City Council Overturns Gun Ban Following Opposition From Gun Owners

The town of Oak Harbor, Washington had a ban on guns in parks and marinas. But at a packed, standing room only city council meeting Tuesday night, the city was forced to repeal their ordinance amid vocal opposition from law-abiding gun owners and threats of lawsuits from gun rights groups such as the Second Amendment Foundation. Gun owners packed the place out to voice their opposition to the gun ban, and most of them were either carrying their firearm on their hip or slung around their shoulder. Even more shocking was that in spite of all those guns being present in that small room, not one person was injured or killed.

A couple weeks ago, this same city council gained national attention when a lawful gun-owner and military veteran named Lucas Yonkman came to a meeting, expressing his opposition to any kind of gun control. He told the council that he carries his firearm at all times and not just for his own protection, but for the protection of others as well. He then admitted that he was carrying right there in the council hall.

Immediately, Councilman Rick Almberg made a motion to ban all guns inside the council. His motion failed. Almberg then excused himself and left the room.

The mayor of Oak Harbor Scott Dudley is opposed to any gun ban and apologized to the veteran who stood armed before the council to express his opinion. A local Fox network reported:

 “‘I apologize for the situation,’ Dudley said to Yonkman. ‘They are trying to take your right to bear arms away.’ Dudley then voiced his support for Oak Harbor citizens carrying guns. ‘I, on the other hand, feel safer that you are here.’”

Gun owners and the Second Amendment Foundation had backed the Oak Harbor city council into a corner because in 2009, a Superior Court judge had ruled that Seattle’s similar ban on guns in parks and community centers was pre-empted by Washington’s state gun laws.

This is probably one issue where the liberal gun-grabbers in Oak Harbor would argue for more local government control. They want to be able to ban guns in their city without the state getting involved. I would agree with them that the more local the government is, the better. But they’re only in favor of more local government control in this case because they think the state’s gun control laws are too lax.

[js-disqus]