Washington City Councilman Objects To Veteran With Concealed Weapon, Tries To Vote Away His Right To Self-Defense
January 25th, 2013 | 
Author: 
Anybody on YOUR city council this crazy? You might be surprised.
A disabled 5-year veteran of the war in Afghanistan attended a Oak Harbor city council meeting in the state of Washington, and spoke for two minutes about why the 2nd Amendment was important and a right that should be protected. At one point he mentioned that he was a concealed carry permit holder and carried a weapon at all times to protect both himself and those around him.
When his remarks were finished, a city councilman immediately demanded to know whether the veteran was armed at this moment. The city attorney informed him that he couldn’t force the veteran to answer such a question, but the veteran obliged and respectfully responded that he was currently armed in accordance with the law, that he hoped everyone would be comfortable with that, and added that he would gladly give his life to defend any of them.
Instead of honoring this law-abiding hero, the city councilman immediately introduced a motion to require that all citizens either check their weapons at the door or leave the premises. The motion was denied, and the councilman walked out.
The mayor was much more reasonable, apologizing to the veteran and reminding the audience – half of whom had left – that all city council members had sworn and oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, as well as the state constitution and the city charter.
Even if the motion had passed, constitutional rights are NOT subject to a vote. No voter or politician has a legitimate power to deny you your rights. But as this incident clearly illustrates, we must ever be vigilant, because liberals will not hesitate to strip even a wounded veteran of his unalienable rights if they think they can get away with it.
Here is the video of the incident (councilman’s tantrum begins at the 2:08 mark):
View on YouTube
Here’s a clue for the councilman: guns are TOOLS that require a human being to fire them. It’s not the gun you should be worried about – it’s the person who is in possession of it. If you are so distrustful of your constituents – even law-abiding, wounded veterans – that you actually believe that they pose a threat to you simply because they choose to carry the means to defend themselves, you have NO BUSINESS in any public servant’s office!
Debunking Some Popular Media Myths on Guns
‘I Will Not Be Disarmed,’ Former Marine’s Letter Warns Gun-Grabbing Senator
Posted in Big Government, Constitution, Constitutional Limits of Government, Democrats, Fighting Back, Freedom, Individual Liberty, Intimidation, Leftist Agenda, Military, Nanny State, Radicals, Rights, Self Defense, Statism, Uncategorized | 
Tags: 2nd Amendment, Abuse of Power, Bias, Constitution, Fighting Back, Freedom, Gun Control, History, Ignorance, Individual Liberty, Intimidation, Law Enforcement, Leftist Agenda, Military, Personal Responsibility, Radicals, Rights, Self Defense, Socialism, Statism, Threats, Tyranny, Veterans, Violence, Washington
5 Responses to “Washington City Councilman Objects To Veteran With Concealed Weapon, Tries To Vote Away His Right To Self-Defense”
Leave a Reply
![](\\\"http://www.shareasale.com/image/728x9082.gif\\\")
![\\\\\\\"patriotic\\\\\\\"](\\\\\\\"http://www.shareasale.com/image/28326/728x90-patriotic.jpg\\\\\\\")
![\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Check](\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"http://www.shareasale.com/image/14154/728x902Check.jpg\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\")
Yeah, guns are tools, and who better to have them than a man who has proved himself in service of our nation.
Then again, take it from someone that’s served in municipal office… A lotta city councilmen are tools too. What a moron.
NAME of the idiot Councilman please?????
Obviously this councilman, Rick Almberg, decided to take the opportunity to move a personal agenda rather than conduct the business of Oak Harbor, as he was elected to do. Kudo’s to the Mayor, the other council members and the city attorney.
If one looks at the history of the 2nd Amendment and the right to bear arms, one of the reasons was to provide protection from, and the ability ot overcome, a tyrranical government, as the British were in the early days of America. Such is not an issue now, and thus far the United States of America remains, for the most part, a government “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” However, no one can foresee the future of America to any reasonable degree of certainty, especially 25, 50, 100 or even 500 years from now. For this reason alone, we should not disarm ourselves, our children, their children, or any future American – ever. This “inaliable right” keeps America’s governance “of the people, by the people, and for the people.”
Those council members that walked out and disrupted the meeting should be asked to step down since there personal agenda will continue to make them unable to perform there duties.