Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Chambers Bay/US Open CCW

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    37

    Chambers Bay/US Open CCW

    Chambers Bay is a public course owned by Pierce County, so under WA law we should be able to CCW there. But if course, it's leased to Kemper Sports so they can skate out of their legal obligation, just like the sports stadiums.

    Has anyone approached the legislature about fixing the RCW and nullifying the Sequim court decision?

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    That's a tough issue for me. Our local governments should be allowed to lease out public venues for temporary use, and collect the revenues from it.

    Those that lease these venues should be allowed to treat them like private property during the terms of the lease.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran MSG Laigaie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Philipsburg, Montana
    Posts
    3,139
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    That's a tough issue for me. Our local governments should be allowed to lease out public venues for temporary use, and collect the revenues from it.

    Those that lease these venues should be allowed to treat them like private property during the terms of the lease.
    This is Truth!!

    I must agree with Mac. If I am "in control" of a property by a rental agreement, the property is "mine" and I set the rules.

    It would be a simple fix. Review the contract between .gov and a renter to reflect one simple change. Property, owned by the People, will follow State Law as written. If private property is rented to private property, you set the rules. If you rent "the Peoples" property, you would follow "the Peoples" laws. Dong Ma?
    "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth (and) keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference .When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." -- George Washington

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Without the ability of the lease holder to treat it as "private" during his period of control, he wouldn't be able to enforce a dress code for an event, either, or trespass other undesirables.

    If you don't want this to happen, make it illegal to lease public property to private events, and suffer the loss of public revenue for it.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47 12 x W122 10
    Posts
    1,762
    You think that's bad? Wait until the Olympics or Goodwill Games or some other truly major event comes to the Seattle area. They will work with the legislature to temporarily ban gun possession in large parts of the whole city. They did it in Utah for the 2002 games.

  6. #6
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    That's a tough issue for me. Our local governments should be allowed to lease out public venues for temporary use, and collect the revenues from it.

    Those that lease these venues should be allowed to treat them like private property during the terms of the lease.
    Not saying this is the case here but what if the local government MANDATES the "no guns" as part of the leasing? IF they are prohibited from banning firearms as a governmental agency or unit how are they justified in mandating the prohibition of firearms via a lease requirement?
    RIGHTS don't exist without RESPONSIBILITY!
    If one is not willing to stand for his rights, he doesn't have any Rights.
    I will strive to stand for the rights of ANY person, even those folks with whom I disagree!
    As said by SVG--- "I am not anti-COP, I am PRO-Citizen" and I'll add, PRO-Constitution.
    If the above makes me a RADICAL or EXTREME--- So be it!

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member GOA
    2nd amendment says.... "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    That's a tough issue for me. Our local governments should be allowed to lease out public venues for temporary use, and collect the revenues from it.

    Those that lease these venues should be allowed to treat them like private property during the terms of the lease.
    Most of the time in Washington the property is not leased out the City, PFD or other municipality grants a license to use a facility for set hours on set days under set rules. The licensee has no say nor do they have any property rights nor do the municipalities give up any property rights. The Spokane Public Facilities District that runs the Arena and Convention Center never surrender control over the buildings and their people are the ones working not the licensee's employees.

    I am of the opinion that if a Municipality is going to claim they are acting as a private entity, citing the Sequim decision they should then be paying taxes and operating under the same rules just like a private for profit entity does.

    Also check out RCW 9.41.290 and 300, that specifically state CPL holders are exempt from carry restrictions in stadiums, arenas etc. The municipalities get around that law by claiming they are acting like a private business per the Sequim case. Anyway you look at it that is wrong.
    Throw me to the wolves and I will come back leading the pack.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    Without the ability of the lease holder to treat it as "private" during his period of control, he wouldn't be able to enforce a dress code for an event, either, or trespass other undesirables.

    If you don't want this to happen, make it illegal to lease public property to private events, and suffer the loss of public revenue for it.
    Out side of the Mariners, Seahawks etc they do not get to treat the property as private. they do not get to enforce dress codes or trespass anyone. When I had my problem at the Spokane Convention Center the Spokane Convention Center employees were the ones that attempted to throw me out their security people were the ones that I dealt with no the licensee's employees.
    Throw me to the wolves and I will come back leading the pack.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575
    Quote Originally Posted by boatswain View Post
    Chambers Bay is a public course owned by Pierce County, so under WA law we should be able to CCW there. But if course, it's leased to Kemper Sports so they can skate out of their legal obligation, just like the sports stadiums.

    Has anyone approached the legislature about fixing the RCW and nullifying the Sequim court decision?
    You might look at the use agreement it is a public document and should be available via a Public Records Request here is a sample request

    http://www.nfoic.org/washington-sample-foia-request.

    Or you can just show up at the office and take your chances that they will show it to you on the spot.

    I am willing to bet Pierce County has the no firearms requirement in their license to use the facility.
    Throw me to the wolves and I will come back leading the pack.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Alpine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Mercer Island
    Posts
    661
    I understand the benefits of being able to lease public land however, it is too dangerous to allow this forever because when Seattle eventually fails to get pre-emption repealed, they will wise up to the Sequim decision and start turning every piece of public property in the city into permanent leases to quasi-public corporations, forevermore.

    We cannot allow Sequim to stand.
    Last edited by Alpine; 06-19-2015 at 12:15 AM.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie View Post
    This is Truth!!

    I must agree with Mac. If I am "in control" of a property by a rental agreement, the property is "mine" and I set the rules.
    If they want control of a property, build their own rather than relying on the taxpayer! Otherwise, comply with the law established for public properties.

  12. #12
    Regular Member decklin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Pacific, WA
    Posts
    764
    Quote Originally Posted by boatswain View Post
    If they want control of a property, build their own rather than relying on the taxpayer! Otherwise, comply with the law established for public properties.
    You should read the MSG's whole post. That is exactly what he said.
    "Loyalty above all else except honor. " -John Mahoney

    "A Government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have." -Gerald R. Ford

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Quote Originally Posted by boatswain View Post
    If they want control of a property, build their own rather than relying on the taxpayer! Otherwise, comply with the law established for public properties.
    How is this "relying on the taxpayer?" They are PAYING for the lease. The government's coffers are no doubt eager to accept THEIR money.

    If you don't allow leases of public property, you do realize your taxes go UP to compensate, right?

    Yes, you have to option not to allow it, but describe it accurately.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    How is this "relying on the taxpayer?" They are PAYING for the lease. The government's coffers are no doubt eager to accept THEIR money.

    If you don't allow leases of public property, you do realize your taxes go UP to compensate, right?

    Yes, you have to option not to allow it, but describe it accurately.
    Actually Mac we are taxed so that the facility can be built in the first place. Using the Spokane Public Facilities District as an example they are a municipality that has its own tax base. The SPFD also sells bonds that are paid in part by tax dollars. If the Spokane Arena, Spokane Convention Center and Inland Performing Arts building did not exist taxes in Spokane would be lower.
    Throw me to the wolves and I will come back leading the pack.

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Hayes View Post
    ... If the Spokane Arena, Spokane Convention Center and Inland Performing Arts building did not exist taxes in Spokane would be lower.
    Nor would you have the facility at all.

    Allowing the facility to be leased supplements its operating expenses.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  16. #16
    Regular Member rapgood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Bothell, WA
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by boatswain View Post
    Has anyone approached the legislature about fixing the RCW and nullifying the Sequim court decision?
    Probably a difficult thing to accomplish.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alpine View Post
    We cannot allow Sequim to stand.
    If anyone out there wants to be the test case in the greater Seattle area, I'll represent you pro bono.

    An alternative would be for a HUGE OC showing at one of the venues and see how many they want to arrest. Civil disobedience has worked for decades.

    Doing either is to risk a criminal charge and possibly a conviction.
    Rev. Robert Apgood, Esq.

    A right cannot be lost by exercising it. McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3021, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 (2010) (citing Near v. Minn., 283 U.S. 697 (1931)).

    Although IAAL, anything I say here is not legal advice. No conversations we may have privately or otherwise in this forum constitute the formation of an attorney-client relationship, and are not intended to do so.

  17. #17
    Regular Member Alpine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Mercer Island
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by rapgood View Post
    Probably a difficult thing to accomplish.


    If anyone out there wants to be the test case in the greater Seattle area, I'll represent you pro bono.

    An alternative would be for a HUGE OC showing at one of the venues and see how many they want to arrest. Civil disobedience has worked for decades.

    Doing either is to risk a criminal charge and possibly a conviction.
    What bugs me is that even if you got a good, sound decision at trial or appellate court, the ideologues running Seattle and the surrounding lib municipalities would pour untold amounts of cash to appealing all the way to the top and dropping tons of tactical money bombs desired to simply destroy their opposition with endless motions designed to cost tons of money. You'd be up for that? I think that is commendable but I'm not sure it could be a ight that people without a huge organization and big money backing them could fight unfortunately.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by rapgood View Post
    Probably a difficult thing to accomplish.


    If anyone out there wants to be the test case in the greater Seattle area, I'll represent you pro bono.

    An alternative would be for a HUGE OC showing at one of the venues and see how many they want to arrest. Civil disobedience has worked for decades.

    Doing either is to risk a criminal charge and possibly a conviction.
    Would love to take you up on that offer.

    Thanks to Fred Bonner, I cannot at this time though. OC is not legal in Washington and as such was part of my sentencing.
    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)

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,164
    The principle is that public money should (IS/OUGHT) never compete with private money and private interests should never profit from public investments.

    Unfortunately normative and prescriptive statements, characterized by would, should, and could, have no essential truth value.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  20. #20
    Regular Member Difdi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    996
    Quote Originally Posted by rapgood View Post
    If anyone out there wants to be the test case in the greater Seattle area, I'll represent you pro bono.

    An alternative would be for a HUGE OC showing at one of the venues and see how many they want to arrest. Civil disobedience has worked for decades.

    Doing either is to risk a criminal charge and possibly a conviction.
    One thing that occurred to me -- are there things that a private landowner could insert into a lease that are not prohibited by landlord-tenant law, but which would cause the tenant to violate legal requirements placed upon the landlord with regard to the property?

    If the tenant sued and won, it might create a precedent that could be cited when making another attempt at the City of Seattle doing the same thing in their leases.

    After all, if the City can act as a private landowner when writing lease terms despite the fact that those terms cause the tenant to violate rules the City is bound to uphold, then any landowner could do so. If landowners cannot do that, then even when the City is acting as a private landowner, the City cannot either.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •