Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 26

Thread: State Agency acting as land lord

  1. #1
    Regular Member Vitaeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Bremerton, Washington
    Posts
    593

    State Agency acting as land lord

    Can anyone point me to the court decisions that allow the State as a landlord to limit firearms? I am researching a State Park contract that requires no firearms as a condition of the rent/lease of part of the park.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Man, I know that there was a case about public housing where the court ruled that guns could not be prohibited .... ahhh, I don't recall the specifics .. google may show you the way.

  3. #3
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    I think the usual cases cited by cities are Cherry v. municipality of metropolitan seattle and Pacific Northwest shooting park association v. sequeim
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  4. #4
    Regular Member massivedesign's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Olympia, Washington, USA
    Posts
    866
    Seattle has it in all their leases, to the Children's museum etc.. Pretty interesting.
    www.WaGuns.org

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

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575
    Quote Originally Posted by Vitaeus View Post
    Can anyone point me to the court decisions that allow the State as a landlord to limit firearms? I am researching a State Park contract that requires no firearms as a condition of the rent/lease of part of the park.
    Complicated question, this is my opinion and only my opinion, rebuttals/debate will be greatly appreciated.

    If you are directly interacting with the governmental agency such as when the state is your landlord they can regulate firearms but only in regards to the renter. If you are a second party such as someone visiting you at your rented property they can not regulate that nor can they make a rule or law that affects the general public.

    ENM cites PNWSA v Sequim but that was not about carrying firearms but about the sale of firearms in a public facility. Keep in mind that no where in Sequim v PNWSA is carrying of firearms mentioned. Also in PNWSA v Sequim the court specifically stated that "they were not laws or regulation of application to the general public". So while the City of Sequim can tell the person that is licensed to use the facility they can not carry a firearm they can not restrict a person with a valid CPL from carrying into the event the facility is being used for, see RCW 9.41.300 2 (b) (i).

    Cherry was about a City employee not the general public, think about it the City can certainly keep a City employed maintenance man from carrying a firearm while working in the park but can not prevent the general public visiting the park from carrying a firearm.

    In stadiums and Arenas the law, RCW 9.41.300, is clear the City , County, Municipality can regulate the carry of firearms but must exempt CPL holders in possession of a pistol from that law/regulation.


    To sum it up if you have business relationship with a governmental agency such as being licensed to use a facility they can regulate your possession of firearms. If you are attending an event at a governmental facility and you have no business connection with the government they cannot regulate your firearm.
    Last edited by Jeff Hayes; 07-22-2013 at 10:41 PM.
    Throw me to the wolves and I will come back leading the pack.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575
    Quote Originally Posted by massivedesign View Post
    Seattle has it in all their leases, to the Children's museum etc.. Pretty interesting.
    Pretty unlawful if it applies to the general public, IMHO.
    Throw me to the wolves and I will come back leading the pack.

  7. #7
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Hayes View Post
    Complicated question, this is my opinion and only my opinion, rebuttals/debate will be greatly appreciated.

    If you are directly interacting with the governmental agency such as when the state is your landlord they can regulate firearms but only in regards to the renter. If you are a second party such as someone visiting you at your rented property they can not regulate that nor can they make a rule or law that affects the general public.

    ENM cites PNWSA v Sequim but that was not about carrying firearms but about the sale of firearms in a public facility. Keep in mind that no where in Sequim v PNWSA is carrying of firearms mentioned. Also in PNWSA v Sequim the court specifically stated that "they were not laws or regulation of application to the general public". So while the City of Sequim can tell the person that is licensed to use the facility they can not carry a firearm they can not restrict a person with a valid CPL from carrying into the event the facility is being used for, see RCW 9.41.300 2 (b) (i).

    Cherry was about a City employee not the general public, think about it the City can certainly keep a City employed maintenance man from carrying a firearm while working in the park but can not prevent the general public visiting the park from carrying a firearm.

    In stadiums and Arenas the law, RCW 9.41.300, is clear the City , County, Municipality can regulate the carry of firearms but must exempt CPL holders in possession of a pistol from that law/regulation.


    To sum it up if you have business relationship with a governmental agency such as being licensed to use a facility they can regulate your possession of firearms. If you are attending an event at a governmental facility and you have no business connection with the government they cannot regulate your firearm.
    I'm not disagreeing here, but the OP asked about court cases involving the city as a landlord... Several cities (including yours, Spokane) have cited that those court cases trying to justify preempted laws or to exclude people from park facilities. I'm not stating those cases are being correctly applied, only that some city governments seem to be using them as an excuse...
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    I'm not disagreeing here, but the OP asked about court cases involving the city as a landlord... Several cities (including yours, Spokane) have cited that those court cases trying to justify preempted laws or to exclude people from park facilities. I'm not stating those cases are being correctly applied, only that some city governments seem to be using them as an excuse...
    "I'm not stating those cases are being correctly applied, only that some city governments seem to be using them as an excuse.." that would be a very accurate statement IMHO.

    I do not think cities etc can regulate the possession of pistol by persons with a valid CPL in Stadiums and Arenas. I would love for someone to try to prove me to be incorrect.

    My response was to clarify the court cases various cities continue IMO to mis-cite.
    Throw me to the wolves and I will come back leading the pack.

  9. #9
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Now Vitaeus, you may not be able to say in public and that's ok, but if you are, what type of park facility are they renting while wanting that authority? for what type of event? it may not make much legal difference, but knowing their thinking might somehow aid in researching the topic, it may be based off of an incorrect interpretation of state law and a proper letter written by an attorney may be a enough to make them knock it off.....

    if no firearms is an administrative rule then surely it must be in the WAC somewhere, and a WAC would have to cite an RCW for authority, that would get interesting.
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  10. #10
    Regular Member massivedesign's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Olympia, Washington, USA
    Posts
    866
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Hayes View Post
    Pretty unlawful if it applies to the general public, IMHO.
    http://clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us/~scrip...ch.htm&r=2&f=G

    7.3 Firearms . Museum agrees that it shall not permit any person to enter or remain within the Premises while in possession of a firearm, including a concealed firearm, whether or not the person carrying said firearm is licensed or permitted to carry a firearm or concealed firearm. Firearms are defined for purposes of this Lease as any object or device which is designed to explosively discharge any object or force including any electrical charge, which has the capacity of causing injury or inflicting pain and specifically includes, guns, pistols, rifles (whether any of the same are powered by gunpowder, compressed air or gas), tasers, bow and arrow and cross-bow. Museum shall, upon discovery that such a person is within the premises, ask that person to leave, and shall promptly summon law enforcement if the person does not comply with that request.
    www.WaGuns.org

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

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575
    Quote Originally Posted by massivedesign View Post
    First of all the only place a City, County, Municipality etc can regulate the carry of
    firearms is in Stadiums and Convention Centers everywhere else is not addressed in RCW
    9.41.290 and 300. PNSA v Sequim specificly states they were not laws or regulations of
    application to the general public. I believe this law to be unlawful and a blatant attempt to deprive us of our state and federal constitutional rights.
    Throw me to the wolves and I will come back leading the pack.

  12. #12
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Hayes View Post
    First of all the only place a City, County, Municipality etc can regulate the carry of
    firearms is in Stadiums and Convention Centers everywhere else is not addressed in RCW
    9.41.290 and 300. PNSA v Sequim specificly states they were not laws or regulations of
    application to the general public. I believe this law to be unlawful and a blatant attempt to deprive us of our state and federal constitutional rights.
    Well maybe we should see if an advocacy group like the SAF would like to smack down Sea-Town again...

    get three or four people with CPLs to take their children to the museum, go to the restroom and come out OCing! the museum asks them to leave... now they have standing to contest the regulation....

    I find it funny that the section of the lease cited massivedesign banning firearms falls under a chapter entitled "compliance with laws" that was kinda funny.....
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  13. #13
    Regular Member Schlepnier's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Yelm, Washington USA
    Posts
    419
    Has anybody shot rapgood a PM on this yet? If anybody can get the ball rolling on a legal case it would be him.
    +thought for the day+
    ++victory needs no explanation, defeat allows none++

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Bothell
    Posts
    586
    Quote Originally Posted by Vitaeus View Post
    Can anyone point me to the court decisions that allow the State as a landlord to limit firearms? I am researching a State Park contract that requires no firearms as a condition of the rent/lease of part of the park.
    What is the purpose of the lease? Putting up a taco stand or something (just for example)? If the contract "prohibits" the ability of the business owner from carrying a firearm, would that conflict with RCW 9.41.050? Assuming that a lease agreement would imply a "fixed place" of employment. Not to mention the blatant violation of .300.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    162

    Another arrow for your quiver:

    I don't know my way around the RCW, but see if there is a general "contracts" section. There is a universal legal principle that the law is incorporated into every contract (the lease may even have a clause that says so, in so many words), so obviously the RCW provisions allowing the possession of firearms apply and are in conflict with the one prohibiting firearms. Obviously, the law prevails over any unlawful contract provision, so the one prohibiting firearms would be a nullity. Also, there is a general legal principle in business that a board or officer of a company cannot do anything beyond the authority granted them by the articles of incorporation, partnership agreement, bylaws, etc., or it's deemed "ultra vires" and not only a void act, but the actors can be held individually responsible for the fallout. Same thing applies to government (except, as we know personal responsibility, where they can hide behind sovereign immunity in some instances). Thus, where the leasing body lacked legal authority to regulate firearms (unless it did so within the provisions of RCW), that provision was also "ultra vires," so to speak, and void. (not voidable, VOID, which is much worse for them)

    Some states also have sections of code governing landlord-tenant law (but be careful-some only apply to residential leases rather than commercial leases like the one in your issue). Also, some states have "local government" or "municipalities" sections that may delineate local government authority and the application of state law in local government actions. There may be more as well....

    I guess my point is that you don't just have to look in case law for legal principles you can use to stop them in their tracks-there are many other possible sources of law where you might find principles that fit your needs-just be careful and don't misinterpret or misapply them beyond their actual scope, as constitutionalist types are fond of doing (i.e., trying to apply the UCC (uniform commercial code) to say they haven't entered a contract with the state so aren't subject to traffic laws or the courts, and other such rubbish)
    Last edited by DCR; 07-23-2013 at 01:58 PM.

  16. #16
    Regular Member rapgood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Bothell, WA
    Posts
    565
    7.3 Firearms . Museum agrees that it shall not permit any person to enter or remain within the Premises while in possession of a firearm, including a concealed firearm, whether or not the person carrying said firearm is licensed or permitted to carry a firearm or concealed firearm. Firearms are defined for purposes of this Lease as any object or device which is designed to explosively discharge any object or force including any electrical charge, which has the capacity of causing injury or inflicting pain and specifically includes, guns, pistols, rifles (whether any of the same are powered by gunpowder, compressed air or gas), tasers, bow and arrow and cross-bow. Museum shall, upon discovery that such a person is within the premises, ask that person to leave, and shall promptly summon law enforcement if the person does not comply with that request.
    I don't think that dog will hunt.
    Rev. Robert Apgood, Esq.

    A right cannot be lost by exercising it. McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3021, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 (2010) (citing Near v. Minn., 283 U.S. 697 (1931)).

    Although IAAL, anything I say here is not legal advice. No conversations we may have privately or otherwise in this forum constitute the formation of an attorney-client relationship, and are not intended to do so.

  17. #17
    Regular Member Vitaeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Bremerton, Washington
    Posts
    593
    purpose is a non-profit renting/leasing/reserving(not sure of exact relationship) an Environmental Learning Center at a State Park and the contract stipulates that firearms are prohibited by attendee's.

    http://caselaw.findlaw.com/wa-suprem...t/1152139.html (V. Sequim) looks to be the case I was looking for, yet another example of a "corporation" being treated differently than a real person and to the real person's detriment.

    Thanks for the help folks, looks like me and mine will no longer be attending the event.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Washington, Dry Side
    Posts
    13
    Hi guys!

    I'm new to the forum, and haven't posted much.
    But I've been following the various threads for quite some time,
    and have read all of the court cases cited.

    And I gotta say, there is a wealth of info embodied in the members here!

    Hope I don't step on any toes, but here's some thoughts on this thread:

    I believe Jeff is correct when he states:
    "First of all the only place a City, County, Municipality etc can regulate the carry of
    firearms is in Stadiums and Convention Centers everywhere else is not addressed in RCW
    9.41.290 and 300. "


    This view is bolstered by AGO 2008 No. 8 at 6:

    "The Legislature has carefully set out the places where the general public
    is prohibited from possessing firearms.
    “Where a statute specifically designates the things upon which it operates,
    there is an inference that the Legislature intended all omissions.”
    In re Hopkins, 137 Wn.2d 897, 901, 976 P.2d 616 (1999).

    We conclude that the Legislature did not intend that the possession of firearms
    would be prohibited in the places that were not listed.
    This conclusion is buttressed by the fact that the Legislature's
    prohibition of firearms is very narrow. "


    And ENM said (maybe tongue in cheek?)
    "get three or four people with CPLs to take their children to the museum, go to the restroom and come out OCing! the museum asks them to leave... now they have standing to contest the regulation...."


    It doesn't seem like 'standing' by way of a confrontation is needed in this case.

    Since it was the Seattle City Council that executed this lease,
    a conversation with a member of the council seems in order.

    Just my $0.02.

    I'm on the dry side, but maybe there is somebody over there that can take this on?

    Rebel

  19. #19
    Regular Member rapgood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Bothell, WA
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by Rebel View Post
    Hi guys!

    snip...

    This view is bolstered by AGO 2008 No. 8 at 6:

    "The Legislature has carefully set out the places where the general public
    is prohibited from possessing firearms.
    “Where a statute specifically designates the things upon which it operates,
    there is an inference that the Legislature intended all omissions.”
    In re Hopkins, 137 Wn.2d 897, 901, 976 P.2d 616 (1999).

    We conclude that the Legislature did not intend that the possession of firearms
    would be prohibited in the places that were not listed.
    This conclusion is buttressed by the fact that the Legislature's
    prohibition of firearms is very narrow. "

    snip...
    The legal reasoning behind this is embodied in the maxim "Expressio unius est exclusio alterius. The expression of one thing is the exclusion of another." In Washington, a thing not expressly forbidden by law is lawful.
    Rev. Robert Apgood, Esq.

    A right cannot be lost by exercising it. McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3021, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 (2010) (citing Near v. Minn., 283 U.S. 697 (1931)).

    Although IAAL, anything I say here is not legal advice. No conversations we may have privately or otherwise in this forum constitute the formation of an attorney-client relationship, and are not intended to do so.

  20. #20
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Hayes View Post
    If you are attending an event at a governmental facility and you have no business connection with the government they cannot regulate your firearm.
    Most of those "governmental facilities" around here (ex State Parks) are Arenas, Event's Centers, and Stadiums which are "leased" to the event promoter and THEY can restrict firearms. Most do.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  21. #21
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    Most of those "governmental facilities" around here (ex State Parks) are Arenas, Event's Centers, and Stadiums which are "leased" to the event promoter and THEY can restrict firearms. Most do.
    what type of a lease? a lease where the event promoter is paying rent to the public entity for their private interest? or where the government is simply hiring an event promoter to run the facility for the city?

    For instance, Key Arena is managed by a contracter paid by the city to manage the arena for them, as has been established in an earlier thread, they ended up having to allow carry. the Experience Music Project in Seattle Center is "leased" to Paul Allen's group, who pays rent and is the actual occupier of the facility.

    for the record, I think the Children's museum can ban firearms since they lease the bottom floor of the armory, and are not open to the general public (for instance, they do not allow adults with no children 12 or under to enter)
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    Most of those "governmental facilities" around here (ex State Parks) are Arenas, Event's Centers, and Stadiums which are "leased" to the event promoter and THEY can restrict firearms. Most do.
    My research indicates most are licenses to use the facilities for certain events or periods of time not leases. Under a license to use the owner does not have to give up his property rights and the licensee has no property rights. The Mariners may have a different deal but as I recall not too long ago someone mentioned a license to use.
    Throw me to the wolves and I will come back leading the pack.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    what type of a lease? a lease where the event promoter is paying rent to the public entity for their private interest? or where the government is simply hiring an event promoter to run the facility for the city?

    For instance, Key Arena is managed by a contracter paid by the city to manage the arena for them, as has been established in an earlier thread, they ended up having to allow carry. the Experience Music Project in Seattle Center is "leased" to Paul Allen's group, who pays rent and is the actual occupier of the facility.

    for the record, I think the Children's museum can ban firearms since they lease the bottom floor of the armory, and are not open to the general public (for instance, they do not allow adults with no children 12 or under to enter)
    Eric do you have any other info on Key Arena and carry????
    Throw me to the wolves and I will come back leading the pack.

  24. #24
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Hayes View Post
    Eric do you have any other info on Key Arena and carry????
    I'll look for it, there was a thread awhile back where someone managed to force the issue with them, hang on i'll locate and link it

    EDIT
    This is KA's "official" policy on their website
    Quote Originally Posted by http://www.keyarena.com/arena-information/a-to-z-guide
    Guests, including law enforcement personnel not present in an official capacity, are prohibited from bringing weapons into the arena. KeyArena does provide weapon lockers. See any KeyArena Admissions staff member to check your weapon. Weapons include, but are not limited to, the following: firearms, explosives, stun guns, handcuffs, brass knuckles, sticks, clubs, batons, martial arts instruments, pepper spray, tear gas, knives, etc. Guests found in possession of the above-mentioned items will be asked to remove the item from the arena or dispose of it. Guests who refuse to comply will be ejected from the arena and may be subject to arrest.
    Now look at this

    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...nces-Key-Arena

    look at post #13 (BadKarma)
    the Key arena said no guns, by anyone except on duty security or police officers. but when BK complained they sent him that email which said "please lock your gun in our lockers, but if you don't want to do that then you may carry, please tell our SPD desk sergeant, please don't bring your gun"

    that's paraphrasing, but reading the post, they acknowledged he can in fact carry his gun legally in the seating area. just click the link to the other OCDO thread and read the email he got and contrast with their official policy...

    they know what they can and can't do, they're just trying to intimidate criminals and less informed gun owners.
    Last edited by EMNofSeattle; 07-24-2013 at 08:29 PM.
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  25. #25
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    Most of those "governmental facilities" around here (ex State Parks) are Arenas, Event's Centers, and Stadiums which are "leased" to the event promoter and THEY can restrict firearms. Most do.
    I do not believe that they can legally restrict the general public. That they try, well, that is Seattle.

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
  •