2nd Amendment is for the people | Letters
February 8, 2013 · Updated 2:30 PM
This letter is in regards to the Letters to the Editor in the Jan. 26 edition of the paper.
1. Gun law was about national security by Mr. Klein.
Mr. Klein does what certain types of people do best, they cherry-pick the facts to fit their version of the world.
He quotes the Second Amendment, however, “someone” forgot to put in a couple of commas.
Here is the Second Amendment as passed by Congress:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The Bill of Rights deals with personal freedoms.
Look at the very name, the Bill of Rights.
In each Amendment it directly or indirectly mentions “the people.”
To say that the Second Amendment has nothing to do with personal freedoms is ridiculous.
When Mr. Klein defined the preamble of the Second Amendment he left out the part where it’s about protecting the people of the United States of America from tyranny within.
2. Guns shouldn’t be at council meeting
In regards to the letter written by Mr. Wall, sir, if you appreciate state law (Washington state’s preemption law, RCW 9.41.290 and RCW 9.41.300) then why did you even write your letter?
Until Washington state law is changed, the right to carry a firearm in places not specifically mentioned by the state’s preemption law is the law.
The City Council has no right to propose and vote on an agenda item that violates state law.
They can propose all they want, when their own attorney (city attorney) tells them their proposal is against the law do you think they should listen to him?
If not, then they might as well save the city the money they spent on his council regarding legal issues for the city of Oak Harbor and fire him.
You speak of “a fair and balanced democracy.”
Sir, you do realize that the form of government the United States of America has is known as a Constitutional Republic.
The city of Oak Harbor has never had an issue with firearms being carried into city hall; in fact, it has been such a non-issue that the carrying of firearms in City Hall was never codified by the city of Oak Harbor.
In regards to your statement of “perhaps the motion was not protocol, appropriate, or whatever ...”
We are a nation of laws.
Most are fair and just, placed into effect to prevent or protect.
The city of Oak Harbor passed the code dealing with City Council meetings, part of that includes an agenda.
Does Mr. Almberg think he is above the procedures of the meeting? What would be the repercussions if a citizen interrupted the City Council meeting during the agenda item session of the meeting to ask his questions and continued to ask his questions to the point of disrupting the meeting?
I am fairly certain that person would be asked to leave and then removed from city hall if they refused to comply.
3. Gun debate isn’t really gun debate
For Mr. Smith, please look at Washington state’s preemption law, RCW 9.41.290 and RCW 9.41.300, therein lies your answer.
I have a suggestion and an observation to make.
1. Hold the City Council meetings in “that portion of an establishment classified by the state liquor control board as off-limits to persons under 21 years of age...” (RCW 9.41.300)
2. Concealed means concealed.