Sounds like they were still wrong then. They obviously had not been asked by the event to confront you, but did so on their own acting on their presumed authority of the state. Their words and actions ("entire building," "we have signs," etc.) prove that.
-
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.
Was told that the Washington State Convention Center is Private Property
- Thread starter Freedom1Man
- Start date
Sounds like they were still wrong then. They obviously had not been asked by the event to confront you, but did so on their own acting on their presumed authority of the state. Their words and actions ("entire building," "we have signs," etc.) prove that.
END_THE_FED
Regular Member
In general, assuming one is not a "prohibited person", then one can open carry in the State of Washington with or without a CPL. To transport a LOADED pistol in a vehicle one must have a cpl.
Cites, in general are not allowed to pass firearm laws, however they are allowed to prohibit carry in certain areas such as stadiums and such but those in possession of a valid cpl are exempt from such prohibition.
Well, does city of Seattle or KC have law or an ordinance that prohibits firearms in the facility? If so, then they are within the law.
Regardless of the laws or policies affecting the WSCC, "security" was wrong if OP has a CPL.
Trigger Dr
Regular Member
WHAT? It would appear that you have NOT read RCW9.41.290.
Might want to give that a read.
You might want to read 9.41.300.
And then this: http://clerk.seattle.gov/~scripts/n...=1&u=/~public/code1.htm&r=36&Sect6=HITOFF&f=G
It is unlawful for a person knowingly to:
C. Possess a firearm in any stadium or convention center operated by a city, county or other municipality, except that such restriction shall not apply to:
1. 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
2. Any showing, demonstration or lecture involving the exhibition of firearms.
Last edited:
Trigger Dr
Regular Member
My point is, the Seattle Muni code is preempted by 9.41.290, and 9.41.300 is an RCW not a Seattle muni code. That being said, your implication that Seattle having a law/ordinance, on the books would make them within the law, is moot.
Difdi
Regular Member
Actually, it looks like you need to read it, and .290 as well. Because they don't say what you appear to think they do.
RCW 9.41.290 preempts the Seattle Municipal Code and repeals any portion of the SMC that conflicts with state firearms laws. If the SMC meant what you seem to think it does, it would automatically be rendered null and void. RCW 9.41.300 does indeed allow a city to prohibit possession of firearms in a convention center but also exempts anyone with a CPL from the restriction on carrying a pistol (among other things).
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.290
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.300
If the WSCC is operated by a city, county or other municipality, firearms can be prohibited, with exception to CPL holders.
RCW 9.41.290 State Preemption
The state of Washington hereby fully occupies and preempts the entire field of firearms regulation within the boundaries of the state, including the registration, licensing, possession, purchase, sale, acquisition, transfer, discharge, and transportation of firearms, or any other element relating to firearms or parts thereof, including ammunition and reloader components. Cities, towns, and counties or other municipalities may enact only those laws and ordinances relating to firearms that are specifically authorized by state law, as in RCW 9.41.300, and are consistent with this chapter. Such local ordinances shall have the same penalty as provided for by state law. Local laws and ordinances that are inconsistent with, more restrictive than, or exceed the requirements of state law shall not be enacted and are preempted and repealed, regardless of the nature of the code, charter, or home rule status of such city, town, county, or municipality.
RCW 9.41.300
(2) Cities, towns, counties, and other municipalities may enact laws and ordinances:
(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
If the OP has a valid CPL, then he may carry open or concealed.
Freedom1Man
Regular Member
I thought that this point had been made a few times already....
Difdi
Regular Member
Yes, and...? I don't see what your point here is. As best I can tell, you're vehemently arguing with someone that he is absolutely right...which makes no sense.
Jeff Hayes
Regular Member
The facilities are almost never leased. Every agreement I have looked into is a license to use the facility that is much different that a lease or a rental. Under a license to use the governing agency in this case WSCC maintains complete control of the facilities thus making preemption in full effect. Basically they are allowing use of the facility only.
Freedom1Man
Regular Member
I called the president of the WSCC again today, to see if their internal policies were finally in compliance with the RCW 9.41.300.
I was told that they are having to talk to their attorneys because they don't know the law.
I was told I should have an answer no later than this Friday.
Edit--
If YOU have any questions feel free to call
Jeff Blosser
President/CEO
206-694-5010
I was told that they are having to talk to their attorneys because they don't know the law.
I was told I should have an answer no later than this Friday.
Edit--
If YOU have any questions feel free to call
Jeff Blosser
President/CEO
206-694-5010
Last edited:
Jeff Hayes
Regular Member
Let me know how this turns out I am having the same battle with the Spokane Public Facilities District.
Freedom1Man
Regular Member
I'll update as things change, hence the post today.
Good luck with the Spokane thing though, is it the 9.41.300 issue there too?
Jeff Hayes
Regular Member
Yes it is a 9.41.300 issue they seem to think they are not subject to state law because they are acting as a private business when they license others to use the facilities.
Freedom1Man
Regular Member
I have made the same claim about Centurylink field here too. 9.41.300 should apply there because the stadium is publicly owned. However the argument has been made that it's leased to a private company to control it... So, who knows?
Jeff Hayes
Regular Member
The Spokane Public Facilities District never leases or rents any of their venues out they issue a license to use the facility on a given day(s) time etc and their personnel take tickets, run the sound, lights, manage the facility etc. Since they never surrender control of the facility it is always subject to state preemption IMHO.
Centurylink field may indeed be leased but I also think the City can not make a rule requiring the lessee to ban firearms due to the Sequim case where the court specif9ically said the rules the imposed on the license to use were not applicable to the general public.
Fallschirjmäger
Active member
You may want to try a two-pronged attack.
Who is the employer of the "security guys" a private company?
Call them up, ask who accepts service as you're in the process of filling a civil suit against two of their employees and naming them on the suit as well.
Do Not explain what/why/who the suit is about to whoever answers the telephone ( it would be inappropriate and potentially damaging to an employee's career). Tell them they can call You back the next day when you aren't busy.
Who is the employer of the "security guys" a private company?
Call them up, ask who accepts service as you're in the process of filling a civil suit against two of their employees and naming them on the suit as well.
Do Not explain what/why/who the suit is about to whoever answers the telephone ( it would be inappropriate and potentially damaging to an employee's career). Tell them they can call You back the next day when you aren't busy.
Last edited:
Freedom1Man
Regular Member
Time to make the phones ring!
When I had called earlier this week I was told that I would have an answer by Thursday and I had told them that I would call them on Friday.
So, I called today. Left another message, was assured that Mr Blosser would call me back the lady double checked my phone number.
I should have had a call back by now, but no, this Jeff Blosser guy seems to either not care about following the law, is to lazy to make sure it's been "researched" by the legal team, and/or is just an anti-freedom creep. Any which way of it, it would seem that they need more people calling in to find out the answer.
The number is posted in an earlier post. So CALL early and call often until they answer the bloody question of, Is the convention center going to follow the law or not?
When I had called earlier this week I was told that I would have an answer by Thursday and I had told them that I would call them on Friday.
So, I called today. Left another message, was assured that Mr Blosser would call me back the lady double checked my phone number.
I should have had a call back by now, but no, this Jeff Blosser guy seems to either not care about following the law, is to lazy to make sure it's been "researched" by the legal team, and/or is just an anti-freedom creep. Any which way of it, it would seem that they need more people calling in to find out the answer.
The number is posted in an earlier post. So CALL early and call often until they answer the bloody question of, Is the convention center going to follow the law or not?