Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Public Lands - License of Use, Public or Private area?

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran slapmonkay's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    1,267

    Public Lands - License of Use, Public or Private area?

    I know some of you may wish I did not use WAC as the example in this scenario but they are the only ones I currently have a Snohomish County License of Use agreement for. Even though this is summarized using WAC as an example, I feel I am adding more facts (documents) to the discussion and not beating a dead horse. I will say, if you don't like WAC or policies then don't go. It is a good venue to reach other gun owners no matter what I personally feel about policies (feel free to search my username and WAC to see how I feel if your that interested).

    Anyways, back to the subject...

    [License Agreement URL]

    Quote Originally Posted by SpyderTattoo View Post
    People are voluntarily entering private property and are subject to search and having their weapons checked and tied.
    I was reading some threads and noticed a post that said we are entering private property and are subject to search in regards to WAC. While this may be correct for the Puyallup WAC show which is actually held on private property and may be a lease (I don't know). I do have the documents (and have for a while) for the WAC in Monroe which is held on public lands and buildings and are done so under a license of use agreement.

    In the license agreement 3.1 it states:
    Quote Originally Posted by 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
    WHERE AS, the purpose described is: 2012 WAC MONROE GUN & KNIFE SHOWS
    WHERE AS, the dates set are as listed

    The license also includes how the venue must be accessible for inspection by numerous parties (2.5, 4i & 9b), non-discrimination conditions (2.7 & 10a), laws of WA state apply to the license (5.5), and permits access through adjoining county property (3.2). It also acknowledges that licensee may charge an admission fee (3.2).

    Quote Originally Posted by 3.2
    Access. The COUNTY shall permit access through adjoing 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, discriminate on the basis of race, creed, sex, color, national origin, or the presense of any sensory, mental, or physical handicap.
    Quote Originally Posted by 5.5
    Governing Law and Stipulation of Venue. The laws of the State of Washington shall govern this Agreement.
    What are everyone's thoughts on:
    a) Claims that the area is private property
    b) Ability to exclude individuals from said property
    I Am Not A Lawyer, verify all facts presented independently.

    It's called the "American Dream" because you have to be asleep to believe it. - George Carlin

    I carry a spare tire, in case I have a flat. I carry life insurance, in case I die. I carry a gun, in case I need it.

  2. #2
    State Researcher Bill Starks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nortonville, KY, USA
    Posts
    4,291
    See PNSPA vs Sequim - http://clallamcountybar.com/wp-conte...Wn_2d_3421.pdf

    < excerpt from Redcounty.com>

    the court held that the City of Sequim was acting in a private capacity when leasing out a city convention center to an association conducting a gun show within the premises belonging to Sequim. The court held that laws that apply to public parks, public meetings and other municipally owned premises and property are not the same as restrictions imposed on private parties per a city’s contractual relations with private parties.
    AGO Opinion 2008-8 essentially states that the City of Federal Way’s conclusion that the City has the right “to decide as an owner how its property is used” would render the preemption statute meaningless. In the event civil litigation becomes necessary, attorney fees could be very high especially in the face of the unequivocal legal authority outlined herein.
    As stated already, there are several jurisdictions within the State of Washington that are not presently complying with the preemption law and firearms owners are becoming very concerned that such callous indifference to state law may endanger the lives of Washington citizens in direct contravention of legislative intent!

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575
    Quote Originally Posted by M1Gunr View Post
    See PNSPA vs Sequim - http://clallamcountybar.com/wp-conte...Wn_2d_3421.pdf

    < excerpt from Redcounty.com>
    PNSPA vs Sequim also says "The critical point is that the conditions the city imposed related to a permit for private use of its property. They were not laws or regulations of application to the general public." What if the event was open to the general public such as an antiques show, rather than a convention for licensed chiropractors only? When is the event public?

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran slapmonkay's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    1,267
    Quote Originally Posted by M1Gunr View Post
    See PNSPA vs Sequim - http://clallamcountybar.com/wp-conte...Wn_2d_3421.pdf

    < excerpt from Redcounty.com>
    I don't believe the scenario outlined is tightly coupled to PNSPA vs Sequim due to the following:
    a) The County is not restricting anything. In regard to the case provided, Sequim actually imposed restrictions on the 'permit'. These restrictions are whats being decided in the case.
    b) The case provided does not resolve private property/public property rights, especially in regards to a license of use

    While the case you provide does outline public entity working as a private seller/leaser, this is not really at question in the scenario but rather the rights obtained by licensee with a license of use such as the one provided when the land licensed is public property. Who has control to exclude, etc.

    I suppose this is more of a property rights question than a firearm related question, but it does relate to firearms in the since of who has the right to ask you to leave or refuse entry and conditions of entry.
    Last edited by slapmonkay; 08-17-2012 at 08:04 PM. Reason: Clarity
    I Am Not A Lawyer, verify all facts presented independently.

    It's called the "American Dream" because you have to be asleep to believe it. - George Carlin

    I carry a spare tire, in case I have a flat. I carry life insurance, in case I die. I carry a gun, in case I need it.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575
    A license to use a public facility would not convey any property rights to the licensee. I would think the property rights would remain with the property owner under a license to use. If that is the case then how can the property owner impose any restrictions beyond what is allowed in RCW 9.41.290 and 300. I can see how the public property owner can place restrictions on the licensee but not on the general public even if they are paying for admission. If the event were open to the public at no charge it would be even harder to say preemption would not apply.

  6. #6
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Orphan View Post
    A license to use a public facility would not convey any property rights to the licensee. I would think the property rights would remain with the property owner under a license to use. If that is the case then how can the property owner impose any restrictions beyond what is allowed in RCW 9.41.290 and 300. I can see how the public property owner can place restrictions on the licensee but not on the general public even if they are paying for admission. If the event were open to the public at no charge it would be even harder to say preemption would not apply.
    I would look at it the same way.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    I would look at it the same way.
    Yes but are we right, LOL

  8. #8
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Orphan View Post
    Yes but are we right, LOL

    Yes we are....hehe,,, it's the almighty state that may be wrong....lol. OF course that is my totally liberty biased opinion.
    Last edited by sudden valley gunner; 08-17-2012 at 09:08 PM.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  9. #9
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by Orphan View Post
    A license to use a public facility would not convey any property rights to the licensee. I would think the property rights would remain with the property owner under a license to use. If that is the case then how can the property owner impose any restrictions beyond what is allowed in RCW 9.41.290 and 300. I can see how the public property owner can place restrictions on the licensee but not on the general public even if they are paying for admission. If the event were open to the public at no charge it would be even harder to say preemption would not apply.
    ^^^ I agree with this clearly.

    I do have another question though. How can a publicly owned building be leased out to a private party in the first place? Who is collecting the revenue from the lease? I believe that in the case of a publicly/government owned property that the leaser should not be able to make any more restrictions than the government can.

    A privately owned property is one thing, a government/publicly owned is a whole other thing. I believe that preemption should hold in an public/government owned building and any government run event.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,666
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    ^^^ I agree with this clearly.

    I do have another question though. How can a publicly owned building be leased out to a private party in the first place? Who is collecting the revenue from the lease? I believe that in the case of a publicly/government owned property that the leaser should not be able to make any more restrictions than the government can.

    A privately owned property is one thing, a government/publicly owned is a whole other thing. I believe that preemption should hold in an public/government owned building and any government run event.
    So The City has a community center building with several rooms, facilities, etc... One of the rooms is a banquet room that the city uses to hold meetings for city workers, training, etc...

    In order to increase The City's revenue the banquet room is leased out on Friday and Saturday's for a wedding party, a RC car club, a 'non-violence' seminar....

    Does not each of these groups have the ability to set parameters upon leasing the facility? Certainly they do. Let's say OCDO leases the banquet room from The City, doesn't OCDO have the ability to set parameters?

    All of the above examples are closed to the public and are held for the group's aforementioned.

    Now, let's say a group leases the banquet room from The City AND allows the public to come visit their group's activities (RC car group), then perhaps their ability to restrict legal activities is reduced.....
    Live Free or Die!

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575
    Quote Originally Posted by gogodawgs View Post
    So The City has a community center building with several rooms, facilities, etc... One of the rooms is a banquet room that the city uses to hold meetings for city workers, training, etc...

    In order to increase The City's revenue the banquet room is leased out on Friday and Saturday's for a wedding party, a RC car club, a 'non-violence' seminar....

    Does not each of these groups have the ability to set parameters upon leasing the facility? Certainly they do. Let's say OCDO leases the banquet room from The City, doesn't OCDO have the ability to set parameters?

    All of the above examples are closed to the public and are held for the group's aforementioned.

    Now, let's say a group leases the banquet room from The City AND allows the public to come visit their group's activities (RC car group), then perhaps their ability to restrict legal activities is reduced.....
    The problem is most of the banquet rooms, convention centers issue a license to use the facilities, they do not rent them or lease them.

    The concept of a lease and a license may be quite confusing for some. By definition, a lease temporarily grants the right to a certain property for a particular term while a license is giving someone the right to perform or do something to a property that is originally not allowed or prohibited in the absence of such license. The first is the one that generates a sense of interest in the grantor’s property whereas the latter just gives due permission of usage of the property so there’s no interest in the said property.

    Read more: Difference Between License and Lease | Difference Between | License vs Lease http://www.differencebetween.net/lan...#ixzz23vS4mha1

    If a licensee has no interest in said property I would think he could not make any rules for said property. The question here is does preemption apply to a building that is being used under a licensed to use. I am thinking yes because the building is still under control if the City.
    Last edited by Jeff Hayes; 08-18-2012 at 03:01 PM.

Posting Permissions

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