Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 30

Thread: Weapons prohibited in publicly owned locations?

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

    Weapons prohibited in publicly owned locations?

    Now we're not talking jails, courts, and psych wards.

    Is there a legal way to prohibit people from carrying in parks, publicly owned fairgrounds, stadiums (with CPL), etc?

    This a a new thread I created so as to not further derail another thread and I figured it might as well have an open scope.

    This was about prohibiting, loaded, guns at the Kitsap Fairgrounds during a gun show.

    Now that I have started the requested new thread, will the evidence supporting the claim if the prohibition being legal please be presented.
    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 Alpine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Mercer Island
    Posts
    661
    I guess most of this depends on the whole "leasing doctrine" that is evolving right now, as well as the state and cities creating quasi-public corporations to "manage" places.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Wa, ,
    Posts
    2,769
    Simple answer that I believe is wrong, but upheld under the law.
    If the property,is "rented" the renter has no property rights. If the property is "leased" the leasee has the rights of a property owner, and can place restrictions as they see fit.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575
    Quote Originally Posted by Trigger Dr View Post
    Simple answer that I believe is wrong, but upheld under the law.
    If the property,is "rented" the renter has no property rights. If the property is "leased" the leasee has the rights of a property owner, and can place restrictions as they see fit.
    Most but not all Public Facilities Districts license the use of a facility for a given time or hours or days they do not rent or lease. Most of the time the people that are taking tickets, ushering etc etc are employees of that PFD. Licensing the use of a facility in my opinion changes nothing since the PFD is not turning over control of the building to anyone and since they maintain control over the building at all times it is public property just like a park. See Chan v Seattle and substitute Convention /Center for Park and you will have your answer.
    Throw me to the wolves and I will come back leading the pack.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575
    Quote Originally Posted by Alpine View Post
    I guess most of this depends on the whole "leasing doctrine" that is evolving right now, as well as the state and cities creating quasi-public corporations to "manage" places.
    Every quasi-public corporation that I am aware if is a Municipality for example the Spokane Public Facilities District is a Municipality. If you read RCW 9.41.290 it includes Municipalities.
    Throw me to the wolves and I will come back leading the pack.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    Now we're not talking jails, courts, and psych wards.

    Is there a legal way to prohibit people from carrying in parks, publicly owned fairgrounds, stadiums (with CPL), etc?

    This a a new thread I created so as to not further derail another thread and I figured it might as well have an open scope.

    This was about prohibiting, loaded, guns at the Kitsap Fairgrounds during a gun show.

    Now that I have started the requested new thread, will the evidence supporting the claim if the prohibition being legal please be presented.
    Well, do you have a common law or statutory right to enter such facilities? That's the first question you must answer.

  7. #7
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    Now we're not talking jails, courts, and psych wards.

    Is there a legal way to prohibit people from carrying in parks, publicly owned fairgrounds, stadiums (with CPL), etc?

    This a a new thread I created so as to not further derail another thread and I figured it might as well have an open scope.

    This was about prohibiting, loaded, guns at the Kitsap Fairgrounds during a gun show.

    Now that I have started the requested new thread, will the evidence supporting the claim if the prohibition being legal please be presented.
    first off, brush up on the Pacific Northwest Shooting Park Association v City of Sequeim. when a public agency leases property to be controlled by a private entity then they can set conditions for the private entity's use of the facility. the WA supreme court specifically rejected an argument like yours in that case.

    but second off, when it comes to the gun show at the Kitsap County Fairgrounds, I see no evidence the county set the "no loaded guns requirement" on the organizer of the gun show. the gun show organizers are paying the county to lease a building, and they are given the right to use that facility, restrict access, trespass people off, etc etc etc. while you're leasing property you have control and power of exclusion, giving you the right to set rules. because the facility is not open to the general public without admission or permission, there is no violation of preemption. no loaded firearms rules are universal at gun shows regardless of the venue. I'm not personally aware of any gun show where loaded guns are permitted (except by police or security) I am aware of people who employ the "don't ask don't tell" philosophy but that's different.

    the I (along with the state supreme court) see it, a private event at a public facility leased by a private entity is not subject to preemption.
    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 Grim_Night's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pierce County, Washington
    Posts
    792
    if the entity that owns the property is not permitted by law to enact any rules or laws regarding firearms, then why should any entity that leases or rents said property be allowed to make such rules?
    Armed and annoyingly well informed!

    There are two constants when dealing with liberals:
    1) Liberals never quit until they are satisfied.
    2) Liberals are never satisfied.

  9. #9
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by Grim_Night View Post
    if the entity that owns the property is not permitted by law to enact any rules or laws regarding firearms, then why should any entity that leases or rents said property be allowed to make such rules?
    counties are allowed to make rules for leaseship because rules are not set for the general public.
    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
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    first off, brush up on the Pacific Northwest Shooting Park Association v City of Sequeim. when a public agency leases property to be controlled by a private entity then they can set conditions for the private entity's use of the facility. the WA supreme court specifically rejected an argument like yours in that case.

    the I (along with the state supreme court) see it, a private event at a public facility leased by a private entity is not subject to preemption.
    Re read the Sequim decision.

    The facilities are not leased a license to use is issued not a lease.

    The Wa supreme court did not reject any such argument, In fact they specifically said they were not rules affecting he general public.
    Throw me to the wolves and I will come back leading the pack.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    counties are allowed to make rules for leaseship because rules are not set for the general public.
    Where did you come up with this? Leaseship LOL who attends the functions besides the general public?

    Enjoy your chains it sounds like you like them, poser.
    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
    Where did you come up with this? Leaseship LOL who attends the functions besides the general public?

    Enjoy your chains it sounds like you like them, poser.
    so you never go to gunshows then? I'm still trying to figure for the life of me how it's a violation of your rights if a closed event has rules for admission. when you rent a facility from Kitsap County parks you are "leasing" it. you have the exclusive right of use for the duration of the time you have it. a gun show typically charges admission and requires you to report to security before entering. it is not like the grocery store where you simply can wander in off the street without challenge.

    I don't even think the county requires the no loaded rule, it makes sense to me that the gun show organizer made the rule themselves, and since they can exclude anyone from the property they're leasing from the county they can enforce their own rule.
    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 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381

    Well,,,

    In spite of ,, leasing ,, Renting ,, or licensing..

    Why was Hemp Fest not allowed to Ban firearms from the Seattle Center?
    EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....

    “If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

    Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...

    All power is inherent in the people,
    it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

  14. #14
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    so you never go to gunshows then? I'm still trying to figure for the life of me how it's a violation of your rights if a closed event has rules for admission. when you rent a facility from Kitsap County parks you are "leasing" it. you have the exclusive right of use for the duration of the time you have it. a gun show typically charges admission and requires you to report to security before entering. it is not like the grocery store where you simply can wander in off the street without challenge.

    I don't even think the county requires the no loaded rule, it makes sense to me that the gun show organizer made the rule themselves, and since they can exclude anyone from the property they're leasing from the county they can enforce their own rule.
    So then, what is to stop the county from permanently leasing the property to an anti-gun group year round?
    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)

  15. #15
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    first off, brush up on the Pacific Northwest Shooting Park Association v City of Sequeim. SNIP
    I fail to see how the case you present supports your argument...
    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)

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    I fail to see how the case you present supports your argument...
    If one reads the case one finds out that the rules the City of Sequeim only effected the show operators not the general public. Also this case was about selling firearms not carrying firearms.

    The general public attends events at stadiums, who else would be attending? A person does not all of a sudden go from being part of the general public to being an RV person that is not then the general public. How could one become a different class of person just because he is going to an RV show? In the Sequeim case the judges specifically state the rules for the show promoter were not rules for the general public.
    Throw me to the wolves and I will come back leading the pack.

  17. #17
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Hayes View Post
    If one reads the case one finds out that the rules the City of Sequeim only effected the show operators not the general public. Also this case was about selling firearms not carrying firearms.

    The general public attends events at stadiums, who else would be attending? A person does not all of a sudden go from being part of the general public to being an RV person that is not then the general public. How could one become a different class of person just because he is going to an RV show? In the Sequeim case the judges specifically state the rules for the show promoter were not rules for the general public.
    That is what I got from it too, that is why I was asking him to explain how it supported his argument.

    http://caselaw.findlaw.com/wa-suprem...t/1152139.html

    Thanks, Jeff, it's nice to know that if I am simply being dense/blind about this case then I am not the only one.

    I am wondering however how we've allowed two stadiums to be under permanent private lease to, First and Down, and allow them to prohibit legally carried pistols contrary to 9.41.300. If I had the money to sue over that ban I would be doing it.
    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)

  18. #18
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    So then, what is to stop the county from permanently leasing the property to an anti-gun group year round?
    Which anti gun group could afford to lease the fairgrounds permanently? What will they do with the fairgrounds all year? Then there's the fact that the county will take heat for why no one else can lease the parks while the anti gun group is present..... Whole host of practical considerations
    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

  19. #19
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    Which anti gun group could afford to lease the fairgrounds permanently? What will they do with the fairgrounds all year? Then there's the fact that the county will take heat for why no one else can lease the parks while the anti gun group is present..... Whole host of practical considerations
    Yet, "First and Down" or is it, "First and Goal," (?) have permanent leases on two stadiums and they are anti-gun.

    As for the Fairgrounds, your argument is that if they did have that kind of money then they COULD legally lease the fairground and prohibit guns?

    So it would just be a matter of logistics then?

    What they could do with the fairgrounds is sub-lease the use of the grounds to different events to make up for the costs of leasing the grounds from the county.
    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)

  20. #20
    Regular Member Vitaeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Bremerton, Washington
    Posts
    593
    We are discussing legalities, the definitions of "Rent", "Lease" and "License" have very different meanings under the law.

  21. #21
    Regular Member Grim_Night's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pierce County, Washington
    Posts
    792
    Quote Originally Posted by Vitaeus View Post
    We are discussing legalities, the definitions of "Rent", "Lease" and "License" have very different meanings under the law.
    The fact of the matter is this... If a publicly owned building or property (owned by city, county, town, etc.) is prohibited from making and enforcing certian rules regarding firearms per state law and they then rent or lease said building or property to a private party for an hour, day, week, month, etc... How do they have the right to allow the private party to make such rules? It's like saying "The law says we aren't allowed to do this, but we will let you have temporary control of this building/land to do with as you so choose and make whatever rules you so choose."

    Last I checked, such property was built and paid for by public funds such as tax money. So telling the public that they don't have the rights protected by the constitution on/in said property is illegal even if done by a third party right? What would happen if the private party renting/leasing said party were to say "Sorry, but only white males are allowed here." What's the difference from that and telling somebody they are not allowed to possess a lawfully owned firearm when state law says otherwise?
    Armed and annoyingly well informed!

    There are two constants when dealing with liberals:
    1) Liberals never quit until they are satisfied.
    2) Liberals are never satisfied.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575
    Quote Originally Posted by Grim_Night View Post
    The fact of the matter is this... If a publicly owned building or property (owned by city, county, town, etc.) is prohibited from making and enforcing certian rules regarding firearms per state law and they then rent or lease said building or property to a private party for an hour, day, week, month, etc... How do they have the right to allow the private party to make such rules? It's like saying "The law says we aren't allowed to do this, but we will let you have temporary control of this building/land to do with as you so choose and make whatever rules you so choose."

    Last I checked, such property was built and paid for by public funds such as tax money. So telling the public that they don't have the rights protected by the constitution on/in said property is illegal even if done by a third party right? What would happen if the private party renting/leasing said party were to say "Sorry, but only white males are allowed here." What's the difference from that and telling somebody they are not allowed to possess a lawfully owned firearm when state law says otherwise?
    Every license to use that I have read states in one way or another the licensee must follow all state and local laws.
    Throw me to the wolves and I will come back leading the pack.

  23. #23
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Hayes View Post
    Every license to use that I have read states in one way or another the licensee must follow all state and local laws.
    Unless it's Centurylink field.
    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)

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    Unless it's Centurylink field.
    I have not read that one but I would bet it is there, it is standard boiler plate in every lease I have ever read. In that case my question would be who employees the people taking the tickets, ushering, cleaning up, doing the sound, maintenance etc. If those people work for the PFD/City then they have not surrendered control of the facility and state preemption applies.
    Throw me to the wolves and I will come back leading the pack.

  25. #25
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,666
    Quote Originally Posted by Grim_Night View Post
    The fact of the matter is this... If a publicly owned building or property (owned by city, county, town, etc.) is prohibited from making and enforcing certian rules regarding firearms per state law and they then rent or lease said building or property to a private party for an hour, day, week, month, etc... How do they have the right to allow the private party to make such rules? It's like saying "The law says we aren't allowed to do this, but we will let you have temporary control of this building/land to do with as you so choose and make whatever rules you so choose."

    Last I checked, such property was built and paid for by public funds such as tax money. So telling the public that they don't have the rights protected by the constitution on/in said property is illegal even if done by a third party right? What would happen if the private party renting/leasing said party were to say "Sorry, but only white males are allowed here." What's the difference from that and telling somebody they are not allowed to possess a lawfully owned firearm when state law says otherwise?
    Look at it from the lessee's point of view; I am renting the local community center for my daughter's wedding. The event is not open to the general public, but invitee's only. We are a traditional Hasidic Jewish family and thus I am excluding Muslims from the property during my lease. I am clearly discriminating on public property in your question above. And in my estimation well withing the terms of the lease to discriminate (religion or guns) if I choose to do so as the event is not open to the general public even though it is on property that is under the ownership of the public entity.
    Live Free or Die!

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
  •