• 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.

Puyallup Fair Carry?

Mainsail

Mainsail

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
1,533
Location
Silverdale, Washington, USA
imported post

Puyallup Fair Carry?

Now, let me start off by saying I have no intention of ever wading into that crowd, armed or not. However, it came up at work today and I’m wondering if the fair or the police could exclude you from the fair for open carry. It is a state fair, so I would think preemption would apply. I also think that even if it wasn’t illegal to carry, the police would do everything in their power, and even a few things not in their power, to keep you out.

Thoughts?


EDIT: Deleting superfluous white-space. Why does this forum do that?
 
just_a_car

just_a_car

Regular Member
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
2,558
Location
Auburn, Washington, USA
imported post

I'm going to vote an opinion of "Legal".

For the simple fact that even if they claim it's an outdoor music festival (since they do have concerts there, I saw Chuck Berry and Little Richard when I was younger), it's a state-sponsored and licensed fair, so it's excluded from the firearms-prohibited rule.
 
compmanio365

compmanio365

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2007
Messages
2,013
Location
Pierce County, Washington, USA
imported post

I was just out at the Puyallup Fair grounds for the Good Guys car show and was concealing the whole time. No problems.

There is a "No Weapons" rule posted at the entrance however, so OC is most definately out.....legal or not, they wouldn't let you in, and I'm sure would call the PD if you pushed the issue.
 
J

joeroket

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
3,339
Location
Everett, Washington, USA
imported post

just_a_car wrote:
I'm going to vote an opinion of "Legal".

For the simple fact that even if they claim it's an outdoor music festival (since they do have concerts there, I saw Chuck Berry and Little Richard when I was younger), it's a state-sponsored and licensed fair, so it's excluded from the firearms-prohibited rule.
Click to expand...
The puyallup fair is not state sponsored or funded therefore it does fall under rcw 70.108. The only sticky point of that rcw is IF it falls under the clause about being licensed under other laws or rules. I believe that it is covered under 70.108 because it is run by an independantnon-profit org that receives no money from the state.
 
B

Bear 45/70

Regular Member
Joined
May 22, 2007
Messages
3,256
Location
Union, Washington, USA
imported post

Lonnie Wilson wrote:
Puyallup Fair is a private event, not for profit, and on private property.

They can exclude.
Click to expand...
Even the WAC (Washington Arms Collectors) gun shows only allows empty guns (AKA a rock)except for cops. So they can and do exclude guns.:X
 
J

joshmmm

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
245
Location
Bellevue, Washington, USA
imported post

Pa. Patriot wrote:
The sponsorship, etc is moot. What matters is if the property it is held on is private or public.
Lonnie says it's private. If so their rules will stick.
Click to expand...

Actually, that is incorrect.

Safeco field is publicly owned, yet it is leased to the Mariners corporation. The corporation can set any policy it likes and we are required to abide by it or we can be asked to leave. (you can conceal if they don't know, but if they find out they can ask you to leave, yadda yadda...)

ps. The Mariners do ban all weapons and have every right to do so as they lease the property and they maintain control of Safeco field-- First and Goal (Seahawks corporation) does the same thing with Qwest field and the exhibition center.
 
P

Pa. Patriot

State Researcher
Joined
May 4, 2007
Messages
1,441
Location
Just a "wannabe" in Mtn. Top, Pennsylvania, USA
imported post

joshmmm wrote:
Actually, that is incorrect.

Safeco field is publicly owned, yet it is leased to the Mariners corporation. The corporation can set any policy it likes and we are required to abide by it or we can be asked to leave. (you can conceal if they don't know, but if they find out they can ask you to leave, yadda yadda...)

ps. The Mariners do ban all weapons and have every right to do so as they lease the property and they maintain control of Safeco field-- First and Goal (Seahawks corporation) does the same thing with Qwest field and the exhibition center.
Click to expand...

WA must be bass ackwards then. If it is public property then the leasee is irrelevant to most states preemption. What is the determining statute or case law that allows leasees to make otherwise preempted rules on public property in WA??
 
J

joshmmm

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
245
Location
Bellevue, Washington, USA
imported post

Pa. Patriot wrote:
joshmmm wrote:
Actually, that is incorrect.

Safeco field is publicly owned, yet it is leased to the Mariners corporation. The corporation can set any policy it likes and we are required to abide by it or we can be asked to leave. (you can conceal if they don't know, but if they find out they can ask you to leave, yadda yadda...)

ps. The Mariners do ban all weapons and have every right to do so as they lease the property and they maintain control of Safeco field-- First and Goal (Seahawks corporation) does the same thing with Qwest field and the exhibition center.
Click to expand...

WA must be bass ackwards then. If it is public property then the leasee is irrelevant to most states preemption. What is the determining statute or case law that allows leasees to make otherwise preempted rules on public property in WA??
Click to expand...

I honestly don't know and am currently studying for my criminal law final (test is tomorrow) so I don't have time to look right now...

I am sure Lonnie knows off the top of his head so hopefully he can answer :)
 
J

joeroket

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
3,339
Location
Everett, Washington, USA
imported post

Pa. Patriot wrote:
joshmmm wrote:
Actually, that is incorrect.

Safeco field is publicly owned, yet it is leased to the Mariners corporation. The corporation can set any policy it likes and we are required to abide by it or we can be asked to leave. (you can conceal if they don't know, but if they find out they can ask you to leave, yadda yadda...)

ps. The Mariners do ban all weapons and have every right to do so as they lease the property and they maintain control of Safeco field-- First and Goal (Seahawks corporation) does the same thing with Qwest field and the exhibition center.
Click to expand...

WA must be bass ackwards then. If it is public property then the leasee is irrelevant to most states preemption. What is the determining statute or case law that allows leasees to make otherwise preempted rules on public property in WA??
Click to expand...

There is a clause in 9.41.300 that states:

(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; or

(ii) Any showing, demonstration, or lecture involving the exhibition of firearms.

It is my understanding that if the property is leased to a private corp then they can, and alot do, have thier own set of rules restricting any and all weapons. There is nothing against the law if you carry but they can ask you to leave.
 
J

joshmmm

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
245
Location
Bellevue, Washington, USA
imported post

joeroket wrote:
Pa. Patriot wrote:
joshmmm wrote:
Actually, that is incorrect.

Safeco field is publicly owned, yet it is leased to the Mariners corporation. The corporation can set any policy it likes and we are required to abide by it or we can be asked to leave. (you can conceal if they don't know, but if they find out they can ask you to leave, yadda yadda...)

ps. The Mariners do ban all weapons and have every right to do so as they lease the property and they maintain control of Safeco field-- First and Goal (Seahawks corporation) does the same thing with Qwest field and the exhibition center.
Click to expand...

WA must be bass ackwards then. If it is public property then the leasee is irrelevant to most states preemption. What is the determining statute or case law that allows leasees to make otherwise preempted rules on public property in WA??
Click to expand...

There is a clause in 9.41.300 that states:

(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; or

(ii) Any showing, demonstration, or lecture involving the exhibition of firearms.

It is my understanding that if the property is leased to a private corp then they can, and alot do, have thier own set of rules restricting any and all weapons. There is nothing against the law if you carry but they can ask you to leave.
Click to expand...

Joe,

Your analysis is absolutely correct, but the law you posted there has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the topic at hand. We are dealing with a private corporation banning weapons when they lease a public building. The law you have quoted deals with cities banning weapons on city property.
 
J

joeroket

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
3,339
Location
Everett, Washington, USA
imported post

joshmmm wrote:
joeroket wrote:
Pa. Patriot wrote:
joshmmm wrote:
Actually, that is incorrect.

Safeco field is publicly owned, yet it is leased to the Mariners corporation. The corporation can set any policy it likes and we are required to abide by it or we can be asked to leave. (you can conceal if they don't know, but if they find out they can ask you to leave, yadda yadda...)

ps. The Mariners do ban all weapons and have every right to do so as they lease the property and they maintain control of Safeco field-- First and Goal (Seahawks corporation) does the same thing with Qwest field and the exhibition center.
Click to expand...

WA must be bass ackwards then. If it is public property then the leasee is irrelevant to most states preemption. What is the determining statute or case law that allows leasees to make otherwise preempted rules on public property in WA??
Click to expand...

There is a clause in 9.41.300 that states:

(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; or

(ii) Any showing, demonstration, or lecture involving the exhibition of firearms.

It is my understanding that if the property is leased to a private corp then they can, and alot do, have thier own set of rules restricting any and all weapons. There is nothing against the law if you carry but they can ask you to leave.
Click to expand...

Joe,

Your analysis is absolutely correct, but the law you posted there has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the topic at hand. We are dealing with a private corporation banning weapons when they lease a public building. The law you have quoted deals with cities banning weapons on city property.
Click to expand...

Well kind of. I see your point but it deals with municipalities creating laws that ban firearms in a city operated stadium or convention center. No where does it say that it has to be city property. It could be a private center that the city leases and operates. I think I may be over reading into the RCW though.

Anyway back to the point at hand. I am going to have to find something that sets precedent because, as you pointed out josh it does not deal with public property that is privately leased.
 
Gray Peterson

Gray Peterson

Founder's Club Member - Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
2,236
Location
Lynnwood, Washington, USA
imported post

My two cents.

The law says "Operated by".

This is the reason why the Washington State Convention and Trade Center, which is jointly operated by the City of Seattle and King County, cannot ban guns by CPL holders (per RCW 9.41.300), but Qwest Field and Safeco Field can. The law says "operated by".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top