Weapons prohibited in publicly owned locations?

Vitaeus said:

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

Click to expand...

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?

Grim_Night said:

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?

Click to expand...

Every license to use that I have read states in one way or another the licensee must follow all state and local laws.

Jeff Hayes said:

Every license to use that I have read states in one way or another the licensee must follow all state and local laws.

Click to expand...

Unless it's Centurylink field.

Freedom1Man said:

Unless it's Centurylink field.

Click to expand...

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.

Grim_Night said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

gogodawgs said:

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.

Click to expand...

Your event that you present is not open to the general public in the first place.

A gun show, in this example, is open to the general public.

Freedom1Man said:

Your event that you present is not open to the general public in the first place.

A gun show, in this example, is open to the general public.

Click to expand...

Is it?

Do they charge a membership fee? An entry fee?

Do they maintain the right to refuse entry/service?

We may assume they are open to the general public, but that does not mean that is the case.

gogodawgs said:

Is it?

Do they charge a membership fee? An entry fee?

Do they maintain the right to refuse entry/service?

We may assume they are open to the general public, but that does not mean that is the case.

Click to expand...

Anytime anyone can attend even if a fee is required it would be open to the public. I wonder what would happen if say the gun show required anyone that entered to become a member of the gun show when everyone could be a member by paying the fee at the door. I would still think that would be open to the public. That might fly if there was a limited scope such as members had to prove they had an ancestor named Armstrong. Everyone maintains the right to refuse service or entry that does not have any bearing on open to the public.

If your Jewish self had a license to use a public facility and you attempted to bar Muslims you would likely be violating the rules of the licensing agreement. Every licensing agreement I have read states the licensee must follow all state and local laws. Not necessarily true in a private building unless the agreement stated otherwise.

gogodawgs said:

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.

Click to expand...

You are talking apples and carrots here. In your example, you are renting the public property for a private function, only open to friends and family for a specific event and likely not charging a fee to attend said function. But an event open to the general public, even for events that charge a fee upon entry, you must still follow the law and not discriminate in any way, shape, or form.

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/restaurants-right-to-refuse-service.html

So Are "We Reserve the Right to Refuse Service to Anyone" Signs in Restaurants Legal?

Yes, however they still do not give a restaurant the power to refuse service on the basis of race, color, religion, or natural origin. These signs also do not preclude a court from finding other arbitrary refusals of service to be discriminatory. Simply put, restaurants that carry a "Right to Refuse Service" sign are subject to the same laws as restaurants without one.

Click to expand...

What Conditions Allow a Restaurant to Refuse Service?

There a number of legitimate reasons for a restaurant to refuse service, some of which include:

Patrons who are unreasonably rowdy or causing trouble
Patrons that may overfill capacity if let in
Patrons who come in just before closing time or when the kitchen is closed
Patrons accompanied by large groups of non-customers looking to sit in
Patrons lacking adequate hygiene (e.g. excess dirt, extreme body odor, etc.)

In most cases, refusal of service is warranted where a customer’s presence in the restaurant detracts from the safety, welfare, and well-being of other patrons and the restaurant itself.

Click to expand...

Based on the link provided, even a private property business, such as a restaurant, is "considered places of public accommodation" meaning...

The primary purpose of a restaurant is to sell food to the general public, which necessarily requires susceptibility to equal protection laws. Therefore, a restaurant’s existence as private property does not excuse an unjustified refusal of service.

Click to expand...

And if you want to try and use the "safety" clause above, don't because a lawfully possessed firearm is safe as long as the person in possession is following the law regarding carrying said firearm. At least isn't that what most of us have been trying to tell everybody for many years?

http://www.legalzoom.com/us-law/equal-rights/right-refuse-service

The Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees all people the right to "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."

Click to expand...

You will notice again that it does not specify people with disabilities as the a first example above. But we all know that if a customer shows up with a wheel chair and are turned away, the fecal matter will hit the oscillating air circulation device. Same too should be said regarding lawfully possessed firearms as the right to keep and bear arms is in the constitution.

The only exception seems to be that if a patron is being a genuine disruption then they may be excluded but this is case by case basis.

Grim_Night said:

You are talking apples and carrots here. In your example, you are renting the public property for a private function, only open to friends and family for a specific event and likely not charging a fee to attend said function. But an event open to the general public, even for events that charge a fee upon entry, you must still follow the law and not discriminate in any way, shape, or form.

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/restaurants-right-to-refuse-service.html





Based on the link provided, even a private property business, such as a restaurant, is "considered places of public accommodation" meaning...



And if you want to try and use the "safety" clause above, don't because a lawfully possessed firearm is safe as long as the person in possession is following the law regarding carrying said firearm. At least isn't that what most of us have been trying to tell everybody for many years?

http://www.legalzoom.com/us-law/equal-rights/right-refuse-service



You will notice again that it does not specify people with disabilities as the a first example above. But we all know that if a customer shows up with a wheel chair and are turned away, the fecal matter will hit the oscillating air circulation device. Same too should be said regarding lawfully possessed firearms as the right to keep and bear arms is in the constitution.

The only exception seems to be that if a patron is being a genuine disruption then they may be excluded but this is case by case basis.

Click to expand...

It's funny you should bring that up, because the gun show had visible signs saying "you must be a citizen of the united states to purchase firearms" (where they get that from I don't know, because they clearly didn't get that from the United States Code or the RCW) and then they had a sign saying the same thing is spanish.

it appears to me the gun show was openly discriminating against people lawfully allowed to bear arms by national origin, and the presence of an alternative sign in spanish would imply that they targetting hispanics for suspicion.....