• 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.

Open carry in a stadium or convention center

H

heresolong

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,318
Location
Blaine, WA, ,
imported post

While browsing through the RCWs today I thought of something interesting. The RCW that allows public entities to ban weapons from stadiums and convention centers contains an exemption for permit holders. Seems to me that this allows anyone with a permit to openly carry in these places. So that brings up another question. What stadium and convention centers in Washington fall under this law?

Qwest Field is owned by the Washington Public Stadium Authority but operated by First & Goal, a for profit company with Paul Allen on the board.

Safeco Field is owned and operated by the Washington King County Stadium Authority, a municipal corporation under the auspices of King County. Sounds like "operated by a county or municipality" to me. So does this mean that we can legally carry to Mariners games and that they can't stop us under state law?
 
H

heresolong

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,318
Location
Blaine, WA, ,
imported post

Fudgsicles. I just found something on their website where they leased the whole stadium to the Mariners who are now responsible for the day to day operations.
 
G

gregma

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2007
Messages
618
Location
Redmond, Washington, USA
imported post

One that I can think of off the top of my head that would qualify, would be the stadium on the "Evergreen State Fairgrounds". They are operated by the County of Snohomish.
 
compmanio365

compmanio365

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

I was talking about this to a friend on the train the other day.....isn't it nice how we, the taxpayers of Washington, paid for this stadium with our hard earned money, then now that the stadium is leased out to a private entity, we can be charged even MORE money to enter said "public" stadium, denied our civil liberties, searched and denied entry, etc, etc.

It's analogous to buying a house, then having the city come and say "Hey, even though you bought and paid for this house with your own money, we're going to rent out your house to someone else. We get to make decisions like this, cause hey, we're the city, and we know best. Since they will be leasing the house, they get to make the rules, charge admission, cause hey, they are leasing the place. It's their "right". So pay the $8 admission fee every night when you come home before you go in the door, and you will be searched for weapons, outside food and drinks,none of that is permitted.Your rights? It's not your house anymore, it's being leasedby someone else. If you don'tlike it,you don'thave to come in! You can take your business elsewhere!" See how silly that sounds? But it's no different than what is happened to our public stadiums and other things that we've paid for with our tax money. They get to make whatever rules they want by leasing them out, so they are "private" now.

The government gets it's share, the private companies get to make a profit, and you and I get screwed coming and going, taxed not once, but multiple times and denied our rights in a public place while they are at it. Cause, you know, it's not enough to get shafted.....you better make sure that shaft has big nasty splinters on it while you're at it.
 
J

joeroket

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

compmanio365 wrote:
I was talking about this to a friend on the train the other day.....isn't it nice how we, the taxpayers of Washington, paid for this stadium with our hard earned money, then now that the stadium is leased out to a private entity, we can be charged even MORE money to enter said "public" stadium, denied our civil liberties, searched and denied entry, etc, etc.

It's analogous to buying a house, then having the city come and say "Hey, even though you bought and paid for this house with your own money, we're going to rent out your house to someone else. We get to make decisions like this, cause hey, we're the city, and we know best. Since they will be leasing the house, they get to make the rules, charge admission, cause hey, they are leasing the place. It's their "right". So pay the $8 admission fee every night when you come home before you go in the door, and you will be searched for weapons, outside food and drinks,none of that is permitted.Your rights? It's not your house anymore, it's being leasedby someone else. If you don'tlike it,you don'thave to come in! You can take your business elsewhere!" See how silly that sounds? But it's no different than what is happened to our public stadiums and other things that we've paid for with our tax money. They get to make whatever rules they want by leasing them out, so they are "private" now.

The government gets it's share, the private companies get to make a profit, and you and I get screwed coming and going, taxed not once, but multiple times and denied our rights in a public place while they are at it. Cause, you know, it's not enough to get shafted.....you better make sure that shaft has big nasty splinters on it while you're at it.
Click to expand...
Not the best analogy but I see your point. That is why the law says "operated by", they wanted to give the lease holder the option to create rules themselves. On a side note I would prefer to have an entity that knows how to operate a stadium then let our gov't do it, hell they have a hard enough time doing what we pay them to do now let alone add something else.:banghead:
 
H

heresolong

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,318
Location
Blaine, WA, ,
imported post

joeroket wrote:
On a side note I would prefer to have an entity that knows how to operate a stadium then let our gov't do it, hell they have a hard enough time doing what we pay them to do now let alone add something else.:banghead:
Click to expand...
Good point. I withdraw my complaint given the alternative.
 
compmanio365

compmanio365

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

joeroket wrote:
Not the best analogy but I see your point. That is why the law says "operated by", they wanted to give the lease holder the option to create rules themselves. On a side note I would prefer to have an entity that knows how to operate a stadium then let our gov't do it, hell they have a hard enough time doing what we pay them to do now let alone add something else.:banghead:
Click to expand...

Yeah, it was the best I could come up with at the time...:p You see the point I'm making though, which is what I was aiming for.

And I agree, I would rather see anything done in the private sector, rather than run by the government, as it should be. But the difference is that if it was a private venture, and they wanted to make their own rules, I wouldn't have a problem with that. Would I agree? No, but it IS their property, that THEY would have paid for out of their own assets, and later made up their investment in what we would pay to use that stadium, building, whatever. Instead, we've paid our tax money to build that stadium, then we, the taxpayers, get no say in how the stadium is used or what rules are put in place there, and our civil liberties are taken away under the guise of "private property rights", when in reality, it is PUBLIC property that we've been screwed out of by our fine elected officials.
 
J

joeroket

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

compmanio365 wrote:
joeroket wrote:
Not the best analogy but I see your point. That is why the law says "operated by", they wanted to give the lease holder the option to create rules themselves. On a side note I would prefer to have an entity that knows how to operate a stadium then let our gov't do it, hell they have a hard enough time doing what we pay them to do now let alone add something else.:banghead:
Click to expand...

Yeah, it was the best I could come up with at the time...:p You see the point I'm making though, which is what I was aiming for.

And I agree, I would rather see anything done in the private sector, rather than run by the government, as it should be. But the difference is that if it was a private venture, and they wanted to make their own rules, I wouldn't have a problem with that. Would I agree? No, but it IS their property, that THEY would have paid for out of their own assets, and later made up their investment in what we would pay to use that stadium, building, whatever. Instead, we've paid our tax money to build that stadium, then we, the taxpayers, get no say in how the stadium is used or what rules are put in place there, and our civil liberties are taken away under the guise of "private property rights", when in reality, it is PUBLIC property that we've been screwed out of by our fine elected officials.
Click to expand...
I am in complete agreement with you on this. I get pissed everytime I drive by the Everett Events Center because I can't carry in there either, at least if they know I have a gun. The way I see it is that the law should read "planned, developed, or constructed in part or in whole with public funds".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top