subject later as soon as the video is available on the cities website.

I certainly want to thank all of the Second Amendment supporters that showed up for this meeting. Never have I had the opportunity to be in the company and presence of such a large group of real Americans. Everyone should be proud of their behavior and their actions on the night of February 6th 2013 and I was honored to be in your presence.


  1. Oak Harbor City Councilmen Rick Almberg and Joel Servatius have been exposed AGAIN as the two leading City Council clowns, but with the exception of Jim Campbell, the City Council is a clown bus. The six clowns we have on there should all get together and enter a City Council Clown Bus float for this year’s Holland Happening and 4th of July parades in Oak Harbor.

    1. It seems likely they could get the likes of either Pam Fick or Shane Hoffmire to drive that bus for them.

      1. Use names and specifics, Joe, so that people actually know who are what you are talking about and what they said. Otherwise, you may as well go ahead and just eat humble pie with your pie hole on behalf of your political buddies who have embarrassed themselves immensely, amd of their OWN doing.

        All six of the City Council Clowns of whom I speak have voted and/or made statements to the press that has fully earned each of them their full clown outfit. If you doubt that, you should not, as the evidence is readily available here, on your own web site and in WNT articles on the topic.

        1. Hey, Tara Hizon supported at last month’s meeting the 2nd amendment. She also conceal carries.

          I just really find your tone Bill about my fellow Navy Leaguers to be… worrysome. I feel I need to stick up for the guys in my unit, that’s all.

          1. Tara did not stand up for our State Laws and state constitution.
            It is you that is giving her blind support on one issue that she clearly had a chance to correct but chose not to.
            Tara has made her own bed…

          2. Tara Hizon has shown herself to be a duplicitous politician who will say whatever she thinks will gain herself the most favor with whatever group she is “schmoozing” with at the moment.

            Her RECORD speaks for itself: Oak Harbor City Councilman Tara Hizon VOTED, along with four other City Council Clowns, AGAINST fixing the subject ILLEGAL firearms-related Oak Harbor Municipal Code the first time it came to a vote in December. She then made comments on-line which deflected responsibility for her official vote AND she then also tried to blame the media CIRCUS which she helped create by her own VOTE by deflecting blame for that media circus on Mayor Scott Dudley!

            You should perhaps find my tone “worrisome” as you claim: your favorite Navy League person on the City Council has shown herself to be practically a clone of the likes of Rick Almberg: out strictly for promoting HERSELF and NOT acting as she swore to do by her oath of office.

            And, your role has apparently simply become promoting HER, too.

            Tara Hizon’s vote in December squarely placed HERSELF on the WRONG side of the 2nd Amendment and on the WRONG side of the laws of WA State. Moreover, the crowd at last night’s City Council meeting – you might call almost ALL of them the “pro-2nd Amendment folks” – were NOT AT ALL there to sing the praises of Tara Hizon or of any other FIVE City Council CLOWNS who created this media circus by their official actions and votes.

            1. a) I’m very upset this has happened and in the behaviour of those that don’t want to respect the US Constitution + the epic failure of “gun free zones”. That said: As I get to know more Navy Leaguers, rest assured I shall sing their praises. We are all ONE Navy League and we need to stick together.

              b) I’m also going to say this Bill: When I was down at the Island County Commissioners, your blog was quite the topic of discussion. Some, like I, have our concerns but appreciate the raw journalism done here. Some, who I will not name but you can guess and likely be right, think you and Commish Emerson have an agenda to close down Island County Government. Going over people that may support us 60-90% of the time isn’t helping the fans of IslandPolitics.org’s cause.

              Thank you for taking my comments. Congrats on our victory that you helped with to save the 2nd Amendment.

              1. Sing “kumbaya” elsewhere with the Navy League. You make it sound like some sort of water cult.

                Nice attempt at trying to completely change the topic of conversation on this thread. It does not change the fact that six-out-of-seven Oak Harbor City Council members have recently earned their CLOWN suits on this firearms issue.

                That’s a very OLD (and bogus) allegation which you have now resurfaced about our elected County Commissioner. It has no merit and no facts exist to support it. “Close down Island County Government”? It sounds like some kind of totally unreal, bizarre fantasy to me. It’s about as realistic a goal as going to a Catholic Church and expecting to collect monetary donations for an abortion clinic.

                The site is called Island Politics: if Kelly Emerson were to do something as idiotic as the Oak Harbor City Council has recently done on this firearms issue, she’d very likely get blasted by me (and others) on here, too. I am sure she is not so blind as to believe erroneously that I am not anyone’s lemming, and I think I speak for the other authors on here when I say that, too.

                1. That should read: “I am sure she is not so blind as to believe erroneously that I am anyone’s lemming, and I think I speak for the other authors on here when I say that, too.”

                2. Well Bill, I’m just passing on the intel. What you do with it is up to you.

                  Nobody thinks Island Politics is a pawn, everybody thinks Island Politics is a rogue group. I like rogues like you guys & Sarah Palin, so I plug you guys on Facebook.

                  1. A “rogue” group?

                    Hm-mm…there is at least one definition of “rogue” as an adjective with which I’d be inclined to agree on that point:

                    “1 : resembling or suggesting a rogue elephant especially in being isolated, aberrant, dangerous, or uncontrollable

                    1. TWO THUMBS UP OR A FIST-BUMP!

                      All I ask is you guys be a bit nicer. HOLD US ACCOUNTABLE WHEN WE SCREW UP, BUT DON’T BE WHALING ON US AND COMPLIMENT US WHEN WE DO RIGHT.

                    2. “capsized by a rogue wave”

                      Apparently, if you try to post on here and copy characters used in html code-writing when doing so, things do not copy over as expected. ;-o

                  2. Joe you have to understand one thing. I am speaking for myself here not others. I don’t care if “everyone thinks” Island Politics is a “rogue group”. You should never be afraid of what people think of you as long as you attempt to speak the truth and that is what I attempt to do here (and strive to get the other authors to do so also). Do we get it right everytime? No we do not. Do we lie and tell stories to further any agenda? No we do not. We do make every attempt to get it right but you do need to understand that we are not journalists, we are citizens that have opinions just like yourself.

                    The difference between us and you is that you will apparently stand up for your freinds in the Navy League regardless of the facts. We do not do that here. Loyalty is important in life but what is more important than that is truth, honor and integrity of beliefs. The other authors here and myself would have no qualms about disagreeing and throwing each other under the bus if we felt that one of us was being deceptive in our articles or what we state.

                    You will eventually learn that what I say is true. Loyalty is great and good but not the price of throwing truth and honor out the window.

                    1. “The other authors here and myself would have no qualms about disagreeing and throwing each other under the bus if we felt that one of us was being deceptive in our articles or what we state.”

                      Damn straight.

                  3. Interesting words, Joe Kunzler, coming from the man who made these first comments in the Whidbey News Times, “That said, what kind of a NUT takes a gun to a public meeting? Back in the old days outside the British Parliament they had loops outside the chambers to hang up one’s sword. Perhaps that kind of courtesy needs to return to our democratic way of life…”

                    So that tells me you must think the room was full of nuts on February 5th, right?

                  1. Yes, I most definitely did borrow that line from you without asking your permission first. Plagiarism is the highest form of flattery, I have been told….I hope you feel likewise. ;-)

              2. I asked Councilwomen Hizon a few questions after they adjourned the meeting.. I’ll Paraphrase:

                Me: Why did you all adjourn the meeting with other topics on the agenda?

                Tara: There were no more topics and we normally adjourn like this. The only thing left to do was Councilmember’s speaking about the meeting.

                Me: So what did you think of the meeting and the turn out?

                Tara: I thought it was a nice turn out but I wished the mayor would have kept things more under control.

                Me: Maybe the mayor was feeling the need to support the large turn out?

                (Up and until this point she was sort of smiling at me as she talked to me, then she gave me this look of disgust that had me wondering if I had mis-read who she is, you see, I had once stood at the podium said my peace on the topic of the mayor’s firing of city official and gave her and other councilmembers a nod of support as they asked those questions, but that look she gave me, wow… It is so easy to be misled by a smile.)

                Joe, maybe I misunderstood the look, but the way the events played out last night and the things they all said or did during that meeting, that speaks for itself… or just to me. It’s the little things that matter to me and that look, I did not deserve that.

                1. Here’s a direct link to the reading packet for that City Council meeting, which every City Council member had in advance of that meeting, and which, of course, they very likely all had read in advance of that meeting:


                  Tara Hizon’s response to you that “There were no more topics” belies the fact that two additional agenda items are in there, which the City Council could have easily addressed as discussion items which came on the published agenda at a point after which they voted to take action on the firearms issue at the meeting. Instead, they adjourned.

                  Tara Hizon’s other response is also, it seems to me, a paraphrase of Councilman Joel Servatius’ earlier remarks made about the Mayor’s alleged lack of control of the meeting. Servatius read from a book on THAT point INSTEAD of answering a direct question posed to him from Councilman Jim Campbell about the motion Councilman Servatius had “seconded” back in the December meeting, which had then led directly to the WRONGHEADED ILLEGAL vote about making citizens leave their firearms outside, immediately followed by Rick Almberg’s now-world-famous “exit, stage left” maneuver. Joel Servatius REFUSED to answer Jim Campbell’s question about whether or not Servatius believed he had violated his oath of office by having “seconded” Almberg’s “shoot-from-the hip” silly-head motion at December’s meeting.

                  The entire “shtick” going on here at these City Council meetings are these ongoing allegations about Mayor Dudley’s alleged inability to control City Council meetings, thus (erroneously) concluding that he is unfit to be Mayor of Oak Harbor, in which case now-Navy League President (and former, voter-ousted Oak Harbor Mayor) Jim Slowik could swoop in as a mayoral candidate to restore allegedly needed order to dysfunctional City Council meetings – dysfunction which the City Council brings upon itself and which is spurred on by continued hi-jinks emanating from members of the City Council itself: members’ whose unpublished agenda is to “get Dudley”.

                  1. Thank you for the insight. I already had my opinion about what she meant on “control” and it’s the same as yours. As I didn’t have a copy of the agenda, I couldn’t speak to whether all items were covered. Thanks again for the link.

                  2. I had not fully realized this point until I read it elsewhere, so I’ll give credit where credit is due:

                    “The council even silenced Mayor Scott Dudley, who has been a fierce critic of their actions, by adjourning the meeting prior to his regular mayor comment period.”

                    That’s fgrom: “Surrounded by guns and cameras, Oak Harbor City Council changes course:

                    So, that’s a bit more insight as to the City Council’s unspoken, unpublished agenda at each meeting, courtesy of Beth Munns (who very QUICKLY made the motion to adjourn when she could do so) and Tara Hizon (who seconded it SO quickly that one wondered if she was not actually able to take another breathe until she did so).

                  3. Over on Facebook, Tara Hizon is pleading her case for early adjournment of the meeting:

                    “The Mayor does hold the gavel, but only as a means to preserve order. As the presider, it’s his duty to keep the meeting to its order of business, keep all speakers to the rules, and handle discussion in an orderly and unbiased way. It’s the Council’s meeting and the Council can change the agenda and/or adjourn at any time. Contrary to popular belief, Council Meetings are not public forums, they exist for the sole purpose of doing the city’s business. In fact, many Councils across the country don’t allow any public comment at their meetings (which I totally disagree with).

                    Several of us suggested the Mayor hold a “Mayor’s Meeting” or Town Hall Meeting to accommodate the public interest surrounding recent events, which *would* have been a public forum and fall under his jurisdiction.”

                    Here’s a link to a snapshot of her comments there:

              3. Joe A Kunzler,
                I sat thru all 30 minutes of that meeting.
                I watched your comments and listened to responses by Chair Price-Johnson and Commisssioner Jill Johnson.
                I sat in the seat just in back of you
                I had conversations with several during and after the meeting
                NONE said anything like the BS you posted here
                If I am incorrect, then listen to the video tape of the meeting and give me the time indicated or the names or some other evidence to support your statements

                The only thing I remember about your performance was that the Commissioners made you erase what you had written on their board to the left of the speakers facility and Commissioner Johnson advised you to make your comments to the Commissioners; not other members of the audience including your personal insults addressed to Mr. Newkirk (spg?), an anti Navy proponent who has as much right to voice his opinion as you

                Your performance was very unprofessional and I avoided you aftrer the meeting because I didn’t want those at the meeting to think I associated personally with you

                You talk as if you are officially representing your “chain of Command” and the Navy League
                I know several Navy League members and I find it hard to believe you speak as an official representative for them

                1. I don’t speak for anybody but me.

                  I also had personal conversations afterword, hence my comments.

                  Bill, I am very sorry if you feel that way.

                  BTW, I wrote on the board, “GO NAVY LEAGUE” because I want Garrett Newkirk who is targeting us Navy Leaguers – us including the Island County Commissioners who are members – to feel uncomfortable to mouth off his anti-Navy trite garbage.

                2. BTW, as to “The only thing I remember about your performance was that the Commissioners made you erase what you had written on their board to the left of the speakers facility and Commissioner Johnson advised you to make your comments to the Commissioners; not other members of the audience including your personal insults addressed to Mr. Newkirk (spg?), an anti Navy proponent who has as much right to voice his opinion as you”

                  I watched my glorious sortie again and the only insults I aimed at Garrett Newkook was “driving Garrett Newkirk nuts” + giggling as I showed off my Growler polo + my Growler patch on my USAF surplus nomex flight jacket.

                  I also did say, “I want to reiterate though that if there are individuals like Garrett Newkirk and others who have inherited Growler Noise from the days of Hellcat & Dauntless propeller noise, they should have the right to eminent domain or noiseproofing at no cost to the local citizens.” IF that’s an insult, none intended.

                  Also “You talk as if you are officially representing your “chain of Command” and the Navy League
                  I know several Navy League members and I find it hard to believe you speak as an official representative for them” Well I made very clear I was one of the few Navy Leaguers willing to go on offense and stressed “I also want to make very clear as well I am just an individual Navy Leaguer but IF APZs are put on the 2013 docket I will push up my chain of command a request to support full APZs around OLF Coupeville.” Very, very difficult to spin me as a Navy League spokesman after that.

                  Again, I am very sad I disappointed one of my supporters. I also relayed comments said after the meeting to here to help out, not to hurt & anger & poke fellow conservatives.

          3. Sorry Joe. Tara did not support The Second Amendment at last month’s council meeting. According to the comments she made during discussion of Almberg’s motion, her concern/suggestion was only that a study should be made. Did she offer a motion to table until a study could be made? No. She voted against the Almberg motion yes, but for the wrong reason. Last night she had the opportunity to second Jim Campbell’s motion, but was silent. I don’t know if this lady thinks on her feet, but it’s apparent she doesn’t do well while sitting.

            Tara Hizon is Navy League? And she carries concealed carries herself? She recites The Pledge of Alligence, but she has reservations about allowing others’ to exercise their Second Amendment Rights? Okay, she’s not as spooky as Almberg or Servatius, (or Hoffmire) but she shouldn’t be holding public office either.

            One question Joe. Have you ever invited Tara to comment at Island Politics as Citizen’s Councilman Jim Campbell does? It might be overwhelming for her, but she should buck up and give it a try.

            Good post Cliff.

            1. “Last night she had the opportunity to second Jim Campbell’s motion, but was silent.”

              Correct. Councilman Campbell motioned to have the Council provide more time for public commenting, but no Council member seconded his motion to do so, thus many people who had showed up to speak at the meeting were, essentially, deprived of an opportunity to exercise their 1st Amendment Rights, for the convenience (?) of the City Council.

              “She (Tara Hizon) voted against the Almberg motion yes, but for the wrong reason.”

              Incorrect (if you are speaking of Almberg’s motion back in December): “…Almberg made a motion to do nothing to amend city code in order to give the state and federal government time to adjust gun laws. The motion passed by a 5-1 vote, with Campbell voting in opposition. Councilwoman Beth Munns was absent.”

              That’s from:

              ‘Oak Harbor takes a stab at gun regulation”

              1. I was referring to Councilman Hinzon’s statement at the January meeting while discussing Almberg’s motion to immediately clear the chamber of firearms.

              1. So…you have been asked to remain silent by one of your fellow Navy Leagers?

                Do you understand that what they are asking is to silence you and your opinions?

                And you are OK with that?

                You are going to allow yourself to be bullied by those who you call fellow Navy Leagers that you apparently see as your peers? Was this issue about the Navy or the Navy League or did it have anything to do with either? Then ask yourself why they as Navy League “fellows” feel you need to be silenced…

                Joseph that is not being a “fellow” that is being a “dupe” and the actions of this member of the Navy League is atrocious and troubling.

                The actions of whomever told you to “knock it off” is how many in Oak Harbor operate and why it is important to tell those that wish to silence you and your opinions to bugger off.

                  1. You are correct, it does have to end.

                    It is your choice to be either a part of the problem or part of the cure. For all of us everywhere I encourage you to do that thinking and while you do remember it is a true test of character to stand up to those that you truely believe are wrong in their actions.

                    If you believe that this is a Navy League issue and this issue and your words directly effects the league then that is one issue. It another issue if you are being silenced for speaking your mind and being silenced simply because others may disagree with you.

                    Don’t let it happen to you Joseph.

                    1. “I’ve been asked to “knock it off” from a fellow Navy Leaguer so I shall.”

                      Sheesh! What are these people? Your mommy and daddy?

                1. My Two Bits: I believe your colleague’s intention was that you “Knock off your continual grandstanding using the associations name. When not at an association event, just be Joe A, Kunzler, U.S. Citizen, a title billions of people would love to have. Let the association speak through it’s officers and deeds.

                  I heard you speak at the Commissioner’s Meeting Monday and agreed factually with your comments. However you discredited yourself and the cause addressing too many subjects, rambling about and exceeding the time limit Commissioner Price-Johnson imposes on conservative speakers. Leave those tactics up to Ken’s pal, Newkirk.

                  1. “I heard you speak at the Commissioner’s Meeting Monday and agreed factually with your comments. However you discredited yourself and the cause addressing too many subjects, rambling about and exceeding the time limit Commissioner Price-Johnson imposes on conservative speakers. Leave those tactics up to Ken’s pal, Newkirk.”

                    Thanks buddy. I want you to know I had TWO hours of sleep before THAT sortie, trying to make the most of the time & money invested in getting to that meeting.

                    I wish I had other Navy Leaguers who’d sortie and kick some buttuski but sadly there’s no more butt left to kick it seems. I kicked them all.

                    GO NAVY LEAGUE!

  2. “More guns in more hands in more places didn’t make people safer, it just made people more dead,” Pam Fick, Island County Progressive Democratic Socialist, 5 Feb 2013.

    News Flash Pam Fick! Nobody died or were injured during the Oak Harbor City Council meeting on Tuesday! Look at all those law abiding citizens with guns! Oh my! Pam, quick hide under your bed!


    1. Isn’t is simply amazing how both Shane Hoffmire and Pam Fick had absolutely NO PROBLEM showing up at this gun-filled meeting! Oh, and what about Councilman Almberg? At the last City Council meeting, when it became known that one concealed handgun was present (only because he ASKED about it), he amazingly just HAD to leave, eh? But last night, he, too, had NO PROBLEM being there! These folks REEK of being duplicitous!

      Somehow, Shane Hoffmire even magically overcame all of the alleged personal fear he had written about to the City Council in a letter prior to this meeting (in the City Council’s reading packet for last night’s meeting) , when he was playing the role of “shill” for Rick Almberg in an attempt to move the City Council meetings to a “gun-free zone!” (The same “shill” role he has often tried to play here on IP, too!)

      1. I thought exactly the same way as I watched Shane Hoffmire speak as he was surrounded by firearm carrying citizens.
        There was no fear evident at all.
        Duplicitous is one of the milder words that come to mind :)

          1. He needs a real “man card” that does not dissolve when it rains (which it often does in the Pacific Northwest).

      2. I’m just amazed at the recovery from fear came so quickly to Hoffmire and especially Almberg. The smile seemed practically glued on Almberg the whole night. How did he go from fear of one gun to being fine with many guns in Chambers. If you watched him as he talked and walked around the room he was always smiling and seemed pleasant. Was this for all the cameras? Or part of a plan to be unveiled soon. His smile only reassured me he is fake and only out to benefit himself. This is the man along with Servatius who accuse others of being less then honorable or lie to get what they want. REALLY???? The continued interrogations of good people over hiring, purchaing or what’s lawful is disgusting. With that history and the hateful words they frequently share shows how untrustworthy and fake they are. The direspect and verbal abuse thats aimed at the Mayor really shows how ignorant they are.

        1. I hate to use this phrase but here goes…

          They were dancing on the bodies of 20 dead children is what they were doing creating hysteria and dividing the community. A truely shameful display.

          1. The Oak Harbor City Council created this entire fiasco by initially voting NOT to act to follow WA State law and in doing so TO risk a lawsuit by the 2nd Amendment Foundation and they used the EXCUSE that the heinous acts of some MADMAN in Connecticut was going to afford them political “cover”!!

            Yes, “dancing on the graves of dead children” is a MOST apt description of what these elected officials did.

            Joe Hawkins’ (below) “There are a couple of serious ********* on the city council” expresses my feelings on this issue quite well, too.

    2. Spot on Ken. Not only are all people safer in meeting, on the street, shopping at Safeway, anywhere when Concealed Carry Citizens are present, but regardless of the fact they might not be packing at any particular moment, they are government certified responsible Citizens. Such a responsible citizen will not upholster just because he can and will likely adjust his response to a situation, applying whatever lethal force is available only as a last resort.

    1. I love Jim, but I had to wonder what was going on in his mind when they moved to suspend the rules, declare an emergency and pass the amendment to make us complaint with the state. There were 3 votes. On the first, Jim had a question but look out of sorts. Then on the second he paused for a few and then said I have nothing, looking a little upset and then on the third, he said, he was voting yes and it should have happened months ago. He was a hard read on that one. I’d be curious to know what was on his mind as the rest of the members appeared to be onboard with getting this done… heck, Almberg made sure he was “2nd” when the item was brought up.

      1. I didn’t hear the total motion, but usually By-laws require that suspension of the rules only applies to the consideration of the specifically stated action.

      2. I could see Jim’s “wheels turning” during that entire exchange after the surprise motion to suspend the rules by Councilman Severns. Severns’ motion did get the desired Council action effected, but it certainly did also squash all further comments from the public.

        I’d like to hear from Jim, too, as to what he was maybe thinking at that point, if he cares to provide some insight.

      3. What I was thinking was—this sounds like what we should have done in November. I was trying to make sure in my mind that the motions Severns was making would truly fix the issue or was it a trick. In the end it did fix the ordinance which is what I wanted all along. When he started making the motion I was hearing it for the first time. I didn’t have the luxury of a pre-

        1. Thanks Jim for your thoughts. I did think your last comment made it clear, but I didn’t know until now.

  3. Joe, your comment, ” Thank you for taking my comments. Congrats on our victory that you helped with to save the 2nd Amendment.” is grossly incorrect. What was saved last night was a lot of unnecessary grief and big expense avoiding law suits against the City of Oak Harbor and individual council members. It’s always exciting to watch “public servants” scrambling when their own necks and pocketbooks appear in jeopardy . The other win for Oak Harbor’s was avoiding national media comparisons to Berkley. We’ll expect to see all of us and a lot more in Olympia if the legislature decides to take up Oak Harbor’s request to disallow legal firearms being present at city council meetings. Keep your powder dry.

    1. That was one of the finer moments of the night! Was the ham sammich dropped by accident or was that for effect?

      Either way it worked.

  4. Cliff, Now that you and all the “real Americans ” have all high fived one another over your supposed saving of the second amendment it’s time for this American to ask a question. Can you guarantee me that next time I take my family to the park that there won’t be another Eddie Ray Routh packing, having a bad day and decides shoot us?

    With rights come responsibilities and I think you should embrace those responsibilities with the same conviction. You should be willing to submit to background checks for all gun sales. You should support concealed permits to be cross referenced with your driver’s license and license plate so any law enforcement officer will be made aware prior to approaching your car that you may be armed. You should support madatory gun safety courses prior to purchase. You can’t drive a car or boat in Washington without them so why should a gun be treated differently? You should also have mandatory refresher courses. A locked gun safe should be mandatory. If you fail to comply then you you should not be entitled to own a gun.

    I also believe that based on the same reasons you can’t drive until age 16, drink until age 21 or rent a car under age 25 without paying a premium that certain types of guns and magazines should be prohibited until you’ve attained a certain age. Many of the mass killings of the last few years have been perpetrated by young men and perhaps if age restrictions were applied to certain weapons, fewer families would be suffering.

    You should demand mental health screenings for all military branches when leaving the service. The military has a moral obligation to ensure that our young men and women return to civilian life whole and if they’re not they should have treatment protocol in hand when they exit. You should demand that the military treat PTSD with the same level of care they provide for physical injuries.

    The Constitution affords us many rights and I believe our founding fathers assumed we also understood the inherent responsibilities.

    1. “Can you guarantee me that next time I take my family to the park that there won’t be another Eddie Ray Routh packing, having a bad day and decides shoot us?” CAB

      CAB, can you guarantee me that the next time I take my family to the park that that there won’t be a dumb driver texting while driving, having a bad hair day kill us?

      Most of your drooling rant is all REVENUE generating schemes created by our government, AND I add to that, “In the Progressive Democratic Socialists utopian world of CAB, every human activity, and endeavor is illegal unless permitted by government, and government must control and regulate all activities and endeavors.” KJ Wolf

      CAB, do you know the difference between a RIGHT and a Privilege? Your words above indicate that you DO NOT!

      1. Tell the families of the dead and wounded police officers this morning that it’s all about revenue. And again as is so evident on this site, disagree and the name calling begins. You have no interest in CIVIL discourse, you sir are a BULLY and I’m done. While I have never been a Progressive Democratic Socialist, perhaps I should take a look at them as the Republican party that I have grown up in has cleary died.

        1. CAB. Were those dead and wounded officers killed or wounded by law abiding firearm owners or criminals?

          Some people here feel very strongly about the rights that were reserved to us the people like our 2nd Amendment . You will have to excuse Ken for getting his dander up but he is correct. You were comparing a Right with a privilege and they are certainly 2 different things.

          The Republican Party that you think you may know has always stood for a strong Second Amendment. Every plank for the party I have EVER seen includes support for our Second Amendment rights. Were you only supportive of those parts of the Republican Party plank that you agreed with? Or did you not realize that the Republican Party has always supported a strong 2nd Amendment?

        2. CAB, I have NO interest in civil discourse with someone where their A$$hole and opinion smells the same. You are not just full of cr@p, you are CR@P!

          1. CAB appears to be another drive by liberal. He seems to have an opinion but it does not seem that he is interested in anyone’s opinions or facts besides his own.

            To each his own I guess.

                1. Cliff, what is so revolting is this idiot thinks that if his stupid ideas were in place they would have prevented the deaths of those police officers.

                  1. Yes. And by doing so the real problems never get fixed. They would rather spend money on gun control that help for the mentally inbalanced. They want to place legal lawful gun owners on a list instead of those that do have problems and do need help.
                    The wife and I were talking tonight about the school killings and the fact that our liberal society has demonized firearms to the point that they cannot be used defensively which to 99.999% of us is their purpose. Allow teachers to get training and carry concealed at school? Oh the horrors! Oh the bad messages we send to the children! I think it is much smarter to have the horrors and the bad messages than dead children don’t you?

                  1. If you are only here to ask questions and then ignore the replies given and insult the other commenters we can easily ban you from commenting here.

                    We attempt to have reasonable discourse with all types here and we certainly welcome you in those discussions. That is if a discussion is what your looking for?

          2. One would have to have a well rounded intellect to be capable of an intersting civil discourse. Your vocabulary is public evidence of your short commings.

    2. CAB. First of no one saved the Second Amendment, it does not need saved, we saved the rule of law in our city. The issue just happened to be about firearm rights.

      My Concealed Pistol License already appears in the data that our police see when they pull me over and run a queery on my license.

      I don’t agree that gun safes should be mandatory, people however should be held responsible for the safe storage of their firearms and be punished under our laws if the firearms under their control are stolen and used. Should we mandate the types of storage? No. This is a personal responsiblity, the government cannot make you responsible.

      There are already age restrictions on firearms. Those under 18 cannot have in their possession or use a firearm unless the are engaged in a lawful outdoor recreational activity. You must be 21 years of age to carry a loaded handgun in public and you must be 21 to obtain a concealed pistol permit and 21 to buy a handgun with a 3 day waiting period.

      It is easy in this country to lose your firearm rights. ANY crime of violence, any felony, any misdeameanor where violence is involved any judgement of mental health issues and you no longer have the right to possess a firearm. It does not matter if it was 40 years ago you have still lost your rights to possess. Even with a CPL if you carry in the wrong place like a bar you not only lose your CPL you lose your right to own a firearm. History of drug use? No CPL, no right to buy. While you can certainly lie on your Form 4473 when you fill it out to buy any weapon you cannot fudge the FBI background check. Applying for a CPL? Fingerprints and an FBI background check is the only way to obtain one and a minor infraction many years ago is enough for them to deny you. Of course if you are a criminal you don’t ever apply so the FBI, backround and fingerprints don’t apply…

      While you attempt to compare boat and car ownership and licenses to the right to own a firearm, driving a car or boat is a privelege not a right. An apt comparison would be to require a license to exercise your right to speak in public. While I do agree that some training may be in order in the case of a concealed pistol license I do not believe that just the fact that you own a gun requires some schooling.

      PTSD? Do you really feel it is necessary to punish legal lawful gun owners because some veterans come back from war with mental diabilities and issues? Yes more needs to be done for our veterans I agree but to restrict 2nd Amendment rights of citizens because of this I find troubling.

      Eddie Ray Routh was a troubled person. He had already threatened to kill himself and his family due to his PTSD, he should not have had the right to own a firearm. He was first taken to a mental hospital in September 2012 after he threatened to kill his family and himself. His second stint in a mental hospital came in mid-January after a woman called the police, fearing for his safety. I do not believe he was able to buy or own a firearm. He killed Chris Kyle at a gun range when Chris was attempting to help him through his hard times and if I am not mistaken he did so with one of Chris Kyles own weapons.

      Tragic? Yes certainly. Unavoidable? Certainly. But is it our laws and honest law abiding citizens that you want to punish where those laws in this case would have had zero effect.

  5. CAB,
    Where is your guarantee to keep all of those kids at that “gun-free zone” school in Connecticut safe?

    Here is my guarantee to keep YOU and your family safe the next time you go to the park: You will be ABSOLUTELY SAFE from the danger of guns when there are metal detectors and armed guards at all entrances to the park with razor wire protecting the perimeters.

    When YOU are able to guarantee MY safety by forcing criminals to go through the same scrutiny as you are asking of legal, gun carrying citizens then I might be in agreement with you.

    I feel 100% safer with the gun carrying crowd that was at that council meeting than I do with people who want to declare gun-free zones but refuse to enforce them with more than a posted sign.

Comments are closed.