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.

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.

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.

Trigger Dr said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Alpine said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Freedom1Man said:

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.

Click to expand...

Well, do you have a common law or statutory right to enter such facilities? That's the first question you must answer.

Freedom1Man said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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?

Grim_Night said:

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?

Click to expand...

counties are allowed to make rules for leaseship because rules are not set for the general public.

EMNofSeattle said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

EMNofSeattle said:

counties are allowed to make rules for leaseship because rules are not set for the general public.

Click to expand...

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.

Jeff Hayes said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Well,,,

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

Why was Hemp Fest not allowed to Ban firearms from the Seattle Center?

EMNofSeattle said:

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.

Click to expand...

So then, what is to stop the county from permanently leasing the property to an anti-gun group year round?

EMNofSeattle said:

first off, brush up on the Pacific Northwest Shooting Park Association v City of Sequeim. SNIP

Click to expand...

I fail to see how the case you present supports your argument...

Freedom1Man said:

I fail to see how the case you present supports your argument...

Click to expand...

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.

Jeff Hayes said:

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.

Click to expand...

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-supreme-court/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.

Freedom1Man said:

So then, what is to stop the county from permanently leasing the property to an anti-gun group year round?

Click to expand...

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

EMNofSeattle said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

We are discussing legalities, the definitions of "Rent", "Lease" and "License" have very different meanings under the law.