Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Carry at centurylink field, questions, problems, experiences.

  1. #1
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690

    Carry at centurylink field, questions, problems, experiences.

    I have not carried at Centurylink field.

    I am thinking about it but, I would like to know what problems anyone here has run into carrying there.
    RCW 9.41.300 is what I am looking at in this regards.
    (2) Cities, towns, counties, and other municipalities may enact laws and ordinances:

    (a) Restricting the discharge of firearms in any portion of their respective jurisdictions where there is a reasonable likelihood that humans, domestic animals, or property will be jeopardized. Such laws and ordinances shall not abridge the right of the individual guaranteed by Article I, section 24 of the state Constitution to bear arms in defense of self or others; and

    (b) Restricting the possession of firearms in any stadium or convention center, operated by a city, town, county, or other municipality, except that such restrictions shall not apply to:

    (i) Any pistol in the possession of a person licensed under RCW 9.41.070 or exempt from the licensing requirement by RCW 9.41.060; or
    I believe that the No-guns policy at centurylink can have no effect. Is this correct thinking? Like the Evergreen Fairgrounds previous no-gun policy.
    Last edited by Freedom1Man; 09-30-2013 at 08:49 PM.
    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)

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kelso, Washington, USA
    Posts
    258
    Ehh... my question is: why even bother paying for a game ticket when you have to go through the TSA-like security measures imposed recently? I mean... if you want to agree to have your rights violated, go ahead. I'm gonna avoid any and all stadiums like the plague. If the NFL can impose these measures, then so can the MLB and NBA. No thank you! Rant over...we now bring you to your regularly scheduled forum.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by tannerwaterbury View Post
    Ehh... my question is: why even bother paying for a game ticket when you have to go through the TSA-like security measures imposed recently? I mean... if you want to agree to have your rights violated, go ahead. I'm gonna avoid any and all stadiums like the plague. If the NFL can impose these measures, then so can the MLB and NBA. No thank you! Rant over...we now bring you to your regularly scheduled forum.
    Free ticket.

    But I would also want to protest the grope and grab check points with the law.
    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)

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran slapmonkay's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    1,267
    The 'Public Stadium Authority', the public entity that owns the property has an exclusive lease agreement with the Washington State private Corporation 'First & Goal'. First & Goal is the party responsible for booking events at the property. The public authority does NOT impose any firearm restrictions on the private entity 'First & Goal' (See master lease here: http://sdrv.ms/YdzQeM). Therefore, RCW 9.41.300(b) is not applicable as the city/public entity does not appear to be the one imposing the restriction. Rather, the First & Goal entity, which is private and has a lease for the property, is the one imposing the restriction. Since the entity 'First & Goal' is a private entity, I am unable to submit for FOIA of their agreements, they are not required to disclose anything.

    Given this, I would say its safe to assume that you won't get in with a firearm openly carried even if you show them RCW 9.41.300 and argue its application. YMMV, this is just all my opinion.
    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 Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by slapmonkay View Post
    The 'Public Stadium Authority', the public entity that owns the property has an exclusive lease agreement with the Washington State private Corporation 'First & Goal'. First & Goal is the party responsible for booking events at the property. The public authority does NOT impose any firearm restrictions on the private entity 'First & Goal' (See master lease here: http://sdrv.ms/YdzQeM). Therefore, RCW 9.41.300(b) is not applicable as the city/public entity does not appear to be the one imposing the restriction. Rather, the First & Goal entity, which is private and has a lease for the property, is the one imposing the restriction. Since the entity 'First & Goal' is a private entity, I am unable to submit for FOIA of their agreements, they are not required to disclose anything.

    Given this, I would say its safe to assume that you won't get in with a firearm openly carried even if you show them RCW 9.41.300 and argue its application. YMMV, this is just all my opinion.
    Thanks for weighing in.

    I thought that it was tax payer owned though. So thus such rules would be illegal.
    So, the stadium gets built on the tax payer's dime, under protest from the public, and then a private party is given exclusive lease on it? This does not sound legal at all.

    Now, I am angry and confused.


    Edit, thanks for the lease info too. I'll see about getting in touch with some people who LOVE digging into this kinda of stuff.
    Last edited by Freedom1Man; 09-30-2013 at 10:34 PM.
    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)

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47 12 x W122 10
    Posts
    1,762
    [/quote]I thought that it was tax payer owned though. So thus such rules would be illegal.
    So, the stadium gets built on the tax payer's dime, under protest from the public, and then a private party is given exclusive lease on it? This does not sound legal at all.[/quote]

    If people had been more (self)informed back when the building of a public/private stadium was being contemplated, perhaps we could have put a stop to it.

  7. #7
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    I thought that it was tax payer owned though. So thus such rules would be illegal.
    So, the stadium gets built on the tax payer's dime, under protest from the public, and then a private party is given exclusive lease on it? This does not sound legal at all.[/quote]

    If people had been more (self)informed back when the building of a public/private stadium was being contemplated, perhaps we could have put a stop to it.
    [/QUOTE]

    +1 End Organized sport welfare.
    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)

Posting Permissions

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