Vitaeus
Regular Member
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.
-
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.
-
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.
State Agency acting as land lord
- Thread starter Vitaeus
- Start date
davidmcbeth
Banned
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.
EMNofSeattle
Regular Member
I think the usual cases cited by cities are Cherry v. municipality of metropolitan seattle and Pacific Northwest shooting park association v. sequeim
massivedesign
Regular Member
Seattle has it in all their leases, to the Children's museum etc.. Pretty interesting.
Jeff Hayes
Regular Member
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:
Jeff Hayes
Regular Member
Pretty unlawful if it applies to the general public, IMHO.
EMNofSeattle
Regular Member
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...
Jeff Hayes
Regular Member
"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.
EMNofSeattle
Regular Member
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.
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.
massivedesign
Regular Member
Jeff Hayes
Regular Member
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.
EMNofSeattle
Regular Member
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 :shocker: 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.....:uhoh:
Schlepnier
Regular Member
Has anybody shot rapgood a PM on this yet? If anybody can get the ball rolling on a legal case it would be him.
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.
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)
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:
rapgood
Regular Member
I don't think that dog will hunt.
Vitaeus
Regular Member
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-supreme-court/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.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/wa-supreme-court/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.
Rebel
Regular Member
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
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
rapgood
Regular Member
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.
amlevin
Regular Member
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.