Posted on 01/25/2013 3:15:53 PM PST by marktwain
The mayor of Oak Harbor, Wash. has revealed to Examiner that he will revive a discussion about the city’s illegal prohibition on firearms in city parks at a Feb. 5 city council meeting, and he will not back down from what could be a political and philosophical donnybrook.
At issue is political correctness and anti-gun hoplophobia versus state law and constitutionally-protected rights. The Oak Harbor case is something of a microcosm of the national divide over gun rights.
Mayor Scott Dudley anticipates a standing-room-only audience at the meeting because of a recent video showing a verbal confrontation between a local resident who acknowledge he was legally armed in the council chambers, and an anti-gun city councilman. Lucas Yonkman, an Oak Harbor native who was disabled by an IED explosion while serving with the Army in Afghanistan, touched off the incident when he testified against the city’s ban.
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
Tons of back to the earth granola heads from seattle live up there.
But it’s Whidbey Island, where there’s a Navy base there. I was on the isle years as I spent a couple of semesters at UW. You’d think the populace would be ex-vets surrounding the base but the ones I encountered were a bunch of fruitnut libtards. Not the vets but techie hippies mostly from Microsoft.
Good video.
Nearly every Washington State town has dealt with this issue (state pre-emption/guns in parks and other public spaces). In fact, I personally corresponded with my City Attorney a few years ago. He acknowledged that the city’s ban on lawful carrying of firearms in city parks would not hold up under scrutiny, but the “no guns” signs are still there.
Not too sure about that. It’s a very very military town.
If you haven’t watched the video, watch it. The mayor puts the panty-wetting councilman in his place after the councilman runs off crying like a baby because the resident was carrying a scary gun.
This was litigated in the State Courts, when the City of Seattle declared a ban on firearms on City property including parks. They argued that as the owner of the property, just like a private business, they could prohibit firearms from their property.
What was pointed out was that they are not a private business, but a government agency created by State Laws. As such they must follow state laws.
This question has been asked (by Seattle) and answered (by the courts).
The real issue is that City governments are short of money and many are self-insured (or insured by by a group by an umbrella organizaton of cities) and afraid of being the “deep pocket” singled out for litigation. As such many probably are trying to make sure that if there is a firearms victim on their park property that they are less likely to be sued in court.
“But it’s Whidbey Island, where there’s a Navy base there.”
Back in the day they had the SERE training there.
“Back in the day they had the SERE training there.”
Thanks for the info. If they want real survival and torture-enduring skills, have them talk to a liberal from Seattle.
“Thanks for the info. If they want real survival and torture-enduring skills, have them talk to a liberal from Seattle”
LOL!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.