Progressive Democratic Socialist Pam Fick’s Wyatt Earp Argument Found Unconstitutional

Author:Ken Wolf

Pam Fick, PCO for Island County’s Progressive Democratic Socialists recently showed up at an Oak Harbor City council meeting using a regurgitated Wyatt Earp argument to disarm citizens.

Pam Fick’s argument of Wyatt Earp’s ban on firearms within city limits however, was found unconstitutional by the U. S. Supreme Court decision, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER

See Pam Fick’s oral argument here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7KDJ0lRtGk&feature=youtu.be

While Pam Fick references Justice Scalia in the same Supreme Court decision to advance her agenda (look at Pam Fick’s T-shirt) of striping away the second amendment rights of law abiding citizens inch by inch, she fails to recognize this section of the Supreme Court ruling:

“Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.”  U. S. Supreme Court decision, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER page 67.

Pam Fick’s agenda is written on her T-shirt.  http://onemillionmomsforguncontrol.org/

While this organization’s website claims: “We understand the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms—just not ALL arms. Let’s make our country a better, less violent place for them.”

They fashion themselves after:

“Mothers Against Drunk Driving helped change lax laws in the 1980s, One Million Moms for Gun Control will not rest until common-sense gun laws are put in place at both the national and state levels.”

Unfortunately MADD’s efforts have led to a ZERO tolerance mentality where one drink with dinner at a local restaurant then driving home is illegal. Here is an fine example of this ZERO tolerant attitude: Lower the legal drinking limit http://www.southwhidbeyrecord.com/opinion/letters/191505931.html

Pam Fick, her fellow Progressive Democratic Socialists, and this organization claims: “We understand the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms—just not ALL arms.”  Their long term objective is ZERO tolerance.  Why?  Because guns, in any form, conflicts with, “Let’s make our country a better, less violent place for them.”

So who gets to decide what firearms law abiding citizens can have?  The answer: Pam Fick and her fellow Progressive Democratic Socialists get to decide.  After all they have Wyatt Earp on their side.

In our fight to defend our Second Amendment rights, and all of our other rights, one must remember that APATHY is on Pam Fick’s side.

““First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.”  Martin Niemoeller, known for his powerful statement (above) about the failure of Germans to speak out against the Nazis.

 

Tags: , ,

27 comments

  1. avatar

    Thanks, Ken, for providing the actual facts and true historical context of the bogus claims and DANGEROUS agenda of Pam Fick and her Island County Democrats.

    Pam also often claims herself to be a veteran (of something, but, always, unspecified). So far, she’s only shown herself to be a veteran of providing misleading public testimony that threatens the freedoms that many bona-fide veterans have died to preserve.

    1. avatar

      Martin Niemoeller’s quote can also apply in this fashion: First they came for the AR15 and semi-automatic “assault” rifles, but I didn’t have those weapons so I did not speak out. Then they came for the semi-automatic pistols and revolvers, but I didn’t have either, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the hunting rifle and all the ammunition, but I did not have a rifle or ammunition so I did not speak out. And when they came for my bow and arrow, there was no one to speak out for me.”

      1. avatar

        That version applies very well to our present-day task of preserving our liberties.

        1. avatar

          Pam Fick and her fellow Progressive Democratic Socialists are using a two tactics to attack on the Second Amendment. The second tactic can be demonstrated in this fashion:

          First they banned guns in school zones, but I didn’t have kids in school, so I did not speak out. Then they banned guns in parks and all government buildings, but I didn’t visit either, so I did not speak out. Then they banned open carry guns in all public places, but since I do not carry a gun openly outside my home, I did not speak out. And when they came for my concealed pistol license, there was no one to speak out for me.

          Then Pam Fick and her merry band of empty heads proclaimed: This has nothing to do about the Second Amendment. You have the right to keep and bear arms, as long they are government approved, completely disassembled, have trigger locks installed, and locked in your underwear drawer at all times.

          1. avatar

            Well conceived!

            The US Constitution’s 2nd amendment’s phrase “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” keeps coming back to me…

            Even better, perhaps, from the WA State Constitution: “The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired…”

            Pam Fick and her liberal buddies have infringed and/or impaired upon our constitutional rights way more than is warranted already.

  2. avatar

    Wow. Pam Fick claims:
    “More guns in more hands in more places didn’t make people safer, it just made people more dead,” said Pam Flick.

    Pam Fick in the comments here:
    http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Hundreds-turn-out-to-oppose-Oak-Harbor-gun-ban-189941801.html

    admits that in the Fick house:
    “If you must know, I have two guns in my home. My husband and I both own one each. I have taken it to the range several times, no place else. It belongs in my home to protect my home and my family.”

    Really, Pam?!? Isn’t that interesting. My reply to Pam Fick keeping firearms for self-protection:
    “@Pam Fick writes, “If you must know, I have two guns in my home. My husband and I both own one each. I have taken it to the range several times, no place else. It belongs in my home to protect my home and my family.”

    So, I must ask….. how many home invasions occur when the occupant is home in Oak Harbor, Pam? Are you that paranoid that you feel the need to keep a gun in your home just in case someone should decide to invade your home when you are present there to use it?

    Wow, Oak Harbor must be a real dangerous place to live if you feel the need to keep a gun in the home for use if someone should invade your home while you are still there. Sound like a familiar argument, Pam? And, if it is more likely that someone will break into your home when you are not there, then shouldn’t you take your guns to a buyback and have them disposed of properly so a criminal does not steal them when you are gone?

    “More guns in more hands in more places didn’t make people safer, it just made people more dead,” said Pam Flick. Seems to me like what you are saying is that guns should only be allowed to be possessed by people that YOU approve of, such as yourself and your husband, and that they should only be possessed in places that YOU feel need protected such as your home. Meanwhile other people’s children are being killed because schools are not worthy of as much protection as your home and your possessions are.

    Thank you for your honesty, Pam, in admitting that you feel that you need to have a gun in your home for self protection.”

    1. avatar

      Now…. everyone must realize that I do not subscribe to the arguments presented above, I am simply repeating what the anti-gun crowd tries to tell us.

      1. avatar

        Pam Fick: “I have two guns in my home…It (sic) belongs in my home to protect my home and my family.”

        Pam Fick: “More guns in more hands in more places didn’t (sic) make people safer, it just made people more dead.”

        So, basically, Pam Fick has shown herself to be fully duplicitous on this issue. Either that, or her demonstrated cognitive dissonance on this issue rivals that of most folks who push around all their worldly possessions in a shopping cart.

        1. avatar

          And she probably has a single shot .22 and a cheap single shot 20 guage shotgun and because she feels “safe” in her home she thinks we all should withe the same arms…

          Notice how Shane Hoffmire and Pam Fick always have the same arguement? Shane states he is a gun owner and a 2nd Amendment supporter and so does Pam. Shane has a gun, Pam has 2, they both never take them out of their house though, it is like they are reading from a moveon.org script.

          Shane has quite the history of being duplicitous here on IP and Pam as the infamous “Recall Emerson” in the WNT tells a story. You cannot believe one word that comes out of either of their mouths. I would be very surprised if Pam or Shane even have a gun in the house…

          1. avatar

            Pam – Send us a copy of your DD-214. We’ll post it here, (if it exists at all). If you have shadow-box, send a photo of that, too! We will post that photo, to!

            Shane and Pam – Send us pics of your house and show us numerous photos of which guns you own, how and where you store them, where you keep them when not “stored”, where the ammo is, etc…Provide lots of photos and many descriptions. Please be sure to include your address and a front door photo, etc.. We will help you dissolve all our doubts about you!

            After all, this the same idea that the News-Journal had in New York State about gun owners there, only MUCH better. You should LOVE this idea and WELCOME this opportunity!

            1. avatar

              No, BillB. Remember, it should only be the “right” of the sheriff to enter homes without a warrant and a crime to not “consent” to check for the “safe” storage of firearms – according to the “safe storage” bill that the democrats introduce just about every year.

          2. avatar

            Cliff,
            I am not reading from any script, just simply speaking for what I believe is right.
            Not sure what gave you the idea that I never take my gun out of the house.
            I have a 1938 8mm mauser and its a blast to take out and shoot, I know its not much but its the only gun I can afford right now.

            1. avatar

              Also, I’m not sure about safe storage but my rifle leans against the wall at the head of my bed and the ammo sits on my headboard. It is my belief that this is safe storage in my home. I believe that in my home it isnt the governments bussiness of how I store legaly obtained items.
              I also sleep with a pitbull on my feet.

              1. avatar

                “Not sure what gave you the idea that I never take my gun out of the house. I have a 1938 8mm mauser and its a blast to take out and shoot, I know its not much but its the only gun I can afford right now.” Shane Hoffmire

                “It is my belief that this is safe storage in my home. I believe that in my home it isnt the governments bussiness of how I store legaly obtained items. I also sleep with a pitbull on my feet.” Shane Hoffmire

                Shane Hoffmire, using your stupid logic as it applies to the Oak Harbor City Council meeting
                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOeQDHvdMiQ&feature=youtu.be two scenarios are described below:

                I “feel” intimidated and threated knowing that you possess an 8mm Mauser and pit bull. Possessing these items is a threat to me and I don’t “feel” safe. Since you admitted on this forum that you are storing a firearm in your home in an unsafe manner, I “believe” that you are not competent to own a firearm. Since you admitted on this forum that you take your weapon out of your home I now “feel” terrified that you could suddenly go berserk and start shooting away at innocent citizens. Therefore, I “believe” that your 8mm Mauser and pit bull should be banned, and you should turn in your weapon and pit bull over to the government.

                Another approach to your stupid, empty headed logic is described like this: Shane Hoffmire and his fellow Progressive Democratic Socialists are using a two tactics to attack on the Second Amendment. The first tactic is descibed above and the second tactic can be demonstrated in this fashion:

                First they banned guns in school zones, but I didn’t have kids in school, so I did not speak out. Then they banned guns in parks and all government buildings, but I didn’t visit either, so I did not speak out. Then they banned open carry guns in all public places, but since I do not carry a gun openly outside my home, I did not speak out. And when they came for my concealed pistol license, there was no one to speak out for me.

                Then Shane Hoffmire and his merry band of empty heads proclaimed: This has nothing to do about the Second Amendment. You have the right to keep and bear arms, as long they are government approved, completely disassembled, have trigger locks installed, and locked in your panty drawer at all times and never taken out of the home.

              2. avatar

                Shane,

                Is the reason you keep the gun next to your bed with the ammo on the headboard to keep it readily accessible for self protection? And, if the answer is yes, then I will ask you the same serious questions, without the sarcasm, however, that I have posed to Pam Fick with no answer, yet, from her.

                If you keep the gun next to your bed and the ammo on the headboard for self-protection, there is really only one scenario that covers – a home invasion when the house is occupied. So, I must ask, why is it acceptable to be prepared for a home invasion when you are home, but not acceptable to be prepared for a nut job shooter in a park or a school or a Wal Mart or a restaurant?

                I am sure you have heard about the boy kidnapped off his school bus in Alabama by the man who shot and killed the bus driver? Since it is, at a minimum against school policy, and possibly against the law for the bus driver to be armed, what chance did the bus driver have to stop him? The only thing he could and did do was put his own body between the gunman and the children, not stopping the gunman, but delaying him enough, with the cost of his own life, long enough for most of the children to escape.

                Now, give the bus driver a gun. Does that guarantee he would stop the criminal? NO. But it certainly raise the chances of him completely stopping the gunman to something above zero.

                Why is it acceptable to pass laws that force our children to be without defense in a park or at a school, and yet you (possibly) and Pam Fick (confirmed) keep guns at home ready to protect yourselves and your families from a home invasion IF and only IF it occurs while the house is occupied? Where do the mass shootings occur? What is the percentage of criminals that break into occupied homes compared to the criminals that attack victims where the victims are most likely to be completely defenseless?

                Why is it, do you think, that it is extremely rare that a criminal will break into an occupied home? My guess is because they know that is the exact situation where they can expect to meet the most resistance.

                1. avatar

                  Let’s hope he is not using his Big 5 Yugo Mauser to defend himself in his home. Even though it may not be a modern cartridge it still has impressive penetration. It has enough penetration to go through your attacker and the next 5 houses in your neighborhood unless it hits something solid…sounds scary to me.

                  Heavy Pointed Bullet
                  Dry Pine 85cm at 100m (33 inches!)
                  Steel Plate 5mm at 100m (.19 inches)
                  Iron Plating 10mm at 300m (.293 inches)
                  (http://www.mausershooters.org/k98k/8_8mm.html)

                  Shane, trade your yugo in for a shotgun before you unintentionally hurt someone.

                  1. avatar

                    Its not from big 5, not exactly sure what it is all I know is that it has an after market stamp that says c.a.i. georgia ut germany 1938. I am palning on getting a handgun this spring that we could take backpacking with us after I get my cpl.
                    Do you have any recomendations of a good weapon of choice.
                    Deffinatly want one with some punch but not to heavy as every ounce adds to the pack on the wonderland trail. I was thinking probably a 40 cal or something of the sorts. Let me know if you have any sugestions.

                    1. avatar

                      Go to Greenes gunshop on Monkey Hill, they rent handguns. Try the ones you think are appropriate and see which one fits you and your abilities best. Remember that it doesn’t do you much good if you don’t carry it all the time though…you don’t have much input on where and when you may need to use it :)

  3. avatar

    I dont have a problem with the conceal carry of a firearm if the individual is qualified to do so. What I am against is the open carry of pistols and even rifles in council chambers or even a park.
    I do think that you have a right to protect yourself but I dont think you have the right to even unintintionaly scare people.
    I think most people when they see someone strolling through the park or attending a council meeting with a rifle in hand. I think most people think hey something could be a miss here and I better get my kids out of harms way just to be safe.

    I certainly think we must realize that the right to bear isnt the right to scare.

    1. avatar

      I open carry instead of concealed for 2 reasons. The first is that I would rather deter a crime from happening to me or my family rather than defend myself against a criminal act. If a criminal should happen to see my gun, there is no reason for them to commit a crime against me or in my presence when they can wait 5 minutes for me to leave or walk down the street one block and pick one of the rest of the 99.5% of the public that is not displaying the defensive capability to kill them. I have no desire to be a “hero” and rid the earth of anyone, even a scumbag criminal.

      In addition, if there is some hothead who is going to want to make a scene because they think I cut them off in traffic, took their parking place, or have 16 items in the 15 items or less line, they typically will just keep their mouth shut when they see the gun. Most of the time the first thought that goes through their head is “cop”. And, also, if I am tempted to go off on someone for some wrong I think they committed, the presence of my gun causes me to keep my mouth shut too.

      The second reason I open carry is because I don’t want the only image of guns that the public sees to be that presented in the movies or on the news. I want people to see a person who cares enough about his family to protect them, and that the protective instinct should be normal. I want them to see the person carrying the gun holding the door open for someone else, or chatting nicely with the cashier, or letting the person with one or two items go ahead in the checkout line.

      You can ask anyone who openly carries routinely in Washington and they will tell you the same thing: 95% of the public never notices or makes no indication that they have noticed the gun. 4% will indicate in some way that they support carrying a gun, a thumbs up, a compliment.

      1% will indicate a negative reaction to the gun. Most of those that are “scared”, just like you were Shane, have no problem sticking around, in the presence of the gun, to make sure that the guy with the gun knows they are “scared”. Which causes us to question just how “scared” they really are. Some of the 1% will just be mad about it for some reason, like Pam Fick. But, in reality, most of the people who indicate a negative reaction are the people who carry their gun concealed, with a CPL, and just can’t resist the urge to tell the open carrier that they have a CPL, carry their gun concealed, and that I should too.

      1. avatar

        John, Five Gold Stars for YOU! Your logic is most impressive. Unfortunately, you and many others are dealing with people that have a very different agenda, and that agenda is “the Second Amendment is OBSOLETE.”

  4. avatar

    What completely confuses me is the same people who ask “what do you need a gun for . Why are you so paranoid?” Are the exact same people who scream the loudest, ” ‘Gun violence’ is such a huge problem that the government must do something about it NOW!”

    Really? You are saying that crime is such a huge problem that the government must do something about it NOW, but I am paranoid because I take measures to protect myself from the actions of a criminal?

  5. avatar

    How have I missed this party for so long? Great discussions going on in here.

    1. avatar

      Thanks Brandon!
      Great to have you reading and commenting;

  6. avatar

    Shane, although we stand on complete opposite ends of this debate I am willing to put our views aside and will extend an invitation to you. You have stated you are interested in purchasing a handgun, just so happens that I own a few. I would like to invite you to a day of range time at the North Whidbey Sportsman’s Association range located on gun club rd. I would be more than happy to share my knowledge of firearms with you as well as some pointers I have picked up along my journey of being a US Army Cav Scout and Forward Observer. I have named the place, you name the time.

    1. avatar

      Brandon, thanks for extending this invatation to me.
      I am extremly busy right now with work and getting my son ready for baseball and remodeling our house.
      When things slow down I will give you a shout.
      PS: your wife is my dental hygenist, she sure seems proud of you.

      1. avatar

        I look forward to your contact Shane. Kara is a wonderful woman and is very good at her job, you are in good hands I assure you. Good luck on your sons upcoming season.

Comments are now closed.