• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Open Carry in the news KHQ interview with Jeff Hayes

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
The Spokane Public Facilities District operates the Spokane Convention Center and is a municipal corporation. It is an independent taxing authority and a taxing district as defined in the state Constitution. IMHO Because SPFD is a municipality they must comply with RCW 9.41.290 and 300.

The question is can SPFD add no guns language to their lease or license agreement. If so the question is how would the public know, I asked to see the lease and for a copy of the lease and they refused saying it was private and I could not see or have a copy.

Some of the doors had 8 x 11 pieces of paper that referenced Title 10 section 10.10.050 and said "No person shall bring into any City public assembly facility any cans, bottles, alcoholic beverages, controlled substances, guns, knives or other such devices which are weapons or apparently capable of use as weapons". The door we entered through did not have a sign on it. Clearly SMC 10.10.050 violates state preemption and this was what we were told to start with

BTW I did record the conversation.

I will be contacting counsel today to see how to proceed with this.

One last thing the ushers asked us if they were going to be on our blog, so they are aware of OCDO.

How the hell can your city make a contract with your tax payer dollars and claim "it's private", something stinks.

Great job Orphan and Thor....I have a feeling your works wont be fruitless.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
The Spokane Public Facilities District operates the Spokane Convention Center and is a municipal corporation. It is an independent taxing authority and a taxing district as defined in the state Constitution. IMHO Because SPFD is a municipality they must comply with RCW 9.41.290 and 300.

The question is can SPFD add no guns language to their lease or license agreement. If so the question is how would the public know, I asked to see the lease and for a copy of the lease and they refused saying it was private and I could not see or have a copy.

Some of the doors had 8 x 11 pieces of paper that referenced Title 10 section 10.10.050 and said "No person shall bring into any City public assembly facility any cans, bottles, alcoholic beverages, controlled substances, guns, knives or other such devices which are weapons or apparently capable of use as weapons". The door we entered through did not have a sign on it. Clearly SMC 10.10.050 violates state preemption and this was what we were told to start with

BTW I did record the conversation.

I will be contacting counsel today to see how to proceed with this.

One last thing the ushers asked us if they were going to be on our blog, so they are aware of OCDO.

The lease would be a public document whether recorded or not as it is with the city. It is not "private", it is a public record. Your request was the same a FOIA submission - would just formalize that in writing, directed to the city.

Always presume that you/we are being read by the other side........'cause we are!

Being caused to leave or not being admitted gives you standing, is actionable.
 

Jeff Hayes

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
2,569
Location
Long gone
The lease would be a public document whether recorded or not as it is with the city. It is not "private", it is a public record. Your request was the same a FOIA submission - would just formalize that in writing, directed to the city. See earlier post.

Always presume that you/we are being read by the other side........'cause we are! Of course they are.

Being caused to leave or not being admitted gives you standing, is actionable.
Absolutly
 

hadji

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2012
Messages
122
Location
Spokane
It is pretty clear you have a bone to pick and unable or unwilling to understand the concept of the RCW 9.41.300 addressing weapons possession is restricting Cities, towns, and counties or other municipalities and not private parties,

I believe I understand RCW 9.41.300 completely, including paragraph 2,b,i.

you will not find a law prohibiting a private entity in restricting guns rights, unfortunately.

Ah, but more importantly, I will not find a law allowing the restriction of gun rights, an area that the state claims preemption.
An important distinction, in this case.

hadji I looked to see where you live, could have fooled me! you being so passive aggressive! thought you were from the inter circle in Deep Liberal Seattle.

It is indeed interesting that our world views so often color our perception of intent.
Perhaps you have been misled by my handle, hadji.

"passive aggressive"?
I apologize for coming across that way.
It is just that the "public" meetings of the PFD board occur in what is really
just a rather small conference room, around a single table.

Kevin (CEO), Matt (Arena) and Johnna (Conv Center & INB) are all intelligent, reasonable people.
But they deal in facts, and have little patience for presentations that are not well thought out,
or are simply emotional appeals.
If one is going to present something to the board,
one had better have all of the facts in hand,
and be able to present one's case in a logical, reasonable way.


Not to challenge you, just to make sure not a troll :lol:

A "troll"?
Hardly.

Let's just say that I have a vested interest in the outcome of this issue,
along with the repeal of SMC 10.10.050.
 

hadji

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2012
Messages
122
Location
Spokane
Orphan:

If you, or others, attend the PFD board meeting, end your presentation / remarks
by requesting a remedy that is clear, concise and measurable.

Merely complaining about your treatment will not produce any action; it will simply be noted in the minutes.
You must make a request that is "actionable".

Keep in mind, the PFD is not able to repeal the SMC; you will have to go to the city council for that.

hadji
 

Vitaeus

Regular Member
Joined
May 30, 2010
Messages
596
Location
Bremerton, Washington
Orphan:

If you, or others, attend the PFD board meeting, end your presentation / remarks
by requesting a remedy that is clear, concise and measurable.

Merely complaining about your treatment will not produce any action; it will simply be noted in the minutes.
You must make a request that is "actionable".

Keep in mind, the PFD is not able to repeal the SMC; you will have to go to the city council for that.

hadji

Good points, but as far as I understand it any local ordinances that are preempted are legal nullity's and are unenforceable, if you are charged undr such a statute preemption would be your primary reason to get the charge dismissed and any arrest vacated.
Removal of the signs and documented training of the staff for the various facilities would be a good start. A public apology for the 1st and 2nd amendment violations would also be good.
 

BigDave

Opt-Out Members
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
3,456
Location
Yakima, Washington, USA
As to my comment about looking where someone was from was in response to a passive aggressive post toward me and in kind I offered one in return but apparently some lost the conversation.

hadji is clearly associated with the PFD board or council likely digging for information, good or negative, we will see.

The Spokane Public Facilities District does not do that now.

Kevin (CEO), Matt (Arena) and Johnna (Conv Center & INB) are all intelligent, reasonable people.
But they deal in facts, and have little patience for presentations that are not well thought out,
or are simply emotional appeals.
If one is going to present something to the board,
one had better have all of the facts in hand,
and be able to present one's case in a logical, reasonable way.

If you, or others, attend the PFD board meeting, end your presentation / remarks
by requesting a remedy that is clear, concise and measurable.
Merely complaining about your treatment will not produce any action; it will simply be noted in the minutes.
You must make a request that is "actionable".
Keep in mind, the PFD is not able to repeal the SMC; you will have to go to the city council for that.
hadji

Let's just say that I have a vested interest in the outcome of this issue,
along with the repeal of SMC 10.10.050.

Stay with the facts that Spokane has an ordinance that is preempted and we have citizens that have been denied access unlawfully. The talk about a private party being allowed to prohibit firearms while true, that is not what occurred it was done by the convention center security.

Orphan you can rest assured with

RCW 9.41.290 State Preemption
RCW 9.41.300(2)(b)(i) Weapons prohibited in certain places -- Local laws and ordinances -- Exceptions -- Penalty.
State Attorney General Opinion 2008 No.8
Chan et al v. Seattle
 
Last edited:

hadji

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2012
Messages
122
Location
Spokane
Removal of the signs and documented training of the staff for the various facilities
would be a good start. A public apology for the 1st and 2nd amendment violations would also be good.



Ah, but this will not happen.
The PFD Board will claim their hands are tied by SMC 10.10.050,
and that you are requesting something based upon a question of law
that they are unable/unwilling to interpet.

Perhaps a better remedy would be:
to request that the board obtain a legal opinion / recommendation
from the city attorney regarding the removal of the signs,
to forward the city attorney's recommendation to you,
and inform you what action they intend to take regarding those signs,
based upon the city attorney's recommendation.

You should request that this remedy be acted upon before the next board meeting.

Be sure to leave your contact information with the board secretary.

It would seem that preemption would favor removal of the signs.
Based upon a favorable recommendation from the city attorney,
you may then request the documented training / apology.

But do not hold your breath on a "public apology".
You may find it more profitable to request an apology in writing,
in a letter from the Board directed towards you.

BigDave: your conjecture that I am "...associated with the PFD board,
likely digging for information..." is inaccurate.
Think of me as (your) "friend of the court".

Orphan:
All of this applies only if you intend to present at a PFD Board meeting.
But that will not get the municipal code changed.

Getting arrested is certainly an option, but perhaps not the most wise one.

Perhaps a less stressful option is to propose to the city council
that SMC 10.10.050 be revised, along with the recommendation of the city
attorney to do so.

The RCW's cited by BigDave, above, will be researched by the city attorney.
I think you will gain a favorable recommendation from him.

hadji
 

TechnoWeenie

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
2,084
Location
, ,
hadji is clearly associated with the PFD board or council likely digging for information, good or negative, we will see.

I think he's an employee who knows how things work, is tied to 'following policy', and is trying to give you guys hints on what to do to challenge it successfully.

Sometimes 'you people' are too paranoid for your own good.
 

fetch

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
Messages
271
Location
Spokane, Wa., ,
I have been communicating with my district council member and he is aware of the situation. Currently there are three (of the seven) council members and two city attorneys who know who we are and where we stand.
We need to get our paper work together and present it to the council.
I have also meet our new mayor a couple of times, but have not discussed OC.
 
Last edited:

Stretch

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
489
Location
Pasco, WA, ,
Sometimes 'you people' are too paranoid for your own good.

+1

hadji said:
Ah, but this will not happen.
The PFD Board will claim their hands are tied by SMC 10.10.050,
and that you are requesting something based upon a question of law
that they are unable/unwilling to interpet.

But presenting the fact(s) that all municipalities are preempted by RCW 9.41.290 should be enough for the PFD to take action, no? Or at the least go to their legal and say the SMC is invalid and PFD is NOT in compliance per .290.

The PFD may be overseen by City of Spokane and their codes, but even the PFD cannot ignore other State/Federal laws which supersede Spokane laws...or at least they shouldn't.
 

hadji

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2012
Messages
122
Location
Spokane
Stretch:
Your questions sound reasonable, and well thought out.
So, I will answer them.
Please do not shoot the messenger.

But presenting the fact(s) that all municipalities are preempted by RCW 9.41.290 should be enough for the PFD to take action, no?
No. That is not how the board works. Simply supplying information is not "actionable". One must request a specific action be taken.

Or at the least go to their legal and say the SMC is invalid and PFD is NOT in compliance per .290.
It is not their "job" to go to legal and claim a particular code is invalid.
I know this might sound cynical. And it does not sound "right".
I concur.
I am just letting you know how it is.

The PFD may be overseen by City of Spokane and their codes, but even the PFD cannot ignore other State/Federal laws which supersede Spokane laws...or at least they shouldn't.
This will be seen as a "question of law".
If they are requested to do so, they will refer this question of law to legal.

There are two questions / issues in this thread:
Orphan and other(s) rights were violated when they were asked to leave.
The law is clear.

SMC 10.10.050 is unconstitutional.
The law is clear on that too.

Orphan's experience provides him with 'standing' on this issue.
He now has a legal reason (responsibility?) to attend both the PFD Board meeting,
and the city council meeting.

He will not gain much, or possibly any, satisfaction from attending the PFD Board meeting.

But, because of his standing, he can gain a spot on the city council agenda.
Not just during public comment, but an actual agenda item.
This means the council will have to deal with the issue.

If he, or his representative, can present his case in a factual, reasoned manner;
if he will heed some simple suggestions on protocol and presentation,
he (and all of us) will win.
 
Last edited:

Difdi

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
987
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
Again, with respect: The Spokane Public Facilities District does not "rent" or "lease" the Spokane Arena;
they specifically state in their use agreement that "The parties understand this agreement constitutes a revocable license and not a lease."
(Use Agreement, Spokane Public Facilities District, Section 29, Paragraph 1)

An important, if subtle, distinction.

A legal definition of a license is: A right to enter onto land or property and use it, without any ownership rights being conferred.

This distinction would not seem to grant the licensee any special priviledges regarding the State Preemption (RCW 9.41.290).

That's a very good point there. The city is forbidden to ban firearms, and the loophole to that, a private entity leasing/renting the space having a rule against firearms (mandated by the city as a condition of renting/leasing) wouldn't apply to a mere license, since it is (supposedly) the temporary transfer of ownership rights that makes a private property type firearm ban legal on what would otherwise be city property.

But a license is the city trying to have its cake and eat it too. They retain all rights and get rent too
 

BigDave

Opt-Out Members
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
3,456
Location
Yakima, Washington, USA
One of the frequently overlooked procedure done by those addressing change in ordinances or dealing with some government officials is as hadji suggest, if one does not request action then it is assumed all you wanted was for them to listen and/or read and nothing more and often it ends there.

Stick with the incident involving the parties, address the law on that violation and avoid what if's or issues about a private party prohibiting firearms as this did not happen in this case.
Have everything typed up to including Council Members, Mayor, City Attorney and the city clerk for the record.
Request the City Council to seek review by the City Attorney and Repeal of the offending ordinance/s and respond in a reasonable time ie 30 days or next council meeting.
And by all means attend until settled, do not rely upon someone else no matter how helpful they might seem.
 

hermannr

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
2,327
Location
Okanogan Highland
hadji: Thank you, I agree with your assessment completely. I already have experience (not Spokane) with boards and other sub-council problems...the people on the, lets say, parks board, that have been given a particular prohibition (let's say no firearms, like in Seattle) may or may not favor that particular ordinance, it really does not matter. A city ordinance is past by the city council, and must be removed by the city council, but going through the board to obtain standing in council is a really good idea.

The big thing about being an agenda item, is like hadji explained, the item has to be handled...it may not be handled in the way you would like, but they cannot just brush it off. If you go into a council meeting, and make public comment, they can ignore you if that is what they wish to do. Yes, you will get the opportunity to speak, but that may very well be all that happens until you bring legal pressure. (which costs everyone money)

My suggestion is similar to BigDave's. Take copies, at least one for each member of the board (and council when you get that far) RCW 9.41.290, RCW 9.41.300, The Washington State AG opinion, and the Chan et al V Seattle, the Court of Appeals ruling.

Good luck, just sorry I live so far away.
 

jt59

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2010
Messages
1,005
Location
Central South Sound
SAF is reporting the WA Supreme Court has refused to hear Chan v. Seattle thus ending Seattle's challenge.

Good news indeed!

It will be interesting to see how or even if it is covered in the media..... Maybe Deros can que up a couple of his folks.
 

deanf

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2007
Messages
1,789
Location
N47º 12’ x W122º 10’
SAF is reporting the WA Supreme Court has refused to hear Chan v. Seattle thus ending Seattle's challenge.

So that ends all administrative prohibitions on guns by municipal corporations in the State of Washington, right?

No loopholes? "Oh, that's not a published opinion" or "Oh no. It only applies in King County" or any other tricks, right?
 

Right Wing Wacko

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 11, 2007
Messages
645
Location
Marysville, Washington, USA
Ah, but this will not happen.
The PFD Board will claim their hands are tied by SMC 10.10.050,
and that you are requesting something based upon a question of law
that they are unable/unwilling to interpet.

Then the argument could be that they are trying to enforce a law that has been repealed!

WA's preemption law goes further than to say the city can't create such a law, it specifically REPEALS any law that violates said preemption.
 
Top