handgun_holster_ap980.jpg
There were handguns in holsters and rifles slung over shoulders and an unknown number of people concealing their weapons as the Oak Harbor City Council met. (AP Photo/File)

Crowd packs heat; Oak Harbor backs down

BY Chris Sullivan  on February 6, 2013 @ 6:26 am (Updated: 8:31 am - 2/6/13 )

It's been three weeks since an Oak Harbor city councilmember started a national controversy by trying to kick out a wounded Army veteran who was legally carrying a weapon during a council meeting.

Councilmember Rick Almberg then walked out.

The council was met by 160 people Tuesday night, many who were packing heat.

There were handguns in holsters and rifles slung over shoulders and an unknown number of people concealing their weapons as the Oak Harbor City Council met. Many attended the meeting to show support for veteran Lucas Yonkman who Councilmember Almberg tried to have kicked out of City Hall last month, including Joe Hawkins who openly mocked him. "Mr. Almberg I just want you to know that I have a concealed ham sandwich right here I don't want you to get up and walk away," he chuckled.

Most attended the meeting to oppose the city's ban on guns in parks and the marina. The Second Amendment Foundation had threatened to sue if the ordinance wasn't overturned.

Sandy Peterson spoke out against the ordinance. "If the city council members are intimidated by people exercising their Second Amendment rights to bear arms, perhaps they need to examine what it is about that that makes them uncomfortable," she said.

William Frail had an M-1 rifle on his shoulder as he testified. "Sir, my mother was Jew," he said. "My family went to the chambers. I will not go into the night quietly while these two ask me to board the train."

But not everyone spoke in favor of overturning the ban. Shane Hoffmire doesn't believe having guns in parks is a good idea. "While I support the Second Amendment and citizen rights to bear arms, I strongly believe guns do not belong in public spaces," he said.

Pam Fick also spoke out in support of the ban. "There are those here tonight who will argue that more guns in more hands and more places makes us safer," she said. "More guns in more hands and more places didn't make people safer. It just made people more dead."

Lucas Yonkman, the man at the center of this gun debate in Oak Harbor, also addressed the council.

"I come to you tonight with a heavy heart," Yonkman said. "I see a beautiful country divided and conflicted. I see a constitution being eroded, and the rights so many have fought and died for totally lost. I see men and woman who are elected leaders pushing personal agendas."

Yonkman believes the answer to mass shootings and community violence will be found in treating those with mental illness, instead of taking guns away.

The city council eventually voted to overturn the ban, which the interim city attorney had told the members was unconstitutional. The council did not call for the resignation of fellow member Almberg, which a few people had called for.

After the meeting, he said he hopes the city can move past this and get onto more important business.

Chris Sullivan, KIRO Radio Reporter
Chris loves the rush of covering breaking news and works hard to try to make sense of it all while telling stories about real people in extraordinary circumstances.
More Local News
Top Stories

  • This Is Reality
    For Seattle's Jason and Molly Mesnick, life is a far cry from the glamour of the 'The Bachelor'

  • Pink Protest
    Taxi drivers are upset about unlicensed ride-sharing companies in Seattle like Lyft

  • Busted
    DNA on Gatorade bottles helps bust Washington's biggest copper theft ever
MyNorthwest.com - Purpose of Comments statement
Bonneville Media encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comments can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior. We encourage your thoughtful comments which: have a positive and constructive tone, are on topic, are respectful toward others and their opinions. Bonneville reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

Comments (154)


  • Add A Comment

  • Mavila wrote...
    "Crowd packs heat; Oak Harbor backs down"
    February 6, 2013 8:52 am
    That's an unusual take and headline. How about, "Oak Harbor Agrees Gun Ban is Unconstitutional."
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • The Dude Abides wrote...
    News flash, gun owners...
    February 6, 2013 8:54 am
    I don't care how safe and respectful a gun owner you are. I don't know you from Crazy McNutjob, who plans to shoot up an entire park because his mommy didn't give him enough love when he was a kid. If I see you in the park with gun on you, I'm not going to feel the least bit safe. Not for me, not for my family, and not for the public. And btw, just because you have a concealed weapons permit, doesn't mean that you're a fully responsible gun owner.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • RonJ wrote...
    Dude abides by I don't know What
    February 6, 2013 11:59 am
    I don't know you from a love-sick mommies boy whos afraid to come out from behind her skirt, SO, I don't trust you not to plow your minivan through a crowd of children at a bus stop. And btw, just because you have a drivers license doesn't mean you are a responsible driver. Turn that piece of crap in at the next car buy back!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • BigBlackGuy wrote...
    Indeed!
    February 6, 2013 2:03 pm
    Speak your peace. The Dude Abides.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • It's me! Ha ha! wrote...
    The Dude Abides
    February 6, 2013 9:10 am
    I would bet that very few law abiding citizens are carrying in parks or any where else as you may think.

    In the event of a crazy or some gang type violence involving the use of guns you may be thankful for those few of us who are carrying!

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • The Dude Abides wrote...
    It's me...
    February 6, 2013 10:12 am
    considering how many people are "up in arms" (snicker) about this whole oak harbor issue, I would say that more people are legally concealing weapons than you might think. Honestly, should a gang war break out or some rtard with an illegal weapon open fire in a crowd, the last thing we need is innocents getting trapped in a crossfire
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • RonJ wrote...
    Stay away from
    February 6, 2013 12:00 pm
    crowds then abides and you'll need one less xanax.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • It's me! Ha ha! wrote...
    So what you are saying, The Dude Abides, is that
    February 6, 2013 2:55 pm
    if myself or someone else had a weapon capable of allowing this to be stopped, you think that it should not be used to try to stop this from happening? Since when do you get to decide what someone else does or does not do?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • BigBlackGuy wrote...
    If I'm not mistaking!
    February 6, 2013 2:09 pm
    The last guy in Seattle who had a concealed weapons permit in a park. Was a white guy who tried to kill someone. But shot another one in the process. But hey, I suppose to feel safe. Great.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • It's me! Ha ha! wrote...
    You can feel as safe as you desire.
    February 6, 2013 2:56 pm
    Racist dude!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • William Lawn wrote...
    I wonder what the vote would have been
    February 6, 2013 9:17 am
    If a bunch of tatted latinos had showed up with S&W 629's on their hips.

    I predict it would have been a VERY short meeting.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • William Lawn wrote...
    And that is why I don't like open carries
    February 6, 2013 9:30 am
    To be serious (for just a minute), I am a gun owner and have a ccl. Note that says CONCEALED Carry License.

    What is the point of an open carry except to make a point?

    I don't think the use of firearms to intimidate or make a point is right.

    Just like you might feel if a bunch of tatted up, thuggish bunch of whoever showed up at the park doing an open carry while YOUR family is there. I agree with the gentleman above. I don't know you. Don't know your intensions. Don't know theirs, either.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • William Lawn wrote...
    Meant to say one last thing
    February 6, 2013 9:37 am
    Go down to the Sherif's office and apply. It is easy. Put the darn thing away, legally.

    Don't use a weapon to make a point or intimidate others. Because a large percentage will be intimidated.

    OK, that is all.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • RonJ wrote...
    The point is
    February 6, 2013 12:02 pm
    for some of us is that we do not believe that we need a "permission slip" from the state to carry a gun, thus the open carry
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • William Lawn wrote...
    So wear it to work tomorrow
    February 6, 2013 12:11 pm
    Naw, you are doing as a symbol. Show up at my house to do the plumbing, your boss gets called and you get the boot.

    Or show up at Microsoft. Yeah, they will let you in.

    Open carry is about intimidation. Simple as that.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • RonJ wrote...
    It's an intimidation
    February 6, 2013 7:21 pm
    to those who are easily intimidated by, or, say kittens.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • mvpel wrote...
    Concealing is illegal
    February 8, 2013 9:37 am
    If it's so much better to conceal, then why is it illegal to conceal without government permission?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • BigBlackGuy wrote...
    Ha, ha, ha.
    February 6, 2013 2:12 pm
    Ha, ha, ha. Oh know, remember the "Constitution" states all men are created equal.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Cbrew wrote...
    Why is it so hard for people to understand? FREEDOM has ALWAYS come with an element of Danger
    February 6, 2013 9:26 am
    You MUST understand that in order to live in a free society, you must except the risk that comes with it. This was understood when this Country was founded. WE THE PEOPLE have to understand that in order to have our freedoms we must accept that bad people WILL take advantage of us. We have Free Speech, because of that, lunatics can scream about their fringe ideas, terrible people can protest soldier's funerals and Racists can spew their hatred... but I'm not willing to ask that we limit everybody's free speech in order to silence those hatefilled few. The 4th amendment means the Government can't illegally search my stuff, does this mean that law enforcement doesn't always get to go off a hunch and search somebody they want to that could keep us safer, YES!!! but we all take that risk because we want to be free of living in a society where good people are harrassed by the Government... It's the same with the second Amendment, There are indeed criminals and crazy people that have guns, but we have to accept this or have everyone give up their freedom for those psychotic few. It's the bottom line... we can argue back and forth forever about safety and about the constitution but the bottom line is, if you want to live in a Free Society you need to understand that it comes with a risk, a risk Americans have ALWAYS been willing to make since the very beginning of this country and maybe some of you aren't willing to take that risk, but that was what this country was founded on and if you don't like it, maybe you should not be an American... I'm sorry to use the tired rhetoric of "if you don't like it you can get out" but it's the truth here... Move to a society that limits your freedoms in the name of safety... move to a country where the Government is allowed to detain you indefinitely on the suspicion that you might be dangerous or for whatever reason they want for that matter... Move to a country where you can't speak out against Tyranny or anything unless the Government sponsors it for that matter... If you don't want to move to a society like that, then you should be supporting the 2nd Amendment and every other amendment in the constitution which has given this country the ability to remain free for 237 years.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • HLC wrote...
    What you limp lefties keep forgeting.
    February 6, 2013 9:31 am
    The latest crazies to fire up the areas have been lefties themselves. Get your own house in order before coming after law abiding citizens. That goes for you to BBlackgirl. Seems most gun violence is caused by young black men. See Chicago and DC. I bet all you lefties support Obozos right to use drones to kill americans planning to do the country harm without an arrest or trial.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Cbrew wrote...
    HLC
    February 6, 2013 9:45 am
    I think you're going a bit far... pinning all these incidents on a specific party is ridiculous... there have in fact been crazies who lean right politically that have shot up places etc. so don't make it out to be a party thing... and as for the drone strikes... how can you possibly support the idea that the US cannot attack a terrorist who achieved US citizenship but openly targets the United States in terrorist activities? Obviously there needs to be serious checks and balances on this but at the same time you should not limit our ability to defend ourselves from terrorists because they were able to dupe us into allowing them to become citizens. It's not like we're always going to be able to fly into a foreign country and capture a terrorist that is operating against us in a foreign country... that's a no brainer to me... or do you think it's okay for a terrorist to simply find a way to get citizenship then put it on the military to not kill the guy if he's opening attacking the US?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • heyjim55 wrote...
    2nd amemdment
    February 6, 2013 9:47 am
    The gun control issue has always been about removing the 2nd amendment. Liberal's, progressives and particularlly Marxist which now days most Leftist's are hate the 2nd amendment. If you take power you need a obediant public and so long as they are armed it is all but impossible to do so. They have their dear leader in power and they have their thugs waiting quietly in the shadows just waiting for the time to do what so many other Toltalitarian society's have done before. Has anyone noticed how fast a politician produces a Bill right after an event occurs? These people can't do anything in a timely manner but all of a sudden they have a Bill and a whole lot of willing people support it.It's agenda driven these things are planned well in advance which means there is more coming our way as the political opportunities present themselves be ready!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Cbrew wrote...
    Why do people who are against the 2nd Amendment think.....
    February 6, 2013 9:58 am
    there's no way that they will need to defend themselves? Did they not witness what happened after Katrina? did they not see the lawlessness that occurred... the roving gangs of people looting and stealing from stores and people that had no means to defend themselves... even as great as this society is... The Government isn't going to be able to save you in all scenarios... Law and order breaks down... riots occur... Natural disasters occur and desperate stupid people become dangerous... criminals particularly take advantage of these situations... Being Naive and acting like it will never happen doesn't make you safe... is it unlikely? sure... but so is a fire in your home, does that mean you should remove your detectors or throw out your fire extinguishers? obviously not, the seldom need for these items does not make them irrelevent and it's the same with guns... Sure.. the Government hasn't tried to become tyrranical and taken away everybody's liberties and what not, but what happens if it occurrs when the populace has taken away everybody's right to bear arms? Nothing would stop them... there's many things we have to protect ourselves that are never necessary... Most likely you will spend far more money on car insurance in your lifetime than your insurance company will EVER pay you in an accident... So why have it? Same with fire insurance... why have it? because the risk of not being prepared outweighs the cost doesn't it? Same with Guns... how does this escape your small brains?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • William Lawn wrote...
    Here you go Cbrew
    February 6, 2013 10:21 am
    Very few are against your 2nd amendment rights. I'm certainly not, as I said above I have a CCL and a modest collection of target and historical firearms. If you were to offer me something I'm interested in, I'd buy it today.

    I have a single home defense firearm and a single concealed carry firearm.

    Slide stocks, 100 round mags and maybe even 30 round mags don't fall under 2nd amendment protection, in my opinion, unless you believe all arms fall under it. EVERYTHING! It says ARMS, not guns and historically we have put limitations on certain ARMS private citizens can own. If you believe it has no limits on ANYTHING, then a suitcase nuke is OK? Even if the owner's first name is Mohammed? And he is strolling toward the White House?

    Full autos?

    Well, that is not how things evolved, anyway. So my point and some other's point is there can be limitations on what ARMS are possessed. Even Anthony Scalia believes it.

    Do you?

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Cbrew wrote...
    William Lawn - sure
    February 6, 2013 10:50 am
    I'm not advocating that people should be allowed to own nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction, but i certainly believe that citizens should have the right to own the same standard rifle the Military issues... To be completely honest you know this to be true, cost alone prevents citizens from owning big time military equipment... technically you can own a tank, you can even get rounds for it, but you have to purchase it, get permits for it etc. ... but look at the pricetag, there's a reason our Govt owns them and regular citizens don't... but there's NO reason citizens shouldn't be allowed to own the basic service rifle of the Army.. If you look at the constitution and look at any amendment you will find there are instances where we are limited in those rights... We have free speech but we can't scream fire in a crowded mall with the intent to create a panic etc. there are some rules that we do employ to try and limit the way people can abuse our freedoms... but lets look at this objectively, when the second amendment was signed, the average citizen had the same rifle as a soldier... so why now can't we have the same rifle as the average soldier?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • William Lawn wrote...
    I disagree that cost is a factor
    February 6, 2013 11:11 am
    There are certainly people who could afford to have a tank. Now I also know it requires a special license, can't remember what it is called (destructive device, maybe) but I actually saw a type of cannon out on gun broker for a piddling $30K, cost of an inexpensive or middling car.

    But that ain't my point. You set a limit, so where is it?

    It is an evolving point that may never be to the satisfaction of everyone. And everyone has an opinion.

    But my main beef is these shows of force that are becoming more common lately.

    If they were latinos filled with tats, arriving in low riders would you have applauded their actions?

    Personally, I think the council would having gotten the frack out of there.

    As I said above, open carries are stupid.

    At least in my opinion.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • RonJ wrote...
    They certainly had
    February 6, 2013 12:08 pm
    canon during the revolution, so how come they 2nd was never meant to include canons in the very beginning?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • William Lawn wrote...
    So tow a cannon up to your next job
    February 6, 2013 12:20 pm
    Then you tell me how come.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • darthclown wrote...
    and it's guys like this
    February 6, 2013 10:03 am
    that are the reason I have a CCP and carry a gun. Not the carjackers, housebreakers and assorted marginal types. I carry to defend myself against 2nd Amendment crazies. I carry to protect myself from the NRA.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Cbrew wrote...
    darthclown - you make sense....
    February 6, 2013 10:05 am
    protect yourself from the people that swear to protect your right to bear arms... you're stupid and paranoid.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Zoeller wrote...
    Fartclown since you do not even know what the license is called-
    February 6, 2013 10:56 am
    I would assume that you have never had one. In WA. State they issue a CPL not a CCL. Fartclown if you are carrying a concealed pistol around with you in WA. State with your so called CCL I know a couple of detectives that would like to speak with you.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • William Lawn wrote...
    I think it was I who called it a CCL
    February 6, 2013 11:14 am
    I don't look at it every day. It is in my wallet. He called it a CCP.

    Who cares?

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Zoeller wrote...
    Awesome job Oak Harbor residents!
    February 6, 2013 10:12 am
    You just scored another one for the good guys. (Thank You.) We need to see more of this type of a turn out all across the nation.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }