• 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.

Chambers Bay/US Open CCW

boatswain

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2010
Messages
36
Location
WA
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?
 

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
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.
 

MSG Laigaie

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Messages
3,239
Location
Philipsburg, Montana
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?
 

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
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.
 

deanf

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2007
Messages
1,789
Location
N47º 12’ x W122º 10’
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.
 

JoeSparky

Centurion
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,621
Location
Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
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?
 

Jeff Hayes

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
2,569
Location
Long gone
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.
 

Jeff Hayes

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
2,569
Location
Long gone
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.
 

Jeff Hayes

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
2,569
Location
Long gone
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.
 

Alpine

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2012
Messages
671
Location
Idaho
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:

boatswain

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2010
Messages
36
Location
WA
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.
 

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
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.
 

Jeff Hayes

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
2,569
Location
Long gone
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.
 

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
... 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.
 

rapgood

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2012
Messages
598
Location
Stanwood, WA
Has anyone approached the legislature about fixing the RCW and nullifying the Sequim court decision?
Probably a difficult thing to accomplish.

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.
 

Alpine

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2012
Messages
671
Location
Idaho
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. :(
 

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
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.
 

Difdi

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
987
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
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.
 
Top