Question on Centurlink stadium and concert

Jeff Hayes · Aug 13, 2016

Grapeshot said:
What is licensing in this context - please define. I suspect that whatever term is used, it will constitute a lease.

Generally/normally such use as I see referenced here comes under real estate contract law.

You rent a home or a business for a year or a day and you get to make the rules for your property.

Here ya go Grapeshot

License to use
A license to use real estate merely grants a right to use the real property. It does not confer exclusive dominion or control over the property. Under a license to use real estate, the owner typically controls such things as lighting, heating, cleaning, repairing, and opening and closing the premises.

Here is a link to the full text, http://dor.wa.gov/content/getaformorpublication/publicationbysubject/taxtopics/realestate.aspx

A license to use a property also falls under real estate contract law but not in the manner you believe.

You do not get to make the rules under a license to use the facility or a property, the owner does.

Renting a house or a business is off topic and in no way applicable to this conversation.

I

deanf · Aug 13, 2016

I asked if anyone has been to a concert there specifically, and if they had metal detectors.

So it follows that you are attempting to figure out a way to secretly violate the rules that you openly agreed to when you bought or otherwise acquired a ticket to the event, no?

Jeff Hayes · Aug 13, 2016

Grapeshot said:
\.

The question was asked and answered. The tenant/venue as a private property entity is legally entitled to make their own rules.

Actually the question was not answered correctly, not even close.

The real question here is does the tenant, have private property rights under a license to use the property, BTW Washington State says no they do not. here is a link http://dor.wa.gov/content/getaformor...ealestate.aspx

Tenant is not a correct term under a license to use property IMHO.

Since the tenant, your words not mine, per Washington State has no property rights they are not legally entitled to make their own rules. In fact the licensee, my words, must explicitly follow the owners rules, the government, they have no property rights IMHO.

This is a lot more complicated than you currently understand and can be stated in a few paragraphs, PNSPA VS Sequim is a good place top start. Here is a link to an excellent synopsis http://firearmslawyer.net/blog/index.php/b/2011/02/23/p154.

In thins case the government has hired First and Goal to manage the facility via a lease arraignment that furthers complicates the situation. The question now is can the government lease out property and surrender control over that property in order to circumvent RCW 9.41.290 and 300. I say no, what do you think?

Jeff Hayes · Aug 13, 2016

deanf said:
So it follows that you are attempting to figure out a way to secretly violate the rules that you openly agreed to when you bought or otherwise acquired a ticket to the event, no?

Would that not depend on who actually has legal control over the property?

deanf · Aug 13, 2016

Would that not depend on who actually has legal control over the property?

I'm not sure one would have a claim about the rules if one explicitly agreed to them, no matter who has legal control.

solus · Aug 13, 2016

as previously indicated, the legislators in 1997 abrogated control by legislative statutes 36.102.xxx to a semi-quasi group, the public stadium authority, governed by 7 individuals hand picked by the governor. the board of directors bios are quite an interesting read. http://www.stadium.org/meet-psa/psa-board/

the legislature in 1997 put in specific language stating the public stadium, "in consultation with the team affiliate" throughout 36.102.xxx statutes.

quote:The public stadium authority shall have the authority to enter into a long-term lease agreement with a team affiliate whereby, in consideration of the payment of fair rent and assumption of operating and maintenance responsibilities, risk, legal liability, and costs associated with the stadium and exhibition center, the team affiliate becomes the sole master tenant of the stadium and exhibition center.
http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=36.102.060

Therefore, as sole master as designated by state legislation, they, and they alone, get to decide what they wish to do on their LEASED property. NFL governing policies to their team owners has declared their team's stadiums as GFZ.

ipse

bottom line, you have to wrestle sole master status away by legislative decree.

added, citing revenue statutes concerning taxation status of leased/rental does not apply, per se.

amlevin · Aug 13, 2016

solus said:
i was given two season tickets in the bronco's nose bleed area, parking was $30, climbed back down for the first round of beer and brats $40, second round same...oh while we are in town...dinner $125. for FREE TICKETS.

not to mention what you mentioned in your first paragraph...

HD TV, lounge chair, oh wait, let me walk to fridge and grab a sangria to go with the delivered pizza...quinched my desire to return to partake in further accepting FREE TICKETS!!

same for attending the baseball stadium w/more free tickets behind home plate...

ipse

To add: I also have that feature called a DVR. If I have to answer the call of nature and a "sports highlight" moment occured, I just hit the rewind button and get to watch it in it's entirety and still see the rest of the game as it picks up where I interrupted it.

BTW, I've rarely been given anything "Free" that ended up being free. That old saying "There's no such thing as a free horse" holds true today.

TheRock19 · Aug 13, 2016

solus said:
1. your question was easily answered..tis nobody's fault you didn't like the answer(s) and are still emotionalizing without providing any substantial rebuttal except your constant "they can't" or "private property have no weight"...at least members have provided documented rationale.

2. as advised...please conceal while trying to go through those pesky metal detectors on what you perceive, but have been shown differently, is public property.

please provide date/time/gate you are going through, so your ocdo fan club can watch.

finally i am sorry you feel have the perception you are the bad guy...couldn't possible be related to the attitude you have postured could it?

enjoy your visit to the stadium and the venue you want to see....w/o your firearm!

ipse

added, why do you perceive out of stater(s) can't read RCWs?

Nope, I was given opinions about how people feel about "rules", not if the stadium had metal detectors. A quick "yea", which they do would have sufficed. I would have even taken the opinions on "rules" much better.

TheRock19 · Aug 13, 2016

deanf said:
So it follows that you are attempting to figure out a way to secretly violate the rules that you openly agreed to when you bought or otherwise acquired a ticket to the event, no?

Again, for the umpteenth time, if it ain't legal, I don't care.

Grapeshot · Aug 13, 2016

TheRock19 said:
The law is not an issue here. It wouldn't be against the law to carry somehwere, even if it says "no guns allowed", unless the place is specifically stated in the statutes. I strongly advise you to learn the law.

You are free to think whatever you wish.

You are not free to violate the rules of OCDO and have been warned several times. In spite of that, you edited/modified the OP just this afternoon with the same insults there - enough is enough.

TheRock19 added to post #1:
Edit: for anyone in the future who may come across this travesty of a thread filled with incorrect internet attorneys and ethical commentators............."

Jeff Hayes · Aug 13, 2016

deanf said:
[/COLOR]

I'm not sure one would have a claim about the rules if one explicitly agreed to them, no matter who has legal control.

Agreed if the person or entity has the legal authority to do so. In thins case RCW 9.41.290 says a municipality does not have that authority.

mnrobitaille · Aug 14, 2016

RCW 9.41.300 owning vs. operating

I know everyone has referenced RCW 9.41.300, however here is the pertinent information again with some emphasis:

RCW 9.41.300 Weapons prohibited in certain places—Local laws and ordinances—Exceptions—Penalty.
(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 or exempt from the licensing requirement by RCW 9.41.060

I have the word operated emphasized because in the case of both CenturyLink Field & Safeco Field, the operations are not done by the City of Seattle or by the PFD. If the city &/or PFD owned & operated the venue, then RCW 9.41.300 would be in effect. The owner of CenturyLink Field is Washington State Public Stadium Authority, however the operator is listed as First & Goal Inc. Safeco Field is owned by Washington State Major League Baseball Stadium Public Facilities District, but is operated by Baseball Club of Seattle LP (AKA Seattle Mariners). Both venues are technically owned by a municipality/local government, but they are being operated by a private entity.

I have a similar situation here with the Three Rivers Campus (Toyota Center, Toyota Arena, & Three Rivers Convention) were the venues are owned by a municipality/local government, but they are being operated by a private entity. The Three Rivers Campus has a policy of "No Weapons Allowed" even by those licensed under RCW 9.41.070, not even LEOs in an off-duty capacity can carry as they must be working to carry.. Basically the suggestion I've gotten is for someone to become a test case to fight them in court, but the Sequim case states otherwise, that a private entity operating a publicly owned venue can set up rules as to what is & is not allowed.

rapgood · Aug 14, 2016

TheRock19 said:
The law is not an issue here. It wouldn't be against the law to carry somehwere, even if it says "no guns allowed", unless the place is specifically stated in the statutes.

Not so.

TheRock19 said:
I strongly advise you to learn the law.

Where did you go to law school?

deanf said:
Do you know that 2A doesn't apply on private property?

Correct. It doesn't.

Jeff Hayes said:
Here ya go Grapeshot

License to use
A license to use real estate merely grants a right to use the real property. It does not confer exclusive dominion or control over the property. Under a license to use real estate, the owner typically controls such things as lighting, heating, cleaning, repairing, and opening and closing the premises.

Here is a link to the full text, http://dor.wa.gov/content/getaformorpublication/publicationbysubject/taxtopics/realestate.aspx

A license to use a property also falls under real estate contract law but not in the manner you believe.
You do not get to make the rules under a license to use the facility or a property, the owner does.
Renting a house or a business is off topic and in no way applicable to this conversation.

Correct.

Jeff Hayes said:
The question was asked and answered. The tenant/venue as a private property entity is legally entitled to make their own rules.
Actually the question was not answered correctly, not even close.
The real question here is does the tenant, have private property rights under a license to use the property, BTW Washington State says no they do not. here is a link http://dor.wa.gov/content/getaformor...ealestate.aspx

Tenant is not a correct term under a license to use property IMHO.

Well, the DOR's article is focused on taxation, so their "distinction" of "lessee" versus "licensee" is from that perspective. As such, you have to take that distinction with a grain of salt.

A "license" might be a tenancy. The legal definition of "tenant" is quite lengthy and broad. However, a "licensee" is not always a "tenant" and a "tenant" is not always a "licensee." If you invite someone onto your property, (s)he is technically a "licensee," but not necessarily a "tenant." However, a formal license to use a property may (but not necessarily) constitute a "tenancy."

Generally, a lease does confer a lawful possessory interest in a property. As such, a lessee can set his own rules, whereas, generally, a licensee cannot. I think that the PNSPA court got it wrong. But, that's the state of the law, today.

slapmonkay · Aug 14, 2016

This has all been discussed before. Here is my copy of the master lease between First and Goal and the Public Stadium Authority.

https://1drv.ms/f/s!AhvR4Yy7tuzqgTEzDMsXAa_51UZH

You can now all read exactly what it does and allows.

mnrobitaille · Aug 14, 2016

Private property and Civil Rights

Why does the National Rifle Association call itself "America's Oldest Civil Rights Organization"? I found the following below by searching for Civil Rights and Private Property

Civil Rights

Personal liberties that belong to an individual, owing to his or her status as a citizen or resident of a particular country or community.

The most common legal application of the term civil rights involves the rights guaranteed to U.S. citizens and residents by legislation and by the Constitution. Civil rights protected by the Constitution include Freedom of Speech and freedom from certain types of discrimination.

Not all types of discrimination are unlawful, and most of an individual's personal choices are protected by the freedoms to choose personal associates; to express himself or herself; and to preserve personal privacy. Civil rights legislation comes into play when the practice of personal preferences and prejudices of an individual, a business entity, or a government interferes with the protected rights of others. The various civil rights laws have made it illegal to discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, age, handicap, or national origin. Discrimination that interferes with voting rights and equality of opportunity in education, employment, and housing is unlawful.

The term Privileges and Immunities is related to civil rights. Privileges and immunities encompass all rights of individuals that relate to people, places, and real and Personal Property. Privileges include all of the legal benefits of living in the United States, such as the freedom to sell land, draft a will, or obtain a Divorce. Immunities are the protections afforded by law that prevent the government or other people from hindering another's enjoyment of his or her life, such as the right to be free from illegal searches and seizures and the freedom to practice religion without government persecution. The Privileges and Immunities Clause in Article IV of the U.S. Constitution states, "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." The clause is designed to prevent each state from discriminating against the people in other states in favor of its own citizens.

I posted just the first few paragraphs, the rest of this entry can be found at: Civil Rights explanation

How I am understanding the above, a private entity (business, ownership, etc.) cannot infringe upon one's Civil Rights without due cause/due process. The mere presence of a properly holstered sidearm by a law abiding, responsibly armed citizen is not due cause to cause the disarming of said citizen. However if the citizen was brandishing said sidearm in a threatening fashion, or waving around sidearm causing warranting alarm is due cause to disarm. As stated above:

The term Privileges and Immunities is related to civil rights. Privileges and immunities encompass all rights of individuals that relate to people, places, and real and Personal Property.

A firearm is classified as personal property & in legality, a private entity disarming a law abiding, responsibly armed citizen who has a properly holstered sidearm can be classified as the conducting of an illegal search & seizure (even though the firearm may stay under your control by placing it back in vehicle). You are, by being disarmed by personal bias, being denied the immunity of the Right to Keep & Bear Arms.

deanf · Aug 14, 2016

How I am understanding the above, a private entity (business, ownership, etc.) cannot infringe upon one's Civil Rights without due cause/due process.

But remember: You've no right to be on private property, except your own. You're there by license of the property owner. The terms of the license can be changed or revoked at any time, no notice required.

All these so-called civil rights protecting against certain types of discrimination were created out of whole cloth, and have no basis in our constitution or founding. Unfortunately, that is the state of current law in this country - an erroneous reading.

Grapeshot · Aug 14, 2016

mnrobitaille said:
Why does the National Rifle Association call itself "America's Oldest Civil Rights Organization"? I found the following below by searching for Civil Rights and Private Property

I posted just the first few paragraphs, the rest of this entry can be found at: Civil Rights explanation

How I am understanding the above, a private entity (business, ownership, etc.) cannot infringe upon one's Civil Rights without due cause/due process. The mere presence of a properly holstered sidearm by a law abiding, responsibly armed citizen is not due cause to cause the disarming of said citizen. However if the citizen was brandishing said sidearm in a threatening fashion, or waving around sidearm causing warranting alarm is due cause to disarm. As stated above:

A firearm is classified as personal property & in legality, a private entity disarming a law abiding, responsibly armed citizen who has a properly holstered sidearm can be classified as the conducting of an illegal search & seizure (even though the firearm may stay under your control by placing it back in vehicle). You are, by being disarmed by personal bias, being denied the immunity of the Right to Keep & Bear Arms.

It just ain't so.

The restriction is against the federal Government to not infringe on that right. Private property owners/tenants may and frequently do things that a public entity in possession could not legally do.

OTOH - the state and municipalities can, as it seems they have here, given leasehold rights to a 3rd party with consideration, term, dated and signed. There is no material difference from your renting/leasing a home for 1 year or twenty years (commercial lease) wherein you then get to make the rules.

rapgood · Aug 17, 2016

mnrobitaille said:
Why does the National Rifle Association call itself "America's Oldest Civil Rights Organization"? I found the following below by searching for Civil Rights and Private Property

I posted just the first few paragraphs, the rest of this entry can be found at: Civil Rights explanation

How I am understanding the above, a private entity (business, ownership, etc.) cannot infringe upon one's Civil Rights without due cause/due process. The mere presence of a properly holstered sidearm by a law abiding, responsibly armed citizen is not due cause to cause the disarming of said citizen. However if the citizen was brandishing said sidearm in a threatening fashion, or waving around sidearm causing warranting alarm is due cause to disarm. As stated above:

A firearm is classified as personal property & in legality, a private entity disarming a law abiding, responsibly armed citizen who has a properly holstered sidearm can be classified as the conducting of an illegal search & seizure (even though the firearm may stay under your control by placing it back in vehicle). You are, by being disarmed by personal bias, being denied the immunity of the Right to Keep & Bear Arms.

Grapeshot responds:

Grapeshot said:
It just ain't so.

The restriction is against the federal Government to not infringe on that right. Private property owners/tenants may and frequently do things that a public entity in possession could not legally do.

+1

Freedom1Man · Aug 18, 2016

Then, I guess it changes the nature of the whole question.

How does the government have authority to hand over a tax built stadium to a private entity? Built on the tax payer dime profit for private gain.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

Boomboy007 · Aug 18, 2016

Freedom1Man said:
Then, I guess it changes the nature of the whole question.

How does the government have authority to hand over a tax built stadium to a private entity? Built on the tax payer dime profit for private gain.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

+1

Question on Centurlink stadium and concert

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Legendary Warrior

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Legendary Warrior

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member