This citizen didn't say or do anything to indicate that he was the slightest threat at that time. The councilman would have accomplished his goals better by staying to discuss the issue.

But on the other hand I think council chambers are one of the few places where a carry ban may sometimes be justified. Of course it shouldn't just be a victim disarmament zone. They should only prohibit carry when they have reasonably effective security to prevent armed entry, and individual lock boxes to check in your carry weapon while attending the meeting.

I wonder what they could have accomplished with that guy gone? Too bad they didn't take full advantage.

Critic: "council chambers are one of the few places where a carry ban may sometimes be justified."

Strongly disagree. First, the citizen, Lucas Yonkman had military training and a current concealed carry license. The chances of him behaving wildly would be very low.

Second, I believe that if there is anywhere we should be able to carry, it is in to the lairs of those who would rule us. I want them fearing us. Councilman Rick Almberg is a craven coward, who understands, however perversely, that it is exactly politicians like him that the Second Amendment was written for.

In contrast, I'll point to court rooms as a place that I agree should be weapons free. Many people there are outright criminals; that's why they're in court. Their friends and allies cannot be trusted either. You put armed guards there, to defend the officers of the court, the jury, the witnesses, and the spectators.

I've noticed that the anti-2nd Amendment crowd can't stand to debate on the merits, if you don't cave in to them they refuse to have a discussion on an equal basis. I belong to a group that has coffee at a local restaurant every morning and a few days ago the subject of the 'assault weapon' ban came up and I mentioned I saw the FBI crime statistic that showed more people were killed with clubs and other blunt instruments than rifles of all kinds. I said it didn't make sense to me that there was such a push to ban any type of rifle (especially since most of the banned rifles were banned because of cosmetics.) One of the regulars has a caregiver who comes with him to the coffee and she got upset and left the table. She absolutely refused to listen to anything that contradicted her views.

I am really impressed with your writing skills as well as with
the layout on your weblog. Is this a paid theme or did you customize
it yourself? Either way keep up the excellent quality writing, it is
rare to see a nice blog like this one today.

There are many snobbish bullies roaming around, and the absentee councilman was one. Here in NYS they call themselves *Progressives*.

Kudos also to the interim city attorney at that city council meeting who explained the the effect of the Washington State preemption statute. The statute identifies several specific places where concealed weapons are prohibited and city council chambers are not one of them. See RCW 9.41.290 and .300

It is refreshing to see City government behaving in a rational manner for once on the issue of firearms.

Oak Harbor, by the way is home to Whidbey Island Naval Air Station and thus has a large military presence and attitude.

Here is some background information on this if you are interested:
http://www.islandpolitics.org/?p=8732
(We edited and posted the youtube video)

Needless to say we are going have a very interesting City Council meeting on the 5th.

What is amazing is all of the hullaballoo over this issue. Our laws are very clear on the subject of firearms in Washington State. Our laws have reserved almost all Firearm Laws to the States jurisdiction and all other entities have very little authority to make laws regarding firearms See RCW 9.41:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41
This issue was caused by a city councilman who truely believes he is above the laws we all follow...