Full of Win ! - Oak Harbor, Washington Repeals Ban on Guns in Parks, Marinas

OAK HARBOR, Wash. -- Pro gun activists poured into Oak Harbor City Hall Tuesday night to speak out against a councilman who tried to ban guns from city meetings.

It was standing room only inside council chambers, and many attendees proudly announced they were carrying weapons. The men and women turned out to tell the council the city's gun ban in local parks is illegal and the attempt to ban guns at City Hall is out of line.

After hearing from residents on both sides of the issue, the council concentrated its focus on the rule of law. State law specifically blocks cities from banning guns, and Second Amendment supporters have already threatened to sue.

With those facts in mind, the council voted to lift the ban.

Oak Harbor was thrust into the national spotlight two weeks ago with an Army veteran named Lucas Yonkman.


More

[link to www.komonews.com]

"....because of threat of lawsuits the city counsel decided to end the ban"


www.oppt-in-washington.org

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Last Edited by The Wordsmith on 02/09/2013 07:53 PM

GREAT post!!

I would give you five but I exceeded the limit.

Thankx Beeches !

Any time people stand up for their right to self-protection, it is good.

And it is even better when they win.

Would you like to know why the threat of lawsuits would compel the counsel to do the right thing?






Good question....



Because the Counsel members CAN BE HELD PERSONALLY LIABLE....


That's why.

I'm sure that Obama, Eric Holder and the Department of "Just Us" will have something to say about this ....

As a matter of fact....

Although most corporate officers do not know this....

but ALL of them can be held....PERSONALLY LIABLE.





They are NO longer protected by their corporate status.

^
^
^
^
^

Last Edited by The Wordsmith on 02/09/2013 07:58 PM

And I would ask them all to comment on this....


The Dick Act of 1902 also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902 invalidates all so-called gun-control laws. It also divides the militia into three distinct and separate entities.

The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for are the organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia, the unorganized militia and the regular army. The militia encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45. All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy.

The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The President of the United States has zero authority without violating the Constitution to call the National Guard to serve outside of their State borders.

The National Guard Militia can only be required by the National Government for limited purposes specified in the Constitution (to uphold the laws of the Union; to suppress insurrection and repel invasion). These are the only purposes for which the General Government can call upon the National Guard.

Attorney General Wickersham advised President Taft, "the Organized Militia (the National Guard) can not be employed for offensive warfare outside the limits of the United States."

The Honorable William Gordon, in a speech to the House on Thursday, October 4, 1917, proved that the action of President Wilson in ordering the Organized Militia (the National Guard) to fight a war in Europe was so blatantly unconstitutional that he felt Wilson ought to have been impeached.

During the war with England an attempt was made by Congress to pass a bill authorizing the president to draft 100,000 men between the ages of 18 and 45 to invade enemy territory, Canada. The bill was defeated in the House by Daniel Webster on the precise point that Congress had no such power over the militia as to authorize it to empower the President to draft them into the regular army and send them out of the country.

The fact is that the President has no constitutional right, under any circumstances, to draft men from the militia to fight outside the borders of the USA, and not even beyond the borders of their respective states. Today, we have a constitutional LAW which still stands in waiting for the legislators to obey the Constitution which they swore an oath to uphold.

Charles Hughes of the American Bar Association (ABA) made a speech which is contained in the Appendix to Congressional Record, House, September 10, 1917, pages 6836-6840 which states: "The militia, within the meaning of these provisions of the Constitution is distinct from the Army of the United States." In these pages we also find a statement made by Daniel Webster, "that the great principle of the Constitution on that subject is that the militia is the militia of the States and of the General Government; and thus being the militia of the States, there is no part of the Constitution worded with greater care and with more scrupulous jealousy than that which grants and limits the power of Congress over it."

"This limitation upon the power to raise and support armies clearly establishes the intent and purpose of the framers of the Constitution to limit the power to raise and maintain a standing army to voluntary enlistment, because if the unlimited power to draft and conscript was intended to be conferred, it would have been a useless and puerile thing to limit the use of money for that purpose. Conscripted armies can be paid, but they are not required to be, and if it had been intended to confer the extraordinary power to draft the bodies of citizens and send them out of the country in direct conflict with the limitation upon the use of the militia imposed by the same section and article, certainly some restriction or limitation would have been imposed to restrain the unlimited use of such power."

The Honorable William Gordon

Congressional Record, House, Page 640 - 1917

Last Edited by The Wordsmith on 02/09/2013 08:03 PM

You're welcome, WS.

Parks can be really dangerous, I remember once being accosted in a park in Germany, of all the safe places, because the man I was dating at the time and I, well, we walked
unknowingly into a homosexual area. I do not wish to make this about sex, but wow, they were not happy to have us walking around and looking for a bench to sit on in "their" area.

We moved on, right quick.

So even with a male escort, a woman does not always feel safe.

In Germany, I had a "fake" gun that shot caps. It was a stage prop.

Because I was an American woman, they were never quite sure it wasn't real!

A Walther replica. I can still remember walking around with it in my purse, ready at hand, when I was out and about at night in Germany. Great feeling!

It would be decades before I returned home and learned how to use the real thing.

Guns are tools. They make some jobs much safer (jeweler, process server).
They protect your home.
I do not love them, but I respect them.

Again, nice thread!

At this point, who really gives a fuck.

IRS audits and child porn allegations can do wonders to make people change their mind on certain topics !

Did not know that.

Thanks again.

An IRS AUDIT can be stopped in it's track by requiring an Official accounting signed by IRS agent.

If the account is incorrect. the agent can be held....PERSONALLY LIABLE.

Superb!!!!!!

It would seem we can hold all kinds of Gov. rats personally liable. What are some more examples. This is great!

To hold them liable... you will most likely have to go pro se.

or have someone who is not an attorney to assist you.


You see.... many judges and many scribes have banded together... to take from you... your property.


But the judges...aren't judges....

And the scribes cannot testify.... nor can they lay claim...

Thank you Wordsmith. Everyone needs to be better informed on these things. Keep teaching!