Page 1 of 10 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 232

Thread: WAC Gun Show

  1. #1
    Lone Star Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Seattle-ish, Washington, USA
    Posts
    714

    Post imported post

    I must be missing something as I haven't seen a post regarding this. Am I the only one who got "pissed on" trying to walk into the WAC Gun Show while open carrying?

    The guy "guarding" the door told me that non-members aren't allowed to carry (concealed or not). When I tried to ask him for directions to the membership booth he told me I wasn't allowed to walk the 15 feet to it to sign up. He wanted me to go put my gun in my car. Come back, pay a $35 membership fee. Go back to my car, get my gun. Then come back again.

    WTH?

    Does anyone else think it's incredibly ironic that a "gun organization" has such unfriendly policies towards guns? I had friends waiting who had met me there, so I put my gun in the car, but when the guy tried to give me directions to the membership booth I told him I refused to support a private organization that taxes (that's right TAXES) weapon carry. It didn't come out like that, but that's what I wish I said (I was seriously taken off guard by a no gun policy at a gun show).

    Utterly ridiculous. I had set aside a hefty lump of cash for ammo, mags, accessories, etc. but after that I resolved (successfully) not to spend a cent past the entry fee I'd already coughed up.

    I doubt I'll be going back. Internet surplus here I come.

    EDIT: I found what I was looking for in this thread: http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_to...ht=wac+no+guns

    The man in the ticket booth told me I needed a membership to carry my loaded weapon into the show, but from what I understand after reading the above thread even with a membership it is not allowed? The WAC can do whatever it feels best, unfortunately that puts it at odds with my patronage along with that of anyone else that I can convince.


  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Is this different from NRA 'members' being disarmed at their antional klanvention?

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    766

    Post imported post

    HUSH.... Greg Nickels might find out about WAC's policy and use it to justify his proposed illegal ban on carry of guns on city property. You wouldn't want Nickels calling WAC directors hypocrites, would you?

  4. #4
    State Researcher Bill Starks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nortonville, KY, USA
    Posts
    4,291

    Post imported post

    Even as a member you are NOT allowed to carry a loaded weapon into the facility. You can't carry in a loaded magazine either (however a empty magazine & loose rounds are ok). You weapon will be zip tied with the action open. The zip ties are flimsy and if you need to try out a holster or some other accessory you can break the tie just be sure to put on back on.






  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Chandler, AZ/Federal Way, WA, ,
    Posts
    536

    Post imported post

    Man i was about to register for the wac too. I guess not now. I wonder though the fair ground isn't their property do they even have a right to tell you to disarm?

  6. #6
    Lone Star Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Seattle-ish, Washington, USA
    Posts
    714

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    Is this different from NRA 'members' being disarmed at their antional klanvention?
    Interesting. I was thinking about attending the banquet in Spokane. The organizer's stated that OC would be allowed. I'm guessing this isn't being run by the NRA if banning guns is their policy. Is there an organization that truly supports gun rights? I was looking at signing up to "Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership".

    44Brent wrote:
    HUSH.... Greg Nickels might find out about WAC's policy and use it to justify his proposed illegal ban on carry of guns on city property. You wouldn't want Nickels calling WAC directors hypocrites, would you?
    :shock: Actually I would like for everyone to call the WAC directors hypocrites, and for them to be put on the DNP list. Squeaky wheel and all that.

    M1Gunr wrote:
    Even as a member you are NOT allowed to carry a loaded weapon into the facility. You can't carry in a loaded magazine either (however a empty magazine & loose rounds are ok). You weapon will be zip tied with the action open. The zip ties are flimsy and if you need to try out a holster or some other accessory you can break the tie just be sure to put on back on.




    I saw that after reading the other thread. Disappointing.

    Kildars wrote:
    Man i was about to register for the wac too. I guess not now. I wonder though the fair ground isn't their property do they even have a right to tell you to disarm?
    I did mention that to them (which made them angry), but I believe there are other cases of private organizations on public property banning guns. The fact that it is being used for a private event changes things I guess.

    I don't know if it is foolish or not, but I kind of wish there was a law banning discrimination against lawful gun owner's.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Chandler, AZ/Federal Way, WA, ,
    Posts
    536

    Post imported post

    diesel556 wrote
    I did mention that to them (which made them angry), but I believe there are other cases of private organizations on public property banning guns. The fact that it is being used for a private event changes things I guess.

    I don't know if it is foolish or not, but I kind of wish there was a law banning discrimination against lawful gun owner's.
    I'd like to see some case law regarding that because it is public property and they choose to hold their event there. They need to abide by state law. If they were to buy a place where they held their events that would be different but they are using city property.

    You're allowed to carry at the puyallup fair, I don't know why this would be different. Them disarming people could end up being a lawsuit.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    Kildars wrote:
    diesel556 wrote
    I did mention that to them (which made them angry), but I believe there are other cases of private organizations on public property banning guns. The fact that it is being used for a private event changes things I guess.

    I don't know if it is foolish or not, but I kind of wish there was a law banning discrimination against lawful gun owner's.
    I'd like to see some case law regarding that because it is public property and they choose to hold their event there. They need to abide by state law. If they were to buy a place where they held their events that would be different but they are using city property.

    You're allowed to carry at the puyallup fair, I don't know why this would be different. Them disarming people could end up being a lawsuit.
    Actually if you read PNWSA vs Sequim found here
    http://forum.nwcdl.org/index.php?act...;sa=view;id=24
    you will see that even cities can put restrictions on firearms when acting as a private property owner to the extent that it does not affect the general public.

    Private companies that lease public buildings most certainly retain private property owner rights when they are in control of the property.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Chandler, AZ/Federal Way, WA, ,
    Posts
    536

    Post imported post

    Thank you, I will read it.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Chandler, AZ/Federal Way, WA, ,
    Posts
    536

    Post imported post

    I have not read the case yet, but it seems RCW 9.41.300 is pretty clear.

    Looks to me the WAC is violating state law:

    RCW 9.41.300


    (2) Cities, towns, counties, and other municipalities may enact laws and ordinances:

    (a) Restricting the discharge of firearms in any portion of their respective jurisdictions where there is a reasonable likelihood that humans, domestic animals, or property will be jeopardized
    . Such laws and ordinances shall not abridge the right of the individual guaranteed by Article I, section 24 of the state Constitution to bear arms in defense of self or others; and

    (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.



  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    Kildars wrote:
    I have not read the case yet, but it seems RCW 9.41.300 is pretty clear.

    Looks to me the WAC is violating state law:

    RCW 9.41.300


    (2) Cities, towns, counties, and other municipalities may enact laws and ordinances:

    (a) Restricting the discharge of firearms in any portion of their respective jurisdictions where there is a reasonable likelihood that humans, domestic animals, or property will be jeopardized
    . Such laws and ordinances shall not abridge the right of the individual guaranteed by Article I, section 24 of the state Constitution to bear arms in defense of self or others; and

    (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.

    First off WAC is none of those and they do not impose a law or ordinance. T^hey impose a rule. Read the case it will give you a better understanding of how the courts view it.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Chandler, AZ/Federal Way, WA, ,
    Posts
    536

    Post imported post

    Aye.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47 12 x W122 10
    Posts
    1,762

    Post imported post

    LOL! You didn't actually expect a different set of rules than the rest of us WAC members comply with, did you?

    You guys do know, right, that the Western Washington Fairgrounds (AKA/Puyallup Fair AKA/Western Washington Fair Association) is private property, right?

    Furthermore, when a private organization leases private or public property for private use, they have the same powers as a private property owner. That is, to regulate conduct on property that they control.


  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Tacoma, WA, ,
    Posts
    886

    Post imported post

    This debate has gone on long enough on this site. The ridiculous part about this is that people instantly brand the WAC as "anti-gun"or wanting to somehow disarm their patronage. This is absurd. What they are doing, is complying with the lease agreement of the Fairgrounds they RENT, and make sure that they can continue having these little get-togethers for years to come.

    Having worked at a couple gunstores in the past, people want to try a holster on a gun, or find out about other accessories for the guns that they bring (or carry) in. I have personally looked down the barrel of half a dozen LOADED guns, having just been unholstered by "responsible gun owners." With all of the guns being brought in by so many people from all walks of life and experience, I'm fine with the WAC people verifying that my guns are unloaded so I can take them in. I know my abilities, but I don't trust anyone else's, and have seen in the past what "gun-guys" have managed to do with loaded guns in their excited stupidity.

    As we all know, it only takes one act of stupidity to ruin the privilage for the rest of us. I'd rather have the zip ties in my guns, than have a bullet in my head from some idiot at the other end of the convention hall.

    If you don't agree (and I'm sure there are still many who won't) that's fine, and I do respect your side of the argument. But the WAC will still be the same, and I don't see the rules changing anytime soon. But to call them "anti-gun" is not fair, and is not a well-thought out position, especially if we want to continue to use private property and buildings for the shows.

    In other news, the ammo prices at the WAC shows have not come down like gas prices! WTF is up with THAT, because that's the real outrage!

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Blaine, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,315

    Post imported post

    G20-IWB24/7 wrote:
    In other news, the ammo prices at the WAC shows have not come down like gas prices! WTF is up with THAT, because that's the real outrage!
    Not quite sure what the outrage is? There is no correlation between ammunition prices and gas prices. They are driven by different issues. Gas prices were driven by supply and demand for crude oil and refined gasoline, as well as limited refinery capacity. Ammunition prices, especially for surplus ammunition is driven by decreasing supply due to the United Nations Small Arms Treaty under which all the countries who used to sell us surplus ammunition are no longer doing so. That is why you don't see Portuguese, South African, Indian, or Australian 7.62 ammo any more.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Tacoma, WA, ,
    Posts
    886

    Post imported post

    heresolong wrote:
    Not quite sure what the outrage is? There is no correlation between ammunition prices and gas prices. They are driven by different issues. Gas prices were driven by supply and demand for crude oil and refined gasoline, as well as limited refinery capacity. Ammunition prices, especially for surplus ammunition is driven by decreasing supply due to the United Nations Small Arms Treaty under which all the countries who used to sell us surplus ammunition are no longer doing so. That is why you don't see Portuguese, South African, Indian, or Australian 7.62 ammo any more.
    Just trying to change the subject here. And light-heartedly at that. Wasn't really being serious. Thanks for the history lesson, though.

  17. #17
    Lone Star Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Seattle-ish, Washington, USA
    Posts
    714

    Post imported post

    G20-IWB24/7 wrote:
    This debate has gone on long enough on this site. The ridiculous part about this is that people instantly brand the WAC as "anti-gun"or wanting to somehow disarm their patronage. This is absurd. What they are doing, is complying with the lease agreement of the Fairgrounds they RENT, and make sure that they can continue having these little get-togethers for years to come.

    Having worked at a couple gunstores in the past, people want to try a holster on a gun, or find out about other accessories for the guns that they bring (or carry) in. I have personally looked down the barrel of half a dozen LOADED guns, having just been unholstered by "responsible gun owners." With all of the guns being brought in by so many people from all walks of life and experience, I'm fine with the WAC people verifying that my guns are unloaded so I can take them in. I know my abilities, but I don't trust anyone else's, and have seen in the past what "gun-guys" have managed to do with loaded guns in their excited stupidity.

    As we all know, it only takes one act of stupidity to ruin the privilage for the rest of us. I'd rather have the zip ties in my guns, than have a bullet in my head from some idiot at the other end of the convention hall.

    If you don't agree (and I'm sure there are still many who won't) that's fine, and I do respect your side of the argument. But the WAC will still be the same, and I don't see the rules changing anytime soon. But to call them "anti-gun" is not fair, and is not a well-thought out position, especially if we want to continue to use private property and buildings for the shows.

    In other news, the ammo prices at the WAC shows have not come down like gas prices! WTF is up with THAT, because that's the real outrage!
    Oh really? I didn't know there was a limit for discussion. I apologize.


  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Tacoma, WA, ,
    Posts
    886

    Post imported post

    diesel556 wrote:
    G20-IWB24/7 wrote:
    This debate has gone on long enough on this site.
    Oh really? I didn't know there was a limit for discussion. I apologize.
    I just think it's sadwhen the same topic gets discussed over and over and over and over again, always landing on the same conclusion. Some education on the legal ramifications on WHY the WAC does what they do would clear up all of the ranting over them being "anti-constitutional" and "anti-gun."

    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_to...;highlight=WAC

    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_to...;highlight=WAC

    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_to...;highlight=WAC

    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_to...;highlight=WAC

    And I guess you are right, there is NO LIMITto thisparticular discussion on this board. Each of thethreads above (and others) discuss the private property vs. carry rulessurrounding theWAC shows, and all the people that are mad about it, and all the people who understand why and tolerate it. I don't own the website, and I'm not pretending I do, I just think it's inefficient to cover the same five topics over and over again.

    There is a search option for a reason.



  19. #19
    Lone Star Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Seattle-ish, Washington, USA
    Posts
    714

    Post imported post

    I found one of those threads using the search feature after posting, and read through it in it's entirety (I updated my original post to reflect that). I still think it's a bad example to set, some of their arguments are the same as those espoused by the private businesses that upset everyone so much (on the DNP list).

    It doesn't matter much to me beyond academic debate at this point. The majority of my material possessions have been purchased online in the past. I only went to the gun show to participate in an event promoting gun rights, and to give my money to those that support it.

  20. #20
    Regular Member compmanio365's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pierce County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,013

    Post imported post

    It's the same situation as Safeco Field or any other public event location. The city or state "rents" out our public property to a company that puts on the events, so now they get to call it private property and restrict our rights in the very places you and I built with out tax dollars. Because nobody said "NO" back when this all took place a long time ago, now it is precedent, and it will be harder than hell to overturn. The best thing I can do is to not patronize such a hypocritical organization and not contribute to the continuing attrition of our rights, and hope someone, somewhere gets the message.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47 12 x W122 10
    Posts
    1,762

    Post imported post

    It's the same situation as Safeco Field or any other public event location.
    No, it's not. See my post above.

  22. #22
    State Researcher Bill Starks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nortonville, KY, USA
    Posts
    4,291

    Post imported post

    G20-IWB24/7 & deanf +1

    The fair is sponsored by a private owner on private property. See: Initiative 172 v. Western Washington Fair Association as a good example. The AG even had some input on it.
    http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.ph...ir_Association

    Look folks, you don't want to disarm or have you gun tied open then don't attend, its as simple as that. You don't like the rules? become a member run for a office position and make some changes.

    Like G20 said, I see how folks handle a empty weapon and I damn sure don't want a loose round flying around in a crowd of people because some guy who has years of experience in X position has a ND with a loaded weapon.




  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    190

    Post imported post

    M1Gunr wrote:
    G20-IWB24/7 & deanf +1

    The fair is sponsored by a private owner on private property. See: Initiative 172 v. Western Washington Fair Association as a good example. The AG even had some input on it.
    http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.ph...ir_Association

    Look folks, you don't want to disarm or have you gun tied open then don't attend, its as simple as that. You don't like the rules? become a member run for a office position and make some changes.

    Like G20 said, I see how folks handle a empty weapon and I damn sure don't want a loose round flying around in a crowd of people because some guy who has years of experience in X position has a ND with a loaded weapon.


    i guess you're against carrying in public then too because someone could ND you right in the eyeball.

    its funny when so called 2A supports draw lines in the sand, but then get mad when anti-gunners draw lines in the sand as to what we should be allowed to do.

  24. #24
    Lone Star Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Seattle-ish, Washington, USA
    Posts
    714

    Post imported post

    M1Gunr wrote:
    G20-IWB24/7 & deanf +1

    The fair is sponsored by a private owner on private property. See: Initiative 172 v. Western Washington Fair Association as a good example. The AG even had some input on it.
    http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.ph...ir_Association

    Look folks, you don't want to disarm or have you gun tied open then don't attend, its as simple as that. You don't like the rules? become a member run for a office position and make some changes.

    Like G20 said, I see how folks handle a empty weapon and I damn sure don't want a loose round flying around in a crowd of people because some guy who has years of experience in X position has a ND with a loaded weapon.


    1. Yep, the reason I posted in the first place was because they are not on the DNP list, which I personally believe needs to be corrected.

    2. Nobody should be touching their loaded weapon. It should stay in the holster, period. I would have no problem with a reasonable rule such as that. By the way what you're saying sounds similar to "Only trained LEO's should be allowed to carry guns". Correct me if I'm wrong.

    I find it very interesting that in response to people's concern for personal safety an "unnamed" member said that no crime ever happens at a gun show, so there is no need for protection. Sounds like the "It will never happen to me. We live in a good neighborhood." argument.

    Keep the responses coming if you'd like. It's interesting hearing both sides of the debate, even though I think that I've made my own personal choice I hope that I can still have an open mind.

  25. #25
    State Researcher Bill Starks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nortonville, KY, USA
    Posts
    4,291

    Post imported post

    i guess you're against carrying in public then too because someone could ND you right in the eyeball.
    Out on the street is a little different than being couped up with hundreds of "experts" handling their weapon.

    2. Nobody should be touching their loaded weapon. It should stay in the holster, period. I would have no problem with a reasonable rule such as that. By the way what you're saying sounds similar to "Only trained LEO's should be allowed to carry guns". Correct me if I'm wrong.
    Nobody should be touching their weapon but let's look at all the rules that abound; someone, somewhere breaks the rules & someone, somewhere gets hurt because of it. & just because a few gun owners act irresponsibly, does not mean that they all do. BTW: I'm the last guy that wants only LEO's to carry








Page 1 of 10 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •