• 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.

Harrassed and turned away from 4th of July at Gasworks Park in Seattle.

quentusrex

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2008
Messages
113
Location
Tacoma, Washington, USA
imported post

My wife and I were just turned away from watching the Lake Union fireworks at Gasworks park. We are both very upset to the fact that we were turned away, but also the manner and 'reasoning for which' we were turned away.

I am willing to answer questions and give more details. I'm also intending to persue the legality of what just happened....

It appears that the city has gotten around the state preemption by 'renting' out the park. And the operating company has banned all pets, weapons, BBQ's, alcohol, fireworks, etc. Is that legal? Can a company rent exclusive use of a public park?
 

sv_libertarian

State Researcher
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
3,201
Location
Olympia, WA, ,
imported post

quentusrex wrote:
My wife and I were just turned away from watching the Lake Union fireworks at Gasworks park. We are both very upset to the fact that we were turned away, but also the manner and 'reasoning for which' we were turned away.

I am willing to answer questions and give more details. I'm also intending to persue the legality of what just happened....

It appears that the city has gotten around the state preemption by 'renting' out the park. And the operating company has banned all pets, weapons, BBQ's, alcohol, fireworks, etc. Is that legal? Can a company rent exclusive use of a public park?
Wow. Don't know about the legality of that but if it turns out there are legal issues call Randy Loun. I'll PM you his phone number. He is a heck of a lawyer and may be able to help you.
 

Washintonian_For_Liberty

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2008
Messages
922
Location
Mercer Island, Washington, USA
imported post

It is so weird you mention that... my wife and I were just thinking of going to Gasworks park to watch the fireworks. Now I don't know where to go.

What they did isn't legal. What they've done is essentially broken the law and told you "What you gonna do about it?!" I don't think they expect you'll challenge them.

We must stop these people from taking our Liberty.... because that's what it's about. It's not just about firearms with these people.... I've just read all the laws concerning fireworks.... I can't believe all the fireworks that are illegal.... who do these people think they are? This is starting to become like Stalinist Russia....

:cuss:
 

joeroket

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

Unfortunately it sounds like what they did was legal. PNWSA vs Sequim as well as the fact that they are not a government entity gives them the power to exclude firearms.
 

quentusrex

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2008
Messages
113
Location
Tacoma, Washington, USA
imported post

But can a government entity take government land, and rent it out exclusively? And can the operator then set policies that the local government could not enact?

If this is true, then what would stop the Seattle Mayor from 'renting' out all public venues to private operators on the condition that they use their private property authority to set policies that the venue otherwise couldn't set?
 

Nebulis01

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
113
Location
Snohomish, Washington, USA
imported post

quentusrex wrote:
But can a government entity take government land, and rent it out exclusively? And can the operator then set policies that the local government could not enact?

If this is true, then what would stop the Seattle Mayor from 'renting' out all public venues to private operators on the condition that they use their private property authority to set policies that the venue otherwise couldn't set?
This is exactly what they have done with the stadiums and why they prevent the carrying of firearms at the stadiums, even though taxpayers payed(are paying?) for them.
 

Bear 45/70

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

Nebulis01 wrote:
quentusrex wrote:
But can a government entity take government land, and rent it out exclusively? And can the operator then set policies that the local government could not enact?

If this is true, then what would stop the Seattle Mayor from 'renting' out all public venues to private operators on the condition that they use their private property authority to set policies that the venue otherwise couldn't set?
This is exactly what they have done with the stadiums and why they prevent the carrying of firearms at the stadiums, even though taxpayers payed(are paying?) for them.
The question is whether the permit for the fireworks include the park orwas the permitjust for the barge to launch the fireworks out on the lake? If the park wasn't included, then this was illegal as all hell.
 

joeroket

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

quentusrex wrote:
But can a government entity take government land, and rent it out exclusively? And can the operator then set policies that the local government could not enact?

If this is true, then what would stop the Seattle Mayor from 'renting' out all public venues to private operators on the condition that they use their private property authority to set policies that the venue otherwise couldn't set?
This is exactly what the PNWSA vs Sequim was all about. It was about the city putting massive restrictions on the gun show that PNWSA was holding via the contract that was entered between the two. Thats just one piece of the puzzle. Once the contract is entered into the private org that is renting the city property has control over it during the contract time. They can have all the restrictions that they want to and keep people from entering or tell them to leave for violating them.

As crappy as it is that is the way it is.
 

Bear 45/70

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

joeroket wrote:
quentusrex wrote:
But can a government entity take government land, and rent it out exclusively? And can the operator then set policies that the local government could not enact?

If this is true, then what would stop the Seattle Mayor from 'renting' out all public venues to private operators on the condition that they use their private property authority to set policies that the venue otherwise couldn't set?
This is exactly what the PNWSA vs Sequim was all about. It was about the city putting massive restrictions on the gun show that PNWSA was holding via the contract that was entered between the two. Thats just one piece of the puzzle. Once the contract is entered into the private org that is renting the city property has control over it during the contract time. They can have all the restrictions that they want to and keep people from entering or tell them to leave for violating them.

As crappy as it is that is the way it is.
I see what they are trying to get at, but isn't this just a de facto illegal anti gun law since it is required by the government agency that actually owns the property. If the organization that leases the property opts to ban guns , thats fine, but the government requirement is in fact a government requirement and is illegal under the state preemption law. The case should have been appealed higher up. I don't think the State Supreme Court would up hold this one.
 

joeroket

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

I may have mi-spoken a little on this Bear. I think you are correct that it would be an illegal restriction if the restriction is written into the contract that no firearms shall be allowed because that would apply to the general public. The PNWSA ruling majority was upheld because the restrictions of firearms were on PNWSA and were not applied to the general public.

Like you said if it was a restriction placed on the public by the renter of the property then that would be a whole different story because they get to treat it as private property during the time that they are renting the property.
 

Holo

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2008
Messages
86
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
imported post

Makes me want to put a sign on my front door that says, "No firearms allowed"

Then people walk in and see my entire family carrying.
 
Top