• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

so what's the deal with gun shows?

MattinWA

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
278
Location
Spokane Washington
Hey guys, long time Inactive. Was at the Trac center in pasco, a convention center owned by Franklin county, and was denied entrance to the gun show today. I told him it was illegal he stated some insurance mumbo jumbo, and I recited RCW 9.41.300 (b) part i, long story short I left 5$ poorer. Does anyone have any in site on this? He claimed that renting the venue gave him legal rights, but I was pretty sure that was successfully fought in Spokane by Jeff and some others, any help appreciated
 

Bill Starks

State Researcher
Joined
Dec 27, 2007
Messages
4,304
Location
Nortonville, KY, USA
No loaded firearms at ANY gun show, unless you are LEO or security(working for the show)

Hayes v Spokane PFD


BE AWARE: You are not the 'general public'.


As some of you are aware, and others can perhaps recall,
Jeff Hayes has been involved in a legal dispute with the
Public Facilities District over an incident in 2012.
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ith-Jeff-Hayes




Hayes was attemtping to enter a 'Ron Paul Rally'
in the Spokane Convention Center, but was denied access
when security noticed that Hayes was open carrying.


Notable progress has been made;
Spokane Municipal Code 10.10.050 was revised to include
the exception noted in RCW 9.41.300 (2) (b) (i),
which states in relevant part:


(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


Additionally, a new training bulletin was issued by the Spokane City Police
regarding open carry, to include the guidelines regarding 'warrants alarm'.


The PFD switched tactics shortly into the dispute,
claiming that Sequim provided an exemption from the preemption statute.
Northwest Shooting Park Ass'n v. City of Sequim, 158 Wn.2d 342; (2006)


Sequim acknowledges that municipalites operate in either
a governmental capacity or a proprietary capacity.
When operating in a proprietary capacity,
a municipality retains the general rights of a landlord,
in that a municipality may set the conditions of use of the property.


The PFD asserts that when licensing the property to be used by a client,
the PFD is operating in a proprietary capacity.
Thus, the PFD can set the conditions of the license,
one of which is that the licensee must follow all of the rules and policies of the PFD.


One of the policies of the PFD is a 'no firearms' rule, without exception.


Chan noted that Sequim applies to the licensee, not to the general public.
Chan v. City of Seattle, 164 Wash. App. 549 (2011)


We were able to secure the services of both SAF
and one of the principal attorneys from Chan.


We have spent a few hours going over the case with them, over the last few weeks.


Note this well:
According to counsel, including SAF,
you are not the general public.




Here is why:


Since a licensee can set the conditions of entry into the facility that they have licensed,
those that are allowed to enter are a subset of the general public.


It may very well be that the licensee sets a very low standard for condition of entry,
such that everyone may enter, but the fact remains it is the licensee
that can set that policy to whatever they want.


Most licensees will require the purchase of a ticket to enter.
Some will prohibit cans, bottles, alcohol or knives on premise.
Every licensee is required to completely prohibit firearms in the venue.


The point being, since you must comply with the licensee conditions for entry,
you are no longer a member of the general public.


What does this mean to us?


Preemption applies to the general public.
If we are not the general public, preemption does not apply.


This is a very serious encroachment upon the concept of preemption.


Never-the-less, until Sequim can be clarified, or more strictly interpreted,
if you enter any place, building, land or area in which someone can place restriction upon entry,
preemption does not apply to you. If they say 'no carry', they can trespass you for carrying.
Because at that place and time, carrying is not a 'lawful condition'.




So, what about RCW 290/300 which states in relevant part:


(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


If access is conditional, Sequim renders preemption meaningless in those areas.


Be warned.


Considering the above, we have chosen to drop the case.


Comments?


hadji
 
Last edited:

MattinWA

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
278
Location
Spokane Washington
So what you are saying is it wouldn't be illegal to enter with a loaded pistol, it would just be illegal for me to remain after being asked (told?) to leave?
 

Grim_Night

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2012
Messages
776
Location
Pierce County, Washington
A bigger issue is that these government owned facilities are bypassing the law by letting a third party operate the day to day business of said facility. Under this guise, they are claiming that they are acting under a proprietary capacity ALL the time. I dare anyone to show where any of these facilities owned by a governmental agency (city, town, or county) operates said facility themselves. Every single one of them is leased out for every event, period.
 

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,886
Location
Granite State of Mind
A lessee cannot inher any authority the lessor does not hold.

Some courts disagree, but courts are hardly reliable when it comes to understanding fundamental legal principles.
 

hadji

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2012
Messages
122
Location
Spokane
A bigger issue is that these government owned facilities are bypassing the law by letting a third party operate the day to day business of said facility. Under this guise, they are claiming that they are acting under a proprietary capacity ALL the time. I dare anyone to show where any of these facilities owned by a governmental agency (city, town, or county) operates said facility themselves. Every single one of them is leased out for every event, period.

Unfortunately, the PFD does regularly operate their facilities themselves, acting as the promoter for some concerts and / or other activities, and contracting the services of the catering, crowd control, security, stagehands and technical staff themselves.

But even then, they claim they are acting in a "proprietary capacity".
hadji
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
A lessee cannot inher any authority the lessor does not hold.

Some courts disagree, but courts are hardly reliable when it comes to understanding fundamental legal principles.
I would disagree.

I lessor is most often restricted from discrimination of any of the protected classes.

A lessee (example a religious group) may restrict to their own members at the exclusion of others.

A venue (leasing entity) is frequently a private group and as such the physical area they are leasing becomes private property.
 
Top