Well done, Dave! Nice write-up. Sock it to 'em.
Several people have commented about the number of people in attendance at the beginning of the video and at the end. The video was edited as the length of the meeting was nearly 2 hours and most of the citizens left after the public comments portion of the meeting.
I am proud of the Mayor and a proud military member of Oak Harbor. I wish I had a picture of my shipmates lined up outside the Police Department to apply for their CPL last week.
Nicely done Mr. Mayor!
Dave, nice plug for Defensive Carry in the article.
Good work Mr. Workman! (pun intended) :hand10:
Please allow me my Beavis and/or Butthead moment - the interim city attorney's name is Grant Weed. Hehheheh heheh...
It's too bad that the *a-hem* esteemed councilman didn't stick around for the lawyer's interpretation of his woeful motion. I hope his constituents are as bothered as we are with his behavior and bounce his behind next election.
I confess I didn't read all the pages of this, so maybe it was addressed before.
But I participate regularly in my city government - because the rules are made by those who show up, and that is true.
Which brings me to the point of this council. Besides the 2nd Amendment issue there were multiple violations of procedure or at least in the two states I live.
One, the council can't make rules of procedure which affect the public without a full hearing. They can't make a new law up without input from the city attorney and without noticing the public and holding a public comment period, hearing, etc. Usually laws require two hearings, but not always. Third this motion was presented during the public comment period, a period in which the council generally must restrict rebuttal to the specific issue of the speaker, not to start a new line of discussion and certainly not a policy change or new law.
Normally, the councilman would state to the council during his report time that he wished staff to investigate a new ordinance. Then the procedure would follow the normal channels toward a new law - with the same result, so at least he showed what a jerk he was an saved the city a bunch of drama.
This thread, and the one I started about cops being exempt from gun laws, had every opportunity to get nasty at the get-go, but there has been some intelligent, and a little tongue-in-cheek, and some very pointed discussion. That's good and healthy. As a journalist, it provides me with good background, and a fairly understandable look at diverse thinking in the gun community.
I write this stuff for an audience that has functional gray matter. Contrary to the popular depiction, gun people are not knuckle-dragging dunces as a general rule.
I appreciate the following I've developed here.
Good to see that most of the people in the chamber had some sense. Kudos to the mayor as well for addressing the issue.
Sent from my phone using Dumb Thumbs
Gloves come off in SAF dispute with Oak Harbor
The Los Angeles Times is now looking into the potentially explosive gun rights dispute in Oak Harbor, Examiner has learned.
Gloves come off in SAF dispute with Oak Harbor - Seattle gun rights | Examiner.com
"Toast." That's about right. And the sooner the offending "slices" are burned to a crisp, the better for the people in that town.
Same could be said for the other folks attempting to lord it over the People, the anti-gunner hirelings in congress who are daring to force us all into bondage for the criminals they think we ought to be.
Good job Mayor. Then he publicly spanked them both. I wish we had more camera time on the anti that stayed to see his reaction to the public flogging.
Go get 'em, SAF. Knock them hard. :box3: