Council member walks out of city meeting over armed veteran
The City of Oak Harbor is getting national attention after a recent video posted to YouTube shows a city councilmember walking out in the middle of a meeting when he learned a resident was carrying a concealed weapon inside city chambers.
Mayor Scott Dudley says within the last week his inbox and voicemail have been inundated with hundreds of messages from people around the country in support of his decision to apologize for Councilmember Rick Almberg's actions during the Jan. 15 city council meeting.
"Right now, as we speak, I have well over 300 emails all from people who felt compelled to reach out and say, 'Thank you for standing up and defending this disabled vet,'" Dudley said.
That disabled veteran is Lucas Yonkman who served more than five years in Afghanistan. The incident that unfolded between Yonkman and Almberg during the last council meeting was recently uploaded to YouTube and currently has more than 63,000 views
During the meeting, Yonkman said he wasn't planning to speak but felt it was necessary to encourage the local community to defend their Second Amendment rights.
"I am a professional with a weapon," Yonkman said. "I carry a weapon every day for the purpose of protecting people."
Dudley said Yonkman originally attended the meeting thinking the council was going to discuss carrying guns in city parks. The issue had originally been on the council's agenda in December after the Second Amendment Foundation notified Oak Harbor its current city ordinance on this issue was unconstitutional.
"The law states citizens are not able to carry a firearm in public parks. The foundation pointed it out to council," Dudley said. "We are always concerned about liability, especially anytime you have an entity out there who talks about suing and they would have every grounds to do so."
Dudley said while the council had tabled the issue and it was not on the Jan. 15 agenda, Yonkman decided to take a few moments anyway and address the council on protecting the Second Amendment.
"American people should be very careful about messing with the Second Amendment and changing it," Yonkman told the council. "It's there not just for personal protection but the protection of the American people."
Following Yonkman's comments, Councilmember Rick Almberg wanted the mayor to ask if Yonkman was currently carrying a weapon at the meeting. Dudley deferred to the city attorney - asking if such a question could even be allowed.
"This is the time set aside for the council to accept citizen comments," responded Grant Weed, interim city attorney. "I am not sure that there is anything in your council rules or procedures that invite the council to ask questions in return, but if the individual is willing to answer the question that is fine."
Yonkman told the council he was comfortable answering and confirmed that, "Yes, I have a concealed carry permit, and I am concealed carrying at this moment."
After learning he was carrying a concealed weapon, Councilmember Almberg made a motion to ask anyone carrying a firearm in the chambers to check their weapon with the police chief or police department, or leave the chambers.
"That's my motion, and I am waiting for a second," said Almberg.
Councilmember Joel Servatius seconded the motion, and it was moved to a vote.
Almberg's motion failed 4 to 2 and that's when the councilmember told the mayor he was going to leave the meeting.
"I was disheartened and frustrated," Dudley said. "It didn't seem that the elected official was frightened or fearful prior to knowing this individual had a firearm but once he found out he was legally carrying in a public place this councilmember choose to make political point, grand stand, and walk out and no longer perform the duty they were elected to do - conduct the city's business that evening."
Attempts to contact Almberg have not been returned.
Dudley said since the Jan. 15 meeting he has not spoken to Almberg or Servatius.
After Almberg left the meeting, Dudley took a few moments and apologized to Yonkman.
"There is no reason why a citizen should ever be treated like that, or a disabled veteran," he said.
The mayor said he expects to see a full crowd at the next city council meeting, Feb. 5, where he plans to reintroduce updating the city's ordinance on carrying guns in city parks.
Complete video of the city council meeting, broken up in sections, can be seen on the city's website.
I wish I had found this story here on KOMO when it first headlined. I live in Oak Harbor, but because I do NOT Facebook, cannot post on the local paper, Whidbey News Times, as their owners (Sound Publishing) refuses to create a work-around (such as reregistering with them), allowing anonymous posting.Â
Â
Personally, in relation to the Mayorâs response, Iâm happy I voted for the guy, and Almberg is a name I wonât forget during the next election. Won't be forgetting his cohorts names once I learn them either.
Howdy Bill, long time no see.
I would like any contact information for Mr. Almberg. It seems he is not nearly as popular as Mr Dudley.
I would like any contact information for Mr. Almberg, but it appears he is not nearly as popular as the Mayor.
Only thing one can say over this weasel leaving the room is "Buh-Bye."
The sheep always hate the sheepdog till the wolves come around!!
Almberg, I would like to know what branch of service he was an officer is and when, me personally Sergeant U.S. Army 1973-1980.
He does not sound like any member of the U.S. Armed Forces I know as we all Claim what Branch we were in.
@BigDave Look him up...Army, Airborne Ranger in the Special Forces, mid 1970's. Methinks he could still kick your sorry ass.
The issue is not the "gun", the issue is whether  a city counsel can not only retain a law that has been preempted by the State and same city counsel have law enforcement arrest people for NOT breaking the law. This is about a Hoplophobe being afraid and attempting to make others afraid.
I hope more armed citizens show up to the meetings so that this POS will leave. Go hide in a closet.
The NRA does not exist for GUN OWNERS it is there for the manufactures.
Â
 @nwlib Your wrong, and i think that unless your a member you would not know that, the NRA is not trying to push those who dont want guns to get them they and we just ask for law abiding people for you to leave us alone...it is the criminal aspect that is the problem...such as drinking and driving...should all cars betaken away because some feel they are assault weapons....
 @nwlib What's the difference?  You can't have one without the other.  It's a symbiotic relationship.
 @K. Coleman  @nwlib The point is that the NRA looks out for the interests of the gun makers, NOT the members - who SHOULD be their first priority.
And the interests of the members is not the same as the makers.
Look at the current hysteria over the "assault weapons" we see now: who is really benefiting from the stores running out of guns? Sure, the buyers are getting guns (most of which they would not have normally considered buying at this time) but they are paying higher prices, and sometimes having to wait for delivery because store shelves are empty.
The big winners in this are the people who make the guns, magazines and ammo...
 @OrcasThunder  @K. Coleman  @nwlib Your wrong, as a member there are so many things that they do for us, it is not all about the makers...but again you would not know that as you are not a member...
 @K. Coleman "not just a few "Wacko-Fundies" or "Rabid Republicans""
Let me ask you a question: in looking at those "Wacko-Fundies or Rabid Republicans", the ones on the far right who don't seem to trust ANYONE, do you really think that some of them really SHOULD be buying weapons? I'm talking about the survivalists and underground "waiting for the revolution" types who could easily turn their home or compound into another Waco if the see a cop car coming towards their homes? The pro-gunners suggest checking for mentally ill people, wouldn't many full flaming survivalists be on that list - if only for being extremely anti-social?
 @K. Coleman "With *ALL* these guns flying off the shelves it proves one thing... it's not just a few "Wacko-Fundies" or "Rabid Republicans" buying weapons like the left would have you believe."
No...but it does indicate that there are a lot of people in this country who will hear the hype and panic...I think that is sometimes called "paranoia"...
Consider that those who actually WANTED such a weapon for a REAL and rational reason would either have already purchased one, or would see the prices and decide to wait until the panic subsides and the price returned to normal...or maybe even wait until one of those panic buyers decides they really don't WANT the thing, and offers it for sale.
And, contrary to what you seem to think, there are many gun owners on the left. Some are even NRA members.
 @K. Coleman  @OrcasThunder good food for thought K. Coleman.  i have been suggesting that this admin found a pretty clever way to stimulate tax money and the economy for months
 @OrcasThunder The most ironic & humorous thing out of all of this is that the President himself, through his actions, has done more to stimulate gun sales than anyone else in the past decade!
Â
With *ALL* these guns flying off the shelves it proves one thing... it's not just a few "Wacko-Fundies" or "Rabid Republicans" buying weapons like the left would have you believe.
For the most part the GUN LOVERS will eventually make the streets unsafe for all of us while the hold on to their GUNS with their cold dead hands.
Â
They will be out for themselves only if their ill contrived theory come to pass and Obama does get their guns.
Â
Â
Boy! Â He really showed them, didn't he?
A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity. -- Sigmond Freud, General Introduction to Psychoanalysis (1952)
 @KittySmasher Sigmund Freud's work on psychosexual motivation and psychoanalysis in general have been shown to be bunk. Modern psychology does not accept Freud's theories. Only armchair pop-psychologists do.
@KittySmasher You have to be sexually and emotionally frustrated if you feel the need to own and carry around a deadly weapon like it's your blankie. I've lived all my life without even thinking about gun ownership. I don't need a crutch to feed a big ego like you people.
 @Beth  @KittySmasher You will want one when the criminal comes into your house, and kills your family. You would never be able to defend them, because of your "Messiahs" need to take guns away from people who have done NOTHING wrong.
 @jowsuf  @pete1427 the gun owner owns a gun for protection for the same reason a car owner puts on his seat belt. the odds are you'll never need your seatbelt, but i'll bet you use them when driving.
 @maz I'm not saying you shouldn't have a gun at all. I'm saying you shouldn't have unreasonable fear about your safety.Â
Â
Relatively speaking, car accidents resulting in an injury are not that rare. Car accident fatalities are in the top 5 most common cause of death in most lists. Violence isn't even in the top 10 on any list I've found. It's about prioritizing what's important. You should be concerned about the things that are the real threats to your life, not the scary rare events. You have a 1 in 5 chance of dying from heart disease and a 1 in 7 chance of dying from some type of cancer. Are you adapting your lifestyle to protect yourself and your family against heart disease as much as you're protecting them from violent crimes? The vast majority of people aren't.
 @jowsuf  @pete1427Â
I'm curious. Do you happen to wear a seat belt when you're in a vehicle?
Believe it or not, vehicle accidents resulting in injury are quite rare, statistically. In reality, wearing a seat belt is not necessary. Unless, of course, you feel like you should protect yourself...Just in case.
 @pete1427 You don't seem to realize that the average person will never be in a situation like that in their whole lives. It does happen, just like everything bad that could ever happen always happens. How many pilots died in airplane crashes from mechanical problems they had no control over? You also don't have the control you think you have just because you're armed. Do you think a gun is a free ticket to safety? If someone really wanted to shoot you, armed or not, they could find a way to catch you off guard.Â
Â
I very much understand the real threats in our society, but I don't exaggerate the odds of them happening to me. You'll be a million times safer by being aware and making smart decisions in your daily life than you ever will be just having a gun and winging it. Being proactive is the answer, not packing and waiting to see what happens.Â
Â
Another thing. Do you know why there's multiple news stories about home invasion murders? It's because they're RARE, so they're a big deal when they happen. I really hope you're not like everyone else who sees a few news stories about violence and thinks the world around them is disintegrating into absolute chaos.Â
Â
You'd do well to familiarize yourself with these psychological phenomena:Â http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error
Â
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neglect_of_probability
 @jowsuf I have more hours in the air than many commercial
pilots, 600,000+ miles on motorcycles, and at least a couple of million
miles of driving automobiles. Those are situations that I can control
to some degree. Locally there have been multiple situations where
a home owner has successfully defended the home by the use of
firearms, and unfortunately cases where the home owner did
not have any means of defending and ended up injured or dead.
The presence of firearms in the home separated the intended
victims, from the actual victims.----That sir is a fact that has been
proven repeatedly by numerous news stories. If you opt to ignore
those news stories, then you you have opted to put blinders on.
Â
It is you that do not understand the very real threats that exist in
today's society.
I have owned my own firearms since I was eleven and none
of my personal weapons have been used in any felony, nor
to shoot anyone yet. In more than one case they have
prevented a crime from occurring simply because they
were present.
 @pete1427 Do you simply opt to never be the victim of a plane crash by refusing to fly? It's the exact same thing. I'm making more of a gamble with my life getting into my car and driving around than I am not owning a gun to protect myself in my home. By a LONG shot. A looooonnggg shot. Keep things in proper perspective. Owning a gun because you're unjustifiably scared of society is foolish.
 @jowsuf If there is just ONE break in the area then I feel
justified to use deadly force to protect my family, and myself..Â
I simply have opted to NEVER be a victim of such crimes.Â
There have been break ins near where I live and thus am
prepared.
Â
If you opt to possibly be a victim then so be it.
 @pete1427 Consider the scale. Say there were 50 in Seattle in the past year. Take the entire population of Seattle, then spread out 50 home invasion murders over a year. Consider how many homes there are in Seattle. You're grossly exaggerating your risk. Just because it's scary and just because a few more happen than used to doesn't mean by any means at all you're in danger. Use your head.
 @jowsufNot so, there have been more than a few in Seattle,
and that is just one city.
 @Nuclearian Home invasion murders are extremely rare.Â
 @Beth  @KittySmasher You lack the mental and emotional maturity to be around or own firearms so by not owning one you are doing the world a favor.Â
For those who say we are paranoid that the government will try to grab our guns, please read the following in depth. If that isn't over-reaching, I don't know what is:
Â
http://www.wsbradio.com/weblogs/jamie-dupree/2013/jan/24/details-assault-weapons-ban-bill/
The leading cause of death is birth. How about we ban births?
 @Bornhere Repetitive comment is repetitive.
BTW Everyone... How are your 2nd AMD right working for you at the airport on a plane on a tour of the US Capitol how about inside a Federal Courtroom...those are public places like the Oak Harbor City Council chambers are they not...My bet not very well......
Â
Why don't you gun supporters challenge the 2nd AMD at those facility's?
 @nwlib What makes you think we don't?
 @Bornhere Cause your not in jail.
 @Bornhere TROLL... GOOD ONE
 @Bornhere  @nwlib "Go TROLL somewhere else."
Why? Don't you like the competition?
Every time someone disagrees with you, you call them a "troll"...seems to me you are projecting just a bit too much...
 @nwlib What is your f'ing point, already? Jeezus. Go TROLL somewhere else.
 @Bornhere So can you answer the post or not.
 @nwlib Whatever
@Beth  If you've made a judgement on my mental health simply because I disagree with you, then I don't think you're capable of a rational conversation.  Further, while talking about your freedom you're saying it is right to infringe on the freedom of others for your sake.  Sound a little self-serving?  Not very logical either.
In 2001 we had our 4th Amd rights taken away without a vote of the people at the airport. REASONABLE means that law enforcement must have probable cause to search and seizure, The Bush administration blanket painted us all suspects without cause and called it nessasary under the guise of homeland security and in the interest of national security.How many of us question our elected officials on this...very few
Â
If we can do that under the the label of homeland security then we should be able to declare a national emergency on those who own pistols,clips and assault rifles and suspend the 2nd Amd until a national discussion has taken place and new laws are adopted. Since Sandy Hook there has been 500 people killed in the USA by guns and more injured.
Â
We need to have a national discussion.
@nwlib I was expecting the VP Biden to hold that discussion. Seems it turned into a one way conversation rather quickly. He either has an agenda or a hearing problem. Discussions are to look at both sides of an issue, not just push your agenda on others. We have so many circumstances pointing to a definite need for more and greater firepower in the hands of good people.Â
 @PackNGPaw Biden is a moron. I expect nothing from him but incompetence.
 @Bornhere You'd get a kick out of The Onion's spoofs on Biden. If you haven't read any, go to The Onion website and read a few. It's absolutely hilarious.
 @nwlib "If we can do that under the the label of homeland security then we should be able to declare a national emergency on those who own pistols,clips and assault rifles and suspend the 2nd Amd until a national discussion has taken place and new laws are adopted."
Â
Go ahead and try. I guarantee, you will NOT like the result.
 @Bornhere Always have to threaten huh... do you say the same thing to TSA at the airport when you have to take off your jacket and shoes, empty your pockets, put your laptop in the tote and have your body x-rayed. Again the TSA is blanket saying you are something your are not...a terrorist suspect.
Â
Your guns are more a part of your personallity than a tool for defending yourself, I know how people with your traits talk at the water cooler, with big egos.
Â
BTW... How are your 2nd AMD right working for you at the airport on a tour of the US Capitol how about inside a Federal Courtroom...those are public places are they not...My bet not very well...... Why dont you challenge the laws at those facilitys?
 @nwlib  @Bornhere Really? Only the easy targets? If true, the NRA would have been gone already. So you LIE.
 @Bornhere  @nwlib "when you started doing personal attacks."
This from the one who calls everyone who disagrees with him an "f'ing troll"?
Not to mention the "
Go ahead and try. I guarantee, you will NOT like the result." statement - that seems pretty "personal" to me.
Â
 @PackNGPaw My answer to those who ask why I need a gun is, "I am a free American, and I intend to stay that way."
@nwlib @Bornhere You are right about the federal government overstepping its authority. They don't have the authority to infringe on the citizen's rights.  The fact that they haven't stopped infringing on our rights is something that needs changing. I'm afraid the woosie liberals will continue to be willing to give up all their rights in order to feel that false sense of security an out of control government offers. I would rather have my freedoms than false security anyday.
Â
So nice to see the Mayor of Oak Harbor gets it! I wish we had more mayors like him in this country. Not the ones that tell you how much soda pop you may drink.
 @nwlib You lost your chance to debate this when you started doing personal attacks. Bye.
 @Bornhere So why should a City Council Chamber be any different. If the government can make laws about guns at airports and courthouses, why because those are not appropriate places to have a gun and why is the City of Oak Harbor council chambers any different
Â
The NRA only goes after the easy battles.
Â
Â
 @nwlib Not a threat. Common sense tells me that you will not like the result. It ain't rocket science, sweetheart.
Â
As for the TSA... I don't deal with them, because it isn't worth my $$$ to get on a plane anymore.
Â
You sure say you know so much about me without ever having met me or seen my way of life. That makes your arguments and comments bogus. Can't get anywhere with logic so you have to resort to personal insults. Sadness.
Â
Bye.