Quantcast
  1. Sign up now and join over 35,000 northwest gun owners. It's quick, easy, and 100% free!

Pro-gun Clark Co. commissioner speaks out

Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by Dave Workman, Feb 22, 2014.

  1. Dave Workman

    Dave Workman Western Washington Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    3,223
    Likes Received:
    2,386
    ‘Clark County employees do not lose their rights,’ says commissioner

    While Seattle Times readers don’t think very highly of a proposal, reported by that newspaper yesterday, to allow Clark County employees to have firearms if they are licensed to carry, County Commissioner Tom Mielke in an exclusive interview Friday with this column expressed a decidedly different perspective.

    ?Clark County employees do not lose their rights,? says commissioner - Seattle gun rights | Examiner.com


    Please click the "like" button if you read this column.
     
  2. Stomper

    Stomper Oceania Rising White Is The New Brown Silver Supporter

    Messages:
    12,888
    Likes Received:
    19,464
    I have always felt the "employer liability" argument was lame to begin with. People who carry a weapon for defensive purposes are still personally responsible for their actions.
     
    3MTA3 and (deleted member) like this.
  3. 3MTA3

    3MTA3 DMZ between Liberty and Tyranny Behind Enemy Lines Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    2,531
    Likes Received:
    5,606
    I'm FIRMLY opposed to gun free zones, but in this particular situation - the Clark County Building - sits on land leased from the VA, and you need to pass through VA land to access the building. The VA is a gun free zone, which amazes me as it is primarily staffed by veterans who we can assume understand the safe and proper usage of firearms. In any event, while Clark County could remove the "gun free" restriction, the building is an island inside a Federally designated gun free zone.

    I was in the building earlier that day for a meeting in the fourth floor conference room where the shooting took place, and there was a security guard posted at the main entrance between the coffee and the elevator. He was facing the main entrance with his back to the elevators and a hallway that connected to a secondary entrance. The entrance area is also an atrium and he was exposed to the floor above. His position was so poor I almost mentioned it to him, but didn't want to create a ruckus. Other than show there is no way he could have been of use for anything other than a robbery of the Coffee Shop, and if someone wanted him out of the way it could not have been easier.
     
  4. GunRightsCoalition

    GunRightsCoalition Vancouver Well-Known Member 2015 Volunteer 2016 Volunteer

    Messages:
    658
    Likes Received:
    412
    The VA building is a gun free zone as it is a federal building. I would need to do a bit of digging to determine with absolute certainty but I do not think VA land though would fall under that category.
     
  5. deen_ad

    deen_ad Vancouver, WA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,089
    Likes Received:
    1,310
    It's at The Columbin at Clark County could allow employees to carry guns | The Columbian


    Deen
    NRA Life Member, Benefactor Level
    "Defender of Freedom" award
    NRA Recruiter
    Second Amendment Foundation Member
    Washington Arms Collectors Member
    Arms Collectors of SW Washington Member


    "Having a gun is like a parachute, if you need one and don't have it you may never need it again"
     
  6. GunRightsCoalition

    GunRightsCoalition Vancouver Well-Known Member 2015 Volunteer 2016 Volunteer

    Messages:
    658
    Likes Received:
    412
    I've actually contacted David Madore to see if we can help in any way. (Did so a few days ago) Perhaps testifying or digging up statistics. He provided me with info. to call and discuss so we will see where that leads.
     
  7. rur862

    rur862 Seattle Active Member

    Messages:
    276
    Likes Received:
    165
    David Madore is awesome. I hope he will consider running for governor in the future.
     
  8. GunRightsCoalition

    GunRightsCoalition Vancouver Well-Known Member 2015 Volunteer 2016 Volunteer

    Messages:
    658
    Likes Received:
    412
    I was able to talk to him on election night last November for a few minutes and he seems as sincere in person as he does at a distance.
     
    rur862 and (deleted member) like this.
  9. CounterOfBeans

    CounterOfBeans northwest Active Member

    Messages:
    287
    Likes Received:
    117
    I'd like to try to get to the heart of the matter. The question I have about this situation is do government "employees" technically have rights in the same sense that Citizen's have rights? This question, all by itself, might offend some people, but that is just emotions talking. The question I'm putting on the table is about the reality of how legal identity affects one's rights.

    For example, not even all Citizens have the same rights. D.C. license plates have the motto "taxation without representation" stenciled across the bottom. Taxation without representation is why we rebelled against England, but yet for some reason, that's the accepted plight of D.C. citizens. The reason for this is that these "citizens" choose to call 10 square miles of dirt that is utterly & eternally federal in nature, per Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 (D.C. clause). Therefore, they can not be recognized as State Citizens. They are federal citizens and the voting rights that extend from the Constitution contract extend ONLY to Citizens of States. D.C. is also very famous for its history of "customizing" D.C. citizens' gun rights.

    The reality is that the Constitution(s) is/are lawfully binding "contracts". They establish government(s) and the balance-of-power relationships with and between the people of the States. Government is itself nothing but an idea, a design of the imagination. It has no way of achieving a physical presence or effect other than through human beings that occupy its offices and other positions.

    Human beings can wear many different kinds of legal identity hats. And when a human being acts in the capacity of an office, they ARE being paid for the purpose of giving that office a physical incarnation. Their legal identity is that OF the office or an "authorized" extension of it (not "citizen"), whether you call them an officer, an employee, an agent, representative, etc. This is necessary because obviously an office that is born from the mind and recognized on paper... itself, has no eyes, ears, voice, etc. and is as useless as sheet music is in the absence of musicians.

    A creation cannot possess equal or greater power than its creator unless the creator consents. If the creator consents, then the master/servant relationship is lost. That said, since a government derives its permission to exist and act from those who DO actually have power and rights (Citizens)... in pure logic, can official occupants OF government technically possess that which the subordinate/servant office they "flesh out" itself does not possess - i.e. rights? Technically speaking, it seems apparent to me that "no" is the answer. But I'm willing to chew on it.
     
  10. nastybynature

    nastybynature ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ Active Member

    Messages:
    260
    Likes Received:
    93
    ^^THIS!!^^
     
    rur862 and (deleted member) like this.