"How are they allowed to have that policy?"
That question is what finally entered my mind late last night.
The policy itself is illegal.
Here is the line of thinking, straight from the PFD's attorney:
(Quoting from correspondence during the Hayes vs PFD action)
1. Use of District Facilities is commonly through a license agreement. The license agreement is a contract between the District and a private party to exclusively use and occupy facilities pursuant to agreed terms and conditions. In the matter presented to the Board, the Ron Paul License Agreement required conformance with the District policies which include the prohibition on concealed weapons.
As was recognized in Chan, when the District enters into a business relationship for a proprietary or financial purpose the conditions contained in the License Agreement are not laws or regulations which would be subject to preemption by state law. In other words, just like a private party, when the District rents or authorizes use of its private facilities, the District and the event presenters are regulating use of facilities by agreement not through legislation (e.g., ordinance).
Given the above case law, and the use of the District Facilities through a License Agreement, the State preemption statute does not apply. Re: Possession of Concealed Weapons in Public Facilities, Witherspoon Kelley, March 23, 2012
However Chan goes on to refute this very line of reasoning:
¶ 15 The City contends RCW 9.41.290 does not preempt the Firearms Rule because (1) the City is acting in its proprietary capacity, (2) the Firearms Rule is not a criminal regulation, and (3) the Firearms Rule was not adopted as a law or ordinance.
However, in reaching the conclusion that the city was acting in its proprietary capacity by imposing conditions on the sales of firearms, the court emphasizes that "[t]he critical point is that the conditions the city imposed related to a permit for private use of its property. They were not laws or regulations of application to the general public." PNSPA, 158 Wash.2d at 357, 144 P.3d 276.
29 The City also contends that RCW 9.41.290 does not apply because the statute only precludes a municipality from adopting "laws and ordinances" regulating the possession of firearms, and not a rule or policy. But the City cites no support for the proposition that it can regulate the possession of firearms through rule or policy when it cannot do so by law or ordinance.
34 In sum, we hold that RCW 9.41.290 preempts the Firearms Rule. Except as expressly authorized by the legislature, municipalities are prohibited from regulating the possession of firearms at city-owned park facilities open to the public.
Chan v. City of Seattle, 265 P. 3d 169 - Wash: Court of Appeals, 1st Div. 2011
In practice, the PFD will trespass anyone in possession of a concealed pistol, citing the policy as the authority.
This effectively violates RCW 9.41.290, stated above and here in relevant part:
The state of Washington hereby fully occupies and preempts the entire field of firearms regulation within the boundaries of the state, including the registration, licensing, possession... RCW 9.41.290, State Preemption.
Or am I missing something?