K have the perfect argument wanted to get some feed back

K so I have heard that venues such as Safeco will not allow CC let alone OC. My argument goes like this, We are a state that stands on old British law, thus meaning if there is no law against it, it is therefore not illegal correct?

If that is the case, there is no law forbidding me from going to a game at a public arena! There are some vague laws about private property but nothing specifies that a private business can refuse you service on public land, therefore neither are they prevented from saying that nor am I prevented from being able to legally carry! Secondly there are laws that require that those with a CC permit be exempt from being barred from places like Safeco! This means then that infact the private business is in violation of preventing me from going to a public venue, I am within my legal rights to carry there, the law affords me protection, and exemption. yet no law backs their rights as a business.

The laws of the state constitution supersede state or business rules certainly one pointed out that they can just refuse me service, Ah I said but they cant, in their contract with the city, they are not allowed to discriminate while retaining the venue, thus this is clear discrimination regardless of what they are discriminating over, it is a protected activity by state law, and they are in violation not only of my civil liberties I said but they are also in violation of their contract.

So would I be safe to say this argument is sound?

in short not illegal for me, laws not only dont forbid it, but they protect that right!
Business operating on public land may not discriminate or their contract is void, there is nothing defining discrimination other than to mistreat a public person who is with in compliance of state, and federal law!
they are on Public land rented or not, and since it is rented land, and nowhere in their contract does it say that the public gives up its constitutional rights per this contract, or civil rights!
in fact there is a law in place that makes it illegal to forbid some one their civil liberties while on public land, and no law that gives them the legal right to do such things on public property!

I believe that if there were somewhere a law allowing them to forbid this legal activity it would be in direct violation to the state preemption, and state laws. I also feel that the way they conduct these illegal acts are in direct violation of the state preemption as it stands now.

K so feed back want to know if this holds weight, and water. I want to have an airtight argument if I ever got to Safeco, because I want to be able not only to defend my right to carry, but also be able to have a legal right to sue them for being violation of my civil rights, and my state constitutional rights. I also would not mind being able to prove they voided their contract, and that unless they stop illegally discriminating against cc that they will not be allowed to renew their contract!

Just hand em your No Guns = No Money card and walk away, unless you just want to debate them on the spot. But really, in today's economy the card has forced (nudged?) a few businesses to reverse their No Guns policies in order to not lose business. There are some reports of that here, I just can't find em atm.

I've got to agree with Maine. Just give them a no guns, no money business card. Or conceal it. They won't give a flying f about your argument, at least not the one's we're likely to deal with. They'll just call the cops if you try to maintain your argument.

I think your best bet is to talk to a lawyer. If they think this idea has wings, then you can roll with it and go where it takes you, to court or otherwise. Good luck.

For me it's no problem. I refuse to spend money to support the prima-donas that the sports stars have become. Everyone bitches about some Corporate CEO making millions of dollars per year but not a single peep about a sports figure making several times that.

I'd rather go watch a little league game. Entry's free, the game's more interesting, and I can afford the hamburger they sell at the "ballpark"

Amen to that one, I thought I was the only sain person!

amlevin said:

For me it's no problem. I refuse to spend money to support the prima-donas that the sports stars have become. Everyone bitches about some Corporate CEO making millions of dollars per year but not a single peep about a sports figure making several times that.

I'd rather go watch a little league game. Entry's free, the game's more interesting, and I can afford the hamburger they sell at the "ballpark"

Click to expand...

It’s a blessing to see this attitude on sports from someone else. Every day I am asked about sports, I simply say I don’t follow or attend a single event. Then I go into my tirade about how they are over paid babies that lack an education. Have you ever seen a sports interview with one of these clowns? To support the inflated incomes of these people the crowd is the one getting screwed. Tickets, Beer, Drinks all inflated to cover the real problem, the salaries of the players. Don’t forget team managers etc. It’s just ridiculous and I don’t participate in it at all

THANK YOU! And double ditto to the above!

[video=youtube;GP1Wgkh5MeE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GP1Wgkh5MeE&feature=player_detailpage[/video]

When the Cleveland Browns owner Art Modell decided to try and hold the city hostage for a new stadium, is when I stopped following football. For years I haven't followed any team, watched games, or bought team swag. Amlevin spoke it how I feel too, if I am going to spend any money on supporting a team, it will be at the local, high school, junior leagues level.

As to the OP Topic, you may have a valid line of reasoning, and I would suggest following it up with an attorney/lawyer. I agree that arguing your position, at the entrance, with a hourly wage staff member, will prove to be fruitless.

"The more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it." Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501, 506, 90 L. Ed. 265, 66 S. Ct. 276 (1946)

Thank you rapgood

that will help I am sure. I will keep that one on me all the time from now on too. I have been collecting the most important laws by line, and course, in order to be able to bring a legal argument that stands muster in the face of some extreme nut. I would at the very least demand my money be returned to me for violating my right to carry, and civil right of freedom of movement. I am mostly just sick of being pushed around by some one simply because they think the law is to complex for a simpleton like me to understand, when in truth law is very clear, and concise, and not hard to understand when broken down. I just want to be able to prove I am a victim of lies, and false rights, false laws, and that I want my rights to be retained by me regardless of what some nut thinks is not my right.

What good does a right do if you refuse to flex the muscle when some one tells you that you can not use your legal right!

When laws become so complex that one can not act upon ones right, then those rights are useless!!!!!!

amlevin said:

For me it's no problem. I refuse to spend money to support the prima-donas that the sports stars have become. Everyone bitches about some Corporate CEO making millions of dollars per year but not a single peep about a sports figure making several times that.

I'd rather go watch a little league game. Entry's free, the game's more interesting, and I can afford the hamburger they sell at the "ballpark"

Click to expand...

There are high school games at SafeCo as well as other events.....

I don't bitch about what Pro Athletes make, nor do I about what CEO's make (envy....a deadly sin), it has no effect on my abilities.

Wait a minute......

Did I hear correctly when Judge Naplitano said that Starbucks COULD NOT prohibit open carry???

Lovenox said:

Did I hear correctly when Judge Naplitano said that Starbucks COULD NOT prohibit open carry???

Click to expand...

That is his opinion under our modern anti discrimination laws.

They can and should be able to discriminate against anyone they don't want onto their property.

Lovenox said:

Did I hear correctly when Judge Naplitano said that Starbucks COULD NOT prohibit open carry???

Click to expand...

From what I gather in his speech that rights are protected by law from race and religion to firearms and firearms and cannot more be restrictive by those in public accommodations to restrict anyone of the protected rights.

I do not see this as where we are today but I feel have some good points.

Lovenox said:

Did I hear correctly when Judge Naplitano said that Starbucks COULD NOT prohibit open carry???

Click to expand...

That is due to it being a PUBLIC accommodation.

ANY Store open to the public, according to judge Napolitano, can NOT prohibit OC so long as it is legal to do so in your state.

07Altima said:

that will help I am sure. I will keep that one on me all the time from now on too. I have been collecting the most important laws by line, and course, in order to be able to bring a legal argument that stands muster in the face of some extreme nut. I would at the very least demand my money be returned to me for violating my right to carry, and civil right of freedom of movement. I am mostly just sick of being pushed around by some one simply because they think the law is to complex for a simpleton like me to understand, when in truth law is very clear, and concise, and not hard to understand when broken down. I just want to be able to prove I am a victim of lies, and false rights, false laws, and that I want my rights to be retained by me regardless of what some nut thinks is not my right.

What good does a right do if you refuse to flex the muscle when some one tells you that you can not use your legal right!

When laws become so complex that one can not act upon ones right, then those rights are useless!!!!!!

Click to expand...

According to one lawyer around here, it's okay if the law is ambiguous.

I am willing to bet that same lawyer still files a form 1040 and believes that he and the rest of us are the subject of the income tax too.

I've noticed that court house guards have a hard time with RCW9.41.300 oh well I train them any time I am ordered to appear in court.

So far I have been treated well

Freedom1Man said:

According to one lawyer around here, it's okay if the law is ambiguous.

I am willing to bet that same lawyer still files a form 1040 and believes that he and the rest of us are the subject of the income tax too.

I've noticed that court house guards have a hard time with RCW9.41.300 oh well I train them any time I am ordered to appear in court.

Click to expand...

Regarding the Courthouse I have not had any serious issues with it here in Snohomish County they have all been very nice about it, and we have not had any serious issues going in there with them
I am sure that there are places that do as I have seen it on youtube vids about courthouses that are not in compliance.

Freedom1Man said:

That is due to it being a PUBLIC accommodation.

ANY Store open to the public, according to judge Napolitano, can NOT prohibit OC so long as it is legal to do so in your state.

Click to expand...

This may be the "Judge's" opinion but any owner of a private business can still tell someone to leave for just about any reason. Can be for carrying a gun, wearing insufficient clothing, having excessive BO, or the owner just doesn't like them. Private Property is just that.

May not be a good business decision but it's legal.

amlevin said:

This may be the "Judge's" opinion but any owner of a private business can still tell someone to leave for just about any reason. Can be for carrying a gun, wearing insufficient clothing, having excessive BO, or the owner just doesn't like them. Private Property is just that.
May not be a good business decision but it's legal.

Click to expand...

Actually, I think that the SCOTUS answered that question in Marsh v. Alabama, quoted above. Based upon their language in that holding, it seems that the absolute rights of the private property owner are eroded the more that the property owner opens his/her property for use by the public in general. I read their holding as making the degree of control "sliding" depending on how openly they invite the public.

In more clearly defining the holding in Marsh, in 1972, SCOTUS elaborated by holding "Property does not lose its private character merely because the public is generally invited to use it for designated purposes. Few would argue that a free-standing store, with abutting parking space for customers, assumes significant public attributes merely because the public is invited to shop there. Nor is size alone the controlling factor. The essentially private character of a store and its privately owned abutting property does not change by virtue of being large or clustered with other stores in a modern shopping center. This is not to say that no differences may exist with respect to government regulation or rights of citizens arising by virtue of the size and diversity of activities carried on within a privately owned facility serving the public. There will be, for example, problems with respect to public health and safety which vary in degree and in the appropriate government response, depending upon the size and character of a shopping center, an office building, a sports arena, or other large facility serving the public for commercial purposes. We do say that the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights of private property owners, as well as the First Amendment rights of all citizens, must be respected and protected. The Framers of the Constitution certainly did not think these fundamental rights of a free society are incompatible with each other. There may be situations where accommodations between them, and the drawing of lines to assure due protection of both, are not easy." Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner, 407 U.S. 551, 569-570 (U.S. 1972).

The lack of bright-line distinctions between one person's rights versus another's creates ambiguity in the law (particularly when comparing one person's fundamental rights to another person's fundamental rights) that is, typically, addressed on a case-by-case basis by the courts. Judge Naplitano's response on FOX was somewhat glib, but understandable because of the time constraints put on his answers to the questions. Very few "bright-line"answers exist in the law.

The thing all the private property maximalists I've ever spoken with seem to miss, is that I am also private property. My property. No matter where I am standing at the moment, I own my shoes. I own my hair. If I walk onto your land with something in my pocket, that item remains mine no matter who owns the land I'm standing on.

Your rights to your private property end where they begin to infringe on my own rights to my private property. Yes, you can demand I leave your property. But you can't force me to submit to a search or leave the contents of my pockets out on the street.

But there are laws that govern both of us. You can't kick someone off your land because he's black. I can't keep illegal drugs in my pockets. Private property laws and the constitution would seem to indicate that we could each do whatever we want with our private property, but that's simply not how it works.