CCW in city council meeting in Wash state

[Effingham]

Washington is supposed to be a very left-leaning state. So... then there's this.

In the town of Oak Harbor, at a city council meeting, a veteran rises to talk about the second amendment, and mentions that he has a CCW permit, and is, in fact, carrying at that moment.

A councilman makes a motion that he be disarmed or asked to leave.

Watch what follows. See who ends up leaving. It'll make you feel good.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxHnCei4wzg&feature=youtu.be

 

[45calibre]

im glad the mayor supports the 2A.

 

[CathyInBlue]

I was gonna start a new thread under Legislation of the Second Amendment, but decided to place it here instead.

This has prolly been gone over ad nauseum, prolly by me, even, but this makes me want to bring this up again.

IC 35-47-11.1-4
Not prohibited by chapter
Sec. 4. This chapter may not be construed to prevent any of the following:
[...]
(5) The enactment or enforcement of a provision prohibiting or restricting the possession of a firearm in any building that contains the courtroom of a circuit, superior, city, town, or small claims court. However, if a portion of the building is occupied by a residential tenant or private business, any provision restricting or prohibiting the possession of a firearm does not apply to the portion of the building that is occupied by the residential tenant or private business, or to common areas of the building used by a residential tenant or private business.
(6) The enactment or enforcement of a provision prohibiting or restricting the intentional display of a firearm at a public meeting.

It would seem that, under Indiana law, city councils in Indiana are likewise, as the council was in the video, prohibitted from banning CCW in their chamber, per subsection (6). The question I have is, can they legally evade that prohibition by simply having their council meetings in a "building that contains the courtroom of a circuit, superior, city, town, or small claims court" per subsection (5). In that case, since (5) does not seem to have any provision for the ban being limitted to those hours during which the court may be in session, such a move would seem to me to be a legal evasion of the law.

(13) A unit (as defined in IC 36-1-2-23) from enacting or enforcing a provision prohibiting or restricting the possession of a firearm in a building owned or administered by the unit if:
[A, B, C, yada, yada, yada]

Likewise, the conditions in subsection (13) would seem to be trivially circumventable by simply declaring that on alternate March 14ths, the south-east corner of room 101 is used as a small-claims court, thus blessing the entire building with the protections of (5).

 

[Degtyaryov]

Good to see that saner heads won out. Not something we're used to seeing in government.