• 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.

Arlington fly-in BANS all weapons

J

Jeff Hayes

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
2,569
Location
Long gone
massivedesign said:
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/~archives/Ordinances/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.
Click to expand...

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
 
J

Jeff Hayes

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
2,569
Location
Long gone
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?
 
T

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,542
Location
Washington
massivedesign said:
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/~archives/Ordinances/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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
davidmcbeth

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
deanf said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
J

Jeff Hayes

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
2,569
Location
Long gone
Tawnos said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:
BigDave

BigDave

Opt-Out Members
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
3,456
Location
Yakima, Washington, USA
Orphan said:
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.
Click to expand...

Orphan we agree here and I used this approach a couple years ago here in Yakima County to remove the wording in their rental leases requiring them to prohibit firearms.
This is why I stated earlier that State Preemption does not apply to private citizens or companies but does against Cities, Towns, Counties and Municipalities. So when it comes to a City, Town, County or Municipalities they cannot be more restrictive then RCW 9.41.290 State Preemption (nor put it in as a requirement in a lease, rental agreement etc....) and a Private Property or Business Owner can, thus in this instance restricting firearms at the Arlington Fly In.
 
T

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,542
Location
Washington
Orphan said:
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?
Click to expand...

Not sure which "they" you are referring to, so I'll address both.

The city is acting as a private renter in this case, consistent with PNWSA v. Sequim, but that case specifically stated that the conditions were only lawful because they applied to the renter, not to the general public.

The museum appears to have private property rights, as this is a full on lease, not merely a use agreement. However, it would have to be investigated whether the nonprofit corporation formed is city-owned. I am not sure how it would play out, but it seems if a city can spin off a nonprofit then make 290 violations, that would be a huge hole Seattle would start using. "Oh, the parks? Yeah, they're owned by the nonprofit company "Seattle Parks", they set the no guns rule, not us..."
 
J

Jeff Hayes

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
2,569
Location
Long gone
Tawnos said:
Not sure which "they" you are referring to, so I'll address both.

The city is acting as a private renter in this case, consistent with PNWSA v. Sequim, but that case specifically stated that the conditions were only lawful because they applied to the renter, not to the general public.

The museum appears to have private property rights, as this is a full on lease, not merely a use agreement. However, it would have to be investigated whether the nonprofit corporation formed is city-owned. I am not sure how it would play out, but it seems if a city can spin off a nonprofit then make 290 violations, that would be a huge hole Seattle would start using. "Oh, the parks? Yeah, they're owned by the nonprofit company "Seattle Parks", they set the no guns rule, not us..."
Click to expand...

Twanos Instead of saying "THEY" I should have phrased it as the renter, leaser or licensee.

I 100% agree with your interpretation, your thought are the same as mine a public agency may enact rules for the renter but not the general public.

The question here is can the fly in folks ban firearms.
 
slapmonkay

slapmonkay

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
1,308
Location
Montana
A quick post, having not looked into this if its owned by the County here is a standard paraphrased copy of a Snohomish County License of Use agreement.

Snohomish County License of Use Agreement - Paraphrased said:
1.2 Parties.
a) Snohomish County, hereinafter referred to as the COUNTY, is a political subdivision of the State of Washington, and is the owner of certain real property known as [REDACTED], part of which is the subject of this agreement and is more fully described in paragraph 1.4 as the premises.
b) [REDACTED] of [REDACTED] hereinafter referred to as LICENSEE, is desirous of using the premises described in paragraph 1.4 for the event described below. If the Licensee is two or more persons, then the obligations of LICENSEE shall be their joint and several obligations, and notice given to one of them shall be deemed notice to all of them.

1.3 Scope of Event. The premises may be occupied and used by the LICENSEE for the following purpose: [REDACTED] and for purposes related directly thereto and as an incident thereto during the period of this Agreement.

...

3.1 Use. The COUNTY hereby grants to the LICENSEE a license to occupy and use the premises subject to this Agreement for the purpose described above on the dates set out in paragraph 2.2.

3.2 Access. The COUNTY shall permit access through adjoining County property to the premises subject to this Agreement during the dates of use. It is understood that the LICENSEE may charge an admission fee for LICENSEE's events occurring on the premises. LICENSEE shall not, in its use of the premises hereunder, discriminated on the basis of race, creed, sex, color, national origin, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical handicap.

...

3.6 No Assignment. LICENSEE shall not sublet or assign any rights or obligations under this contract, provided that exhibitors and participants shall be allowed if within the scope of the event described in paragraph 1.3

...

5.3 No Waiver. The failure of the COUNTY to insist on strict performance of any term of this Agreement, or to exercise any option conferred by it, in any one or more instances, shall not be construed to be a waiver or relinquishment of that or any other right of the COUNTY, and all rights of the County shall remain in full for and effect.

5.5 Governing Law and Stipulation of Venue. The laws of the State of Washington shall govern this Agreement. The parties stipulate that any lawsuit regarding this contract must be brought in Snohomish County, Washington.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
J

Jeff Hayes

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
2,569
Location
Long gone
BigDave said:
I believe they can, I wish they wasn't able to though it would not be a firearms violation but a trespass issue as it would be for a business or mall to even a private residence.
Click to expand...

If you are at a public facility like the Arlington airport and the Fly-In folks only have a license to use the facility how could a Cop trespass you assuming you were not violating any laws. I understand they could still arrest you even though they were wrong but that is not the issue. Like you said you certainly would not be violating any firearms laws. My understanding of the law is you can only be trespassed from public property if you are violating a law, a private business or residence is much different and with a license to use I do not believe there are any property rights for the Fly-In folks.

The problem is if the municipality rents or leases the property out the surrender the property rights to the renter or leasee and that causes all kinds of problems for the municipality.

I have thought about this for quite some time now and sincerely would like to hear arguments for and against my thoughts, blast away.
 
BigDave

BigDave

Opt-Out Members
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
3,456
Location
Yakima, Washington, USA
Orphan said:
If you are at a public facility like the Arlington airport and the Fly-In folks only have a license to use the facility how could a Cop trespass you assuming you were not violating any laws. I understand they could still arrest you even though they were wrong but that is not the issue. Like you said you certainly would not be violating any firearms laws. My understanding of the law is you can only be trespassed from public property if you are violating a law, a private business or residence is much different and with a license to use I do not believe there are any property rights for the Fly-In folks.

The problem is if the municipality rents or leases the property out the surrender the property rights to the renter or leasee and that causes all kinds of problems for the municipality.

I have thought about this for quite some time now and sincerely would like to hear arguments for and against my thoughts, blast away.
Click to expand...

I really doubt there is any case law on this issue for Washington State.
If a lessee restricts firearms possession at the Arlington Fly In or similar event, what law would they be breaking?
Correct me if I am wrong:
U.S. and Washington State Constitutions are a prohibition of the Government and not the people.
Laws are based on what is illegal not on what we can do.
Where would it be illegal to prohibit firearms possession on these properties by private entities?

I would relish the idea where they could not but I just do not see it, yet.
 
J

Jeff Hayes

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
2,569
Location
Long gone
BigDave said:
I really doubt there is any case law on this issue for Washington State.
If a lessee restricts firearms possession at the Arlington Fly In or similar event, what law would they be breaking?
Correct me if I am wrong:
U.S. and Washington State Constitutions are a prohibition of the Government and not the people.
Laws are based on what is illegal not on what we can do.
Where would it be illegal to prohibit firearms possession on these properties by private entities?

I would relish the idea where they could not but I just do not see it, yet.
Click to expand...

I am sure there is no case law or at least I can not find it.

You are correct the Constitutions only set limitations on governments.

Yes English law only prohibits what is unlawful.

My thinking is that because it is a public facility they cannot prohibit firearms especially if they are only licensed to use the facility. The facility under a license to use is still a public facility owned and operated & controlled by a government agency. Property rights do not transferred under a license to use as far as my understanding goes. So if no property rights are transferred then state preemption would apply.

Lastly because the facility is not controlled under a license to use by the private party the private party does not have the right to ban firearms. Nor can the public entity ban firearms without violating RCW 9.41.290 and 300.

I wish I were more articulate than I am, hopefully the idea will get across.
 
BigDave

BigDave

Opt-Out Members
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
3,456
Location
Yakima, Washington, USA
I may have over looked this but Barbra is the Exec Director and Mayor of Arlington


Arlington Fly-In
4700 188th Street NE Suite G
Arlington, WA 98223
Phone 360-435-5857
Fax 360-435-6480

Exec Director [email]Barbara.Tolbert@arlingtonflyin.org[/email]
Exhibits Exhibits@arlingtonflyin.org
Fly Mart FlyMart@arlingtonflyin.org
Info Info@arlingtonflyin.org
Pictures Pictures@arlingtonflyin.org
Sponsors Sponsors@arlingtonflyin.org
Volunteer Volunteer@arlingtonflyin.org
Webmaster Webmaster@arlingtonflyin.org

Barbara Tolbert, Mayor

One in the same and likely the Arlington Fly In is City ran and sponsored, interesting.

As I look back I see OlGutshotWilly made reference to it earlier.

I did find where it is a non profit

UBI Number 601190211
Category REG
Profit/Nonprofit Nonprofit
Active/Inactive Active
State Of Incorporation WA
WA Filing Date 04/13/1981
Expiration Date 04/30/2013
Inactive Date
Duration Perpetual
Registered Agent Information
Agent Name Barbara Tolbert
Address 4700 188TH NE

City ARLINGTON
State WA
ZIP 98223
Special Address Information
Address
City
State
Zip

Governing Persons
Title Name Address
Treasurer THOMPSON, MARY ANN 16309 2ND PL W #Q1
LYNNWOOD, WA
President Jacobson, Ron 4204 Olive St
EVERETT, WA
Vice President Johnson, Robert 5819 114th Ave NE
KIRKLAND, WA
Secretary Clark, Daniel 23111 Locust Way
BOTHELL, WA
Read more at http://www.sos.wa.gov/corps/search_detail.aspx?ubi=601190211​
 
Last edited:
hermannr

hermannr

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
2,327
Location
Okanogan Highland
BigDave said:
I may have over looked this but Barbra is the Exec Director and Mayor of Arlington


Arlington Fly-In
4700 188th Street NE Suite G
Arlington, WA 98223
Phone 360-435-5857
Fax 360-435-6480

Exec Director [email]Barbara.Tolbert@arlingtonflyin.org[/email]
Exhibits Exhibits@arlingtonflyin.org
Fly Mart FlyMart@arlingtonflyin.org
Info Info@arlingtonflyin.org
Pictures Pictures@arlingtonflyin.org
Sponsors Sponsors@arlingtonflyin.org
Volunteer Volunteer@arlingtonflyin.org
Webmaster Webmaster@arlingtonflyin.org

Barbara Tolbert, Mayor

One in the same and likely the Arlington Fly In is City ran and sponsored, interesting.

As I look back I see OlGutshotWilly made reference to it earlier.

I did find where it is a non profit

UBI Number 601190211
Category REG
Profit/Nonprofit Nonprofit
Active/Inactive Active
State Of Incorporation WA
WA Filing Date 04/13/1981
Expiration Date 04/30/2013
Inactive Date
Duration Perpetual
Registered Agent Information
Agent Name Barbara Tolbert
Address 4700 188TH NE

City ARLINGTON
State WA
ZIP 98223
Special Address Information
Address
City
State
Zip

Governing Persons
Title Name Address
Treasurer THOMPSON, MARY ANN 16309 2ND PL W #Q1
LYNNWOOD, WA
President Jacobson, Ron 4204 Olive St
EVERETT, WA
Vice President Johnson, Robert 5819 114th Ave NE
KIRKLAND, WA
Secretary Clark, Daniel 23111 Locust Way
BOTHELL, WA
Read more at http://www.sos.wa.gov/corps/search_detail.aspx?ubi=601190211​
Click to expand...

The Arlington flyin has been going on for years...it would be interesting to find out if, befor ms Tolbert was elected Mayor, who was the head dog at the flyin? The previous Mayor of Arlington?????
 
skiingislife725

skiingislife725

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
400
Location
Lake Stevens, WA
I just got back from a week-long vacation and just remembered about my FOIA request for the Fly-In Special Event Use Agreement (http://www.4shared.com/office/IJuOpN8B/NWEAA_Fly-In_Special_Event_Use.html). In it, in multiple areas, it refers to the the permittee abiding by federal, state, and local laws, which makes me think that the city is maintaining the control a lot more than a lease/rental might permit.

I believe the most relevant portion is found in the Nondiscrimination subsection of the use agreement (sub sect 22/page 12 of pdf). In it, it states:

"...Accordingly, permittee may admit or exclude from the premises such persons as it may deem proper, as long as such action does not violate any applicable federal, state, or local laws."

I am seeing that section (among other similar sections) as saying that if an attendee is legally allowed to be on the airport premises with a firearm, then the permittee would be violating state law by kicking them off of the state land. However, I suppose it could also mean that because they are a private entity, that they are legally allowed to ban the carry of firearms. The only issue I see with that case is that the rest of the use agreement seems very limited (Arlington is maintaining a lot of control), much more so than a lease would probably be.

What do you guys think? See any relevant sections that I'm overlooking? USE AGREEMENT IS HERE: http://www.4shared.com/office/IJuOpN8B/NWEAA_Fly-In_Special_Event_Use.html
 
Last edited:
BigDave

BigDave

Opt-Out Members
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
3,456
Location
Yakima, Washington, USA
skiingislife725 said:
I believe the most relevant portion is found in the Nondiscrimination subsection of the use agreement (sub sect 22/page 12 of pdf). In it, it states:
"...Accordingly, permittee may admit or exclude from the premises such persons as it may deem proper, as long as such action does not violate any applicable federal, state, or local laws."
Click to expand...

If the permitted is a private entity then there would be no violation of law restricting firearms, the restrictions on prohibiting, infringed or impairing applies to our governing bodies.

I would be looking for the link that the Fly In is City ran and not a private entity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top