Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 38

Thread: Arlington fly-in BANS all weapons

  1. #1
    Regular Member skiingislife725's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Lake Stevens, WA
    Posts
    400

    Arlington fly-in BANS all weapons

    So I open carried all day yesterday at the Arlington fly in from 9am to 5:30pm. Not a single issue.

    This morning I was told by one of the volunteers that it was no weapons allowed. No rules posted at all though, except for a campring policy. So the security guy comes, shows me the camping policy again. And then i talk to the head of the show, who is also the Arlington mayor...she confirms the no weapons policy and cites insurance reasons and that the place is leased so they make the rules. So, i had to leave it UNATTENDED in my truck...because thats safer!

  2. #2
    Regular Member Greg30-06's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    30
    According to the Arlington airports website it is governed by the city of Arlington, therefor I believe preemption would apply rcw9.41.290

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47 12 x W122 10
    Posts
    1,762
    therefor I believe preemption would apply rcw9.41.290
    Except that if the City has leased it to a private promoter, then private property rights apply.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575
    You might want to check to see if it was leased. Most likely the city of Arlington licensed the use of the park. If it is a license to use then the promoter has no property rights they are only allowed to use the park for an event.

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran OlGutshotWilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Snohomish, WA, ,
    Posts
    435
    As a technicality, it is not a park. It is a Municipal Airport. The event is run by the Experimental Aircraft Association, which is a private organization.


    Lots of serious convective weather over the airspace today.

    Edit: Apparently I am wrong. After looking into it more closely, it is owned and operated by an Entity known as "Arlington Fly In". The EAA is a major organizing sponsor. Not sure exactly who Arlington Fly In is yet.
    Last edited by OlGutshotWilly; 07-13-2012 at 09:52 PM.
    THE SECOND AMENDMENT: Washington didn't use his right to free speech to defeat the British, he shot them.
    ---------------------------------------------
    Government is not reason; it is not eloquent -- it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
    --George Washington,
    first U.S. president

  6. #6
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    Quote Originally Posted by skiingislife725 View Post
    So I open carried all day yesterday at the Arlington fly in from 9am to 5:30pm. Not a single issue.

    This morning I was told by one of the volunteers that it was no weapons allowed. No rules posted at all though, except for a campring policy. So the security guy comes, shows me the camping policy again. And then i talk to the head of the show, who is also the Arlington mayor...she confirms the no weapons policy and cites insurance reasons and that the place is leased so they make the rules. So, i had to leave it UNATTENDED in my truck...because thats safer!
    I call bull on the mayor...I also say they cannot do that unless you allow them to. State Law says no. BTW: The EAA does not lease the airport for the event.

    Insurance problems? You et they have problems if the have insurance problems...because state law says, insurance be d$%$%, local gov entities have to abide by state law. Did you ask miss mayor where the metal detectors and lock boxes were?
    Last edited by hermannr; 07-13-2012 at 09:45 PM.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47 12 x W122 10
    Posts
    1,762
    All the strut and bluster in the world does not change the fact that if it's a lease, the lessee can make their own rules. The question remains unanswered . . .

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran OlGutshotWilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Snohomish, WA, ,
    Posts
    435
    My query:

    Ms Tolbert,
    Who is the private, non-governmental corporation that leases the Arlington Municipal Airport for the Arlington Fly In? I have searched for a corporate structure or entity and can't find one. Only that a "group" or Organization called "Arlington Fly-In" that you are Executive Director of, runs the Fly In.



    I know the EAA is a sponsor of the show, but they don't lease the airport from the City.



    Info appreciated, thanks!



    Cheers,
    Her reply:
    The entity is the Arlington Fly-In. We lease the land for the five days of the event and five days before and three days after. We have a signed special event lease from the City of Arlington, which is the Airport Authority. We do not lease the entire airport, only the portion on which the Fly-In takes place.

    The Arlington Fly-In is a Washington State nonprofit corporation.

    Barbara Tolbert
    Arlington Fly-In
    4700 188th Street NE
    Arlington, WA 98223
    THE SECOND AMENDMENT: Washington didn't use his right to free speech to defeat the British, he shot them.
    ---------------------------------------------
    Government is not reason; it is not eloquent -- it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
    --George Washington,
    first U.S. president

  9. #9
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    Quote Originally Posted by OlGutshotWilly View Post
    My query:



    Her reply:
    Do an FOIA request for the leese agreement, then you will know for sure.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by hermannr View Post
    Do an FOIA request for the leese agreement, then you will know for sure.
    ask for the insurance too, they may have to provide that to get a lease

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47 12 x W122 10
    Posts
    1,762
    Unless we think Ms. Tolbert is a liar, or we just want to be antagonistic, the point of asking for lease agreements and insurance information is what?

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Hilton Head, South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    524
    Quote Originally Posted by deanf View Post
    Unless we think Ms. Tolbert is a liar, or we just want to be antagonistic, the point of asking for lease agreements and insurance information is what?
    Trust, but verify.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575
    Quote Originally Posted by deanf View Post
    Unless we think Ms. Tolbert is a liar, or we just want to be antagonistic, the point of asking for lease agreements and insurance information is what?
    When I had my disagreement with the Spokane Convention Center all of them refereed to the license to use as a lease or rental agreement until I got information that proved the agreement to be a license to use.

    I believe that most cities etc do licensees to use rather than rent or lease because they would give up too much control of the facility if it were leased or rented.
    Last edited by Jeff Hayes; 07-14-2012 at 10:14 AM.

  14. #14
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463
    If The Arlington Fly In is private and does not work for a governmental agency there is likely no ground to push the issue, which leaves to deal with them as you would any other citizens and hopefully educate but pushing it past them or to make them accept firearms carry I feel you are barking up the wrong tree and instilling a negative approach.
    Be it an excuse of "insurance" it really does not matter they are not restricted from allowing firearms, though I wish they would on their own accord.
    State Preemption is a prohibition against local governments not private entities or citizens, this would be a time to conceal until asked to leave or they change their mind with reasoning.
    • Being prepared is to prepare, this is our responsibility.
    • I am not your Mommy or Daddy and do not sugar coat it but I will tell you simply as how I see it, it is up to you on how you will or will not use it.
    • IANAL, all information I present is for your review, do your own homework.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Boomboy007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Bellingham, WA, USA
    Posts
    140

    Thumbs down Gotta disagree, BigDave.

    They are having a fly-in on MY PROPERTY, me being the taxpayer. Thus, it matters very much whether it was a lease or license to use. If a lease entitles me to bar those who are exercising their second amendment, can I also ban others for otherwise legal behavior?

    Private property rights are ONLY for private property.
    "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Thomas Jefferson

  16. #16
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463
    Quote Originally Posted by Boomboy007 View Post
    They are having a fly-in on MY PROPERTY, me being the taxpayer. Thus, it matters very much whether it was a lease or license to use. If a lease entitles me to bar those who are exercising their second amendment, can I also ban others for otherwise legal behavior?
    Private property rights are ONLY for private property.
    Yes go with that argument of "it's my property", good luck.

    Yes can one restricted other legal behavior when lease or license these areas as long as it does not violate the Civil Rights.
    Legally you can go shirtless of shoeless of if they require shirts and shoes then oh well you're out of there, can you put a restriction on lets say bald people, or people over 6' and so on though it would be silly to you or me but none the less a restriction that is otherwise legal.
    • Being prepared is to prepare, this is our responsibility.
    • I am not your Mommy or Daddy and do not sugar coat it but I will tell you simply as how I see it, it is up to you on how you will or will not use it.
    • IANAL, all information I present is for your review, do your own homework.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575
    Quote Originally Posted by BigDave View Post
    Yes go with that argument of "it's my property", good luck.

    Yes can one restricted other legal behavior when lease or license these areas as long as it does not violate the Civil Rights.
    Legally you can go shirtless of shoeless of if they require shirts and shoes then oh well you're out of there, can you put a restriction on lets say bald people, or people over 6' and so on though it would be silly to you or me but none the less a restriction that is otherwise legal.
    Dave If it is a lease or rented then the lessee or renter has property rights and can set the rules. If it is a license to use an otherwise public facility what ever governmental agency is doing the licensing would be bound by RCW 9.41.290 and 300. This would prohibit the governmental agency that was licensing the use from banning firearms. Also if it is a license to use the licensee could not make rules they simply are licensed to use the facility. I would love to hear other opinions on this.

  18. #18
    Regular Member massivedesign's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Olympia, Washington, USA
    Posts
    866
    Quote Originally Posted by Boomboy007 View Post
    They are having a fly-in on MY PROPERTY, me being the taxpayer. Thus, it matters very much whether it was a lease or license to use. If a lease entitles me to bar those who are exercising their second amendment, can I also ban others for otherwise legal behavior?

    Private property rights are ONLY for private property.
    And there is the other edge of that knife. If you are okay with public property being able to preempt over a private company lease, then you shouldn't have a problem when a state entity blocks firearms because of the language in a private property lease.

    A lot of state buildings are leased, but because the State occupies, preemption applies. In the Fly-In scenario, during the lease, it is NOT your property, it is sub-letted. Yes, you paid taxes for that property, but the govt. entity made $$ on that lease, which helped keep your taxes lower. A great example is Safeco... Next M's game, you go right on ahead and tell them that this is public property and you are coming in with your gun. Let us know how that works for ya.

    What really chaps my hide, is when the govt. entity FORCES the language in the private party lease to restrict firearms. It is that way with the Children's Museum in Seattle. The lease specifically says that the Children's Museum shall ban all firearms. How does that work?
    www.WaGuns.org

    Currently mapping locations of Shooting Areas as well as Gun Stores - Let me know what is missing!

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575
    Quote Originally Posted by massivedesign View Post
    And there is the other edge of that knife. If you are okay with public property being able to preempt over a private company lease, then you shouldn't have a problem when a state entity blocks firearms because of the language in a private property lease.

    A lot of state buildings are leased, but because the State occupies, preemption applies. In the Fly-In scenario, during the lease, it is NOT your property, it is sub-letted. Yes, you paid taxes for that property, but the govt. entity made $$ on that lease, which helped keep your taxes lower. A great example is Safeco... Next M's game, you go right on ahead and tell them that this is public property and you are coming in with your gun. Let us know how that works for ya.

    What really chaps my hide, is when the govt. entity FORCES the language in the private party lease to restrict firearms. It is that way with the Children's Museum in Seattle. The lease specifically says that the Children's Museum shall ban all firearms. How does that work?
    Except that Pacific Northwest Shooting Sports V City of Sequim and Chan V City of Seattle both say "Except as expressly authorized by the legislature, municipalities are prohibited from regulating the possession of firearms at city owned park facilities open to the public. Insert airport, convention center, arena etc for city owned park facilities.

    PNWSP V Sequim also says they were not laws or regulations of application to the general public. If the event is open to the general public then I do not see how Arlington or any other city could lawfully regulate firearms at that event.

  20. #20
    Regular Member massivedesign's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Olympia, Washington, USA
    Posts
    866
    Orphan,

    If you are talking about the Seattle Children's Museum, interesting.. Because Seattle Specifically requires them to ban firearms: http://clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us/~archi...Ord_123791.pdf section 7.3.

    If you are talking about the Fly-In, the municipality didn't regulate the possession of the weapons... The private party who was controlling the event did.
    www.WaGuns.org

    Currently mapping locations of Shooting Areas as well as Gun Stores - Let me know what is missing!

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575
    Quote Originally Posted by massivedesign View Post
    Orphan,

    If you are talking about the Seattle Children's Museum, interesting.. Because Seattle Specifically requires them to ban firearms: http://clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us/~archi...Ord_123791.pdf section 7.3.

    If you are talking about the Fly-In, the municipality didn't regulate the possession of the weapons... The private party who was controlling the event did.
    I was talking about both in the case of Arlington the private party may not be able to regulate firearms depending on if they have property rights or not, lease vs license. In the case of the Children's Museum or any other place a city or municipality rents out I do not believe that they can set a rule or law if it affects the general public or if the venue is open to the general public

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575
    A big question I have is; was the Arlington Fly in still open to the public even though a private entity had the right to use the facility?

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    Quote Originally Posted by massivedesign View Post
    Orphan,

    If you are talking about the Seattle Children's Museum, interesting.. Because Seattle Specifically requires them to ban firearms: http://clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us/~archi...Ord_123791.pdf section 7.3.

    If you are talking about the Fly-In, the municipality didn't regulate the possession of the weapons... The private party who was controlling the event did.
    I think that can be challenged in court. Prior cases have made it clear that the city may enact certain restrictions while acting as a private leasing party, but those restrictions shall not apply to the general public.

    The question, then, would be if the museum as a private not for profit organization would immediately turn around and make it their own rule. At the least, though, Seattle should be legally slapped for knowingly and repeatedly violating state law.
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by deanf View Post
    Unless we think Ms. Tolbert is a liar, or we just want to be antagonistic, the point of asking for lease agreements and insurance information is what?
    Because he is a liar ??? Every time an "insurance" reason if offered and you review the policy you find that there is no such provision.

    And I hate liars.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575
    Quote Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
    I think that can be challenged in court. Prior cases have made it clear that the city may enact certain restrictions while acting as a private leasing party, but those restrictions shall not apply to the general public.

    That is my exact point.

    The question, then, would be if the museum as a private not for profit organization would immediately turn around and make it their own rule. At the least, though, Seattle should be legally slapped for knowingly and repeatedly violating state law.
    Only if they have private property rights. In the case of say a Convention Center beings that the clear intent of RCW 9.41.300 was to allow CPL holders to carry pistols can the public agency renting out the property even allow the renter to restrict pistols. I am thinking the public agencys should have a duty to preserve the right to carry a pistol in a Convention Center their lease should say the lessee can not prohibit the carry of pistols. After all are the Public Agencies should be here to protect the people's rights not insure they are violated?
    Last edited by Jeff Hayes; 07-16-2012 at 02:25 PM.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •