• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Is Oak Harbor going to follow Seattle into lawsuit club?

Stretch

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
489
Location
Pasco, WA, ,
MSG, please thank the mayor for standing up to the the bullying (yeah I'm using their language) that Councilman Almberg attempted at the last council meeting. Thank him for standing for our constitutional rights as law abiding citizens.

Stretch
 

Dave Workman

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2007
Messages
1,874
Location
, ,
The gun grabbers wanted to move the meeting to a school. They did not get their way! :banana:

Had a very nice interview with the lady involved:

Oak Harbor antis fail to exclude gun activists from debate

A Democrat precinct volunteer in Oak Harbor has confirmed to Examiner that opponents of guns in city parks are trying to pack the city council meeting next Tuesday specifically to keep gun rights activists out.

http://www.examiner.com/article/oak...ude-gun-activists-from-debate?cid=db_articles
 
Last edited:

SeattleWingsfan

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
188
Location
Lakewood, Washington, United States
I love it.... In effect. please circumvent those mean unstable gun people's constitutional right, so I can feel better attending something I am able to attend... I just don't want to risk my life, exercising my constituional right. You can't use one part of the constitution to remove another part. they uphold and go together.

News to you lady.. who's to say some wacko doesn't shoot one of us after attending said meeting without a gun and voicing our opinion. Then we in effect couldn't protect ourselfs because they circumvented our 2nd amendment rights so you would feel safer... and all we wanted to do was actually stand up for the constitutional rights you speak of.

Besides you risk your life in someway everytime you get out of bed. stepping in the shower, getting in your car... both of which are more likely than getting shot at a cousel meeting.
 

LkWd_Don

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2012
Messages
572
Location
Dolan Springs, AZ

It seems that Oak Harbor is giving lip service! Please read their proposed amendment to the OHMC 6.14.070 on page 95.

They are striking out "or to carry any firearm", but will still leave in verbiage that in effect requires that you have to have prior written permission from the Council to use a firearm to protect yourself.

I personally view that insufficient correction as being a Political manner of Lip-Service!

I am not a resident of Oak Harbor, and due to prior commitments, will not be able to attend the meeting, to convey that.
 

BigDave

Opt-Out Members
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
3,456
Location
Yakima, Washington, USA
They are striking out "or to carry any firearm", but will still leave in verbiage that in effect requires that you have to have prior written permission from the Council to use a firearm to protect yourself.

6.12.010 Prohibited Activities-Gross Misdemeanors

Section 1 The following activities are not permitted in city parks'
(h) Using weapons in the park except in lawful self defense or defense of another

Section 2 It is unlawful to shoot, fire or explode any firearm, fireworks, firecrackers, torpedo or explosive of any kind or shoot or fire any air gun, bows and arrows, BB gun or use any slingshot in any park without the written permission of the council.

The verbiage you are referring to has to do with discharge of weapons which the city can regulate except for in self defense which is noted in Section 1
 

LkWd_Don

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2012
Messages
572
Location
Dolan Springs, AZ
6.12.010 Prohibited Activities-Gross Misdemeanors

Section 1 The following activities are not permitted in city parks'
(h) Using weapons in the park except in lawful self defense or defense of another

Section 2 It is unlawful to shoot, fire or explode any firearm, fireworks, firecrackers, torpedo or explosive of any kind or shoot or fire any air gun, bows and arrows, BB gun or use any slingshot in any park without the written permission of the council.

Yes, I read that, and understand that the revisions being made are technically bringing the Municipal Code into compliance with RCW 9.41.290!

The verbiage you are referring to has to do with discharge of weapons which the city can regulate except for in self defense which is noted in Section 1

The verbiage I am referring to, still leaves it open for LEO's to misinterpret, and therefore continue to harass.

This being a free country and all, you may view it how you wish, I can only hope that you would not find yourself in a position trying to explain to a LEO how you didn't have a prior permission slip from the City Council to discharge your firearm. Even though section 1(h) says you can use it in defense of self or others, show that nice LEO where section 1(h) says that use means the same as discharge, when discharge requires a prior permission slip.

They might argue that it means to display and club your assailant over the head with your firearm, and not to discharge it.
 

LkWd_Don

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2012
Messages
572
Location
Dolan Springs, AZ
Additional thought on wording

6.12.010 Prohibited Activities-Gross Misdemeanors

Section 1 The following activities are not permitted in city parks'
(h) Using weapons in the park except in lawful self defense or defense of another

Section 2 It is unlawful to shoot, fire or explode any firearm, fireworks, firecrackers, torpedo or explosive of any kind or shoot or fire any air gun, bows and arrows, BB gun or use any slingshot in any park without the written permission of the council.

If the section 2 were to include in its verbiage a phrase similar to "unless used as permitted in Section 1 above", then there would be no doubt, and therefore no way that a LEO could misinterpret the meaning.

Are you following what I am saying yet?
 

bmg50cal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2011
Messages
306
Location
WA - North Whidbey/ Deception Pass
I just read the thread start to finish. I followed all the links, wow; what fun! I've been missing out on the show; I've been out of state and my laptop died over a month ago, but now I've got a replacement.

I wonder if the show will be over before I get back. This sounds more interesting than the drive-in and free to. ;)
 

MSG Laigaie

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Messages
3,239
Location
Philipsburg, Montana
Whatcom County

SVG and I will be leaving B'ham at 1600 (four pee em) for the Oak Harbour project. If you need a ride, please message me. We have room for two more.
 

bmg50cal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2011
Messages
306
Location
WA - North Whidbey/ Deception Pass
I'll revisit the fact that Island county also has an illegal prohibition of firearms in their parks.

Just found the illeagal prohibition of firearms in Island County parks.

http://www.islandcounty.net/code/CountyCode.htm

http://www.islandcounty.net/code/documents/ICC09.pdf

Title IX - Public Peace, Safety, and Morals


9.40.320 Firearms, Weapons, Hunting Prohibited
No person, except duly authorized law enforcement personnel, shall possess a firearm in any park area. No person shall discharge across, in, or into any park area a firearm, bow and arrow, air or gas weapon, or any device capable of injuring or killing any person or animal, or damaging
or destroying any public or private property, except, when the department has authorized a special recreational activity allowing such use or uses.
(Ord. C-44-90, adopted April 9, 1990, effective May 15, 1990, vol. 31, p. 60)

Even though 9.06.010 says the following 9.40.320 still needs changed.

The prohibition of the discharge, firing, shooting and use of firearms provided above shall not abridge the right of the individuals guaranteed by Article I, Section 24 of the state Constitution to bear arms in defense of self or others or law enforcement officers in the performance of their official duties.

Coupeville should be getting visits as well soon enough.
 

fire suppressor

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2008
Messages
870
Location
Kitsap County
I just watched the video story on king 5 it looked liked a great turn out! I could have done without king 5's snickers and attitude but they made it clear what the state law actually states. Thanks to everyone for showing up and making our voice herd and a very special thank you to the 2nd amendment foundation for scoring a win!
 
Last edited:

DCKilla

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2010
Messages
523
Location
Wet Side, WA
Could this have been done without a threat of a lawsuit? I believe in keeping things at the lowest level possible.
 

Metalhead47

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2009
Messages
2,800
Location
South Whidbey, Washington, USA
Could this have been done without a threat of a lawsuit? I believe in keeping things at the lowest level possible.

It certainly would not have been done as quickly. I don't think anyone was was expecting such a quick turn around as what we saw that evening. Without the SAF's big stick to back us up this could have gone on for months just like Seattle.
 
Top