Scoundrel
01-23-2013, 06:36 PM
This happened only 60 miles from me, and only 11 miles from one of my customer sites that I visit occasionally. I am proud of these folks (well most of them).
http://www.islandpolitics.org/?p=8732
In case you don't want to watch the 9 minute video at the bottom of the article:
(Note: I wrote this up before finding the website that summarizes it, but I'm keeping my summary in here anyway.)
This is a city council meeting, in which firearms are being discussed.
During the citizen comment period, a citizen goes up to the podium and speaks in favor of gun safety education and urges people to support the 2nd amendment. He mentions that he served in the military for 5 years and carries concealed every day.
When he is finished talking and sits down, one of the council members suggests that they ask the citizen if he is armed right now, at this moment, in the council chamber.
The question is passed to the city attorney, who states that this is the citizen comment period, and there is nothing in the regulations indicating that it would be appropriate for the council members to question the citizens. However, which he is saying this, the citizen stands up and approaches the podium again, so the city attorney adds that if the citizen wishes to answer the question, he is free to do so.
The citizen states that yes, he is in fact armed at this moment, and also says that he hopes everyone is comfortable with this, knowing that he served for 5 years in the military and sustained multiple wounds in the service of our country, and would protect anyone present with his life if the situation arose.
The council member who asked the question then made a motion to disallow firearms in the council chamber. Someone seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion was denied.
The council member who proposed the motion then excused himself and left. (Can anyone say "dereliction of duty"?)
Someone asked the city attorney as a point of curiosity, if that motion had passed, what the legal result would be.
The city attorney stated that due to state law pre-emption, that motion would have been unenforceable, and if the city police were asked to act upon it, they would not have been within the law to do so.
The mayor then addressed the citizen directly, by name (he got the name wrong but was genuinely abashed when he was corrected). He told the citizen that the same congress person who had attempted to pass that motion had also attempted to pass a motion which would have prohibited the citizen from wearing a hat in the council chamber, and now that member had tried to remove the citizen's rights. The mayor apologized to the citizen for having to go through that, complimented him on handling it well, even though he was not required to answer the question, and told the citizen that he felt safer due to the armed citizen's presence. He mentioned that apparently some elected officials are choosing to exceed the scope of their elected position to take away our rights.
He also picked up a framed document, which was the oath he swore to as a city council member, and read some passages from it about supporting constitutional rights as well as local laws. Then he said that as much as city council members would like to use their positions to infringe upon the rights of others, that is not their job and they are not allowed to do that.
He apologized to the citizen multiple times for the situation, and thanked him for being present.
http://www.islandpolitics.org/?p=8732
In case you don't want to watch the 9 minute video at the bottom of the article:
(Note: I wrote this up before finding the website that summarizes it, but I'm keeping my summary in here anyway.)
This is a city council meeting, in which firearms are being discussed.
During the citizen comment period, a citizen goes up to the podium and speaks in favor of gun safety education and urges people to support the 2nd amendment. He mentions that he served in the military for 5 years and carries concealed every day.
When he is finished talking and sits down, one of the council members suggests that they ask the citizen if he is armed right now, at this moment, in the council chamber.
The question is passed to the city attorney, who states that this is the citizen comment period, and there is nothing in the regulations indicating that it would be appropriate for the council members to question the citizens. However, which he is saying this, the citizen stands up and approaches the podium again, so the city attorney adds that if the citizen wishes to answer the question, he is free to do so.
The citizen states that yes, he is in fact armed at this moment, and also says that he hopes everyone is comfortable with this, knowing that he served for 5 years in the military and sustained multiple wounds in the service of our country, and would protect anyone present with his life if the situation arose.
The council member who asked the question then made a motion to disallow firearms in the council chamber. Someone seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion was denied.
The council member who proposed the motion then excused himself and left. (Can anyone say "dereliction of duty"?)
Someone asked the city attorney as a point of curiosity, if that motion had passed, what the legal result would be.
The city attorney stated that due to state law pre-emption, that motion would have been unenforceable, and if the city police were asked to act upon it, they would not have been within the law to do so.
The mayor then addressed the citizen directly, by name (he got the name wrong but was genuinely abashed when he was corrected). He told the citizen that the same congress person who had attempted to pass that motion had also attempted to pass a motion which would have prohibited the citizen from wearing a hat in the council chamber, and now that member had tried to remove the citizen's rights. The mayor apologized to the citizen for having to go through that, complimented him on handling it well, even though he was not required to answer the question, and told the citizen that he felt safer due to the armed citizen's presence. He mentioned that apparently some elected officials are choosing to exceed the scope of their elected position to take away our rights.
He also picked up a framed document, which was the oath he swore to as a city council member, and read some passages from it about supporting constitutional rights as well as local laws. Then he said that as much as city council members would like to use their positions to infringe upon the rights of others, that is not their job and they are not allowed to do that.
He apologized to the citizen multiple times for the situation, and thanked him for being present.