All good, except that OC'rs are not a recognized "Class" and would be unable to accomplish this, as I understand it... BIANALThe chief law enforcement officer of the state of Washington has already issued a formal written opinion on this issue.
AGO 2008 No. 8 - October 13, 2008
The AGO Opinion goes on to talk about a Washington Supreme Court case, Pacific Northwest Shooting Park Association v. City of Sequim, 158 Wn.2d 342, 144 P.3d 276 (2006), where the municipalities are granted exemptions to preemption under 9.41.290 but only when acting in capacity as a private business owner and only in narrow respects.
So the long story short is that if the city leases the property out to a private party, they can impose certain conditions on the private party in the lease, which may restrict firearms on the premises, or have specific regulations for firearms on the premises (such as all actions locked open and unloaded during a gun show on city property) but that they cannot restrict the general public under normal business.
So unless the Ron Paul rally had a no firearms clause in the lease, the city cannot restrict firearms. Call me crazy, but I doubt that the Ron Paul rally organizers would have asked for a no firearms clause in the lease. And as it was not a gun show, I doubt that the city imposed certain restrictions on the method of firearm carry or entry with a firearm.
I've been 'round and 'round with the Spokane Arena and the Spokane Convention center about this and each time their tactic changes. As there's already a formal written opinion on the issue, we're never going to get results unless we have a large number of open carriers denied access to the convention center during a paid admission event for which we have tickets, and then file a class-action suit against the City of Spokane. (It would have to be an event that is not an outdoor concert, of course.) With the AGO already having an opinion on the issue, you'd have to seek an injunction against the city in the suit to get anything changed, as appealing the decision would be pointless. Preemption is preemption and it is already settled law. We just need to get the city to respect that.