Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Open/Concealed Carry at Sports Stadiums

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Pierce County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2

    Post imported post

    My understanding of the RCW's is as follows:

    RCW 9.41.300 Weapons prohibited in certain places -- Local laws and ordinances -- Exceptions -- Penalty.

    "(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"

    Where, RCW 9.41.070 deals with Concealed Pistol License and RCW 9.41.060 deals with possession within various other capacities related to work.

    So, my question is then, is carry legal at places such as Qwest Field, Safeco Field or Cheney Stadium?


  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,327

    Post imported post

    You want my opinion? :-)

    Yes, it's legal.

    But, TPTB have concocted the preposterous legal theory that the "private" part of the public-private relationship at these venues somehow overrides state law on the subject.

    And, it's going to take a lot of work to change this.

    Meanwhile, unless they install metal detectors or start doing intrusive, professional-quality patdowns, you can probably CC w/o any issues (Huge Disclaimer: this is not legal advice, nor ethical advice, nor tested by me in practice. I'm just talking about what the situation might be...)

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Blaine, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,315

    Post imported post

    When I have gone to Mariner's games they have often had a guy with a metal detector wand. They post it as "No Firearms". Even though the city owns the stadium they are renting it to the Mariners so M's rules apply. Apparently.

  4. #4
    Regular Member just_a_car's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Auburn, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,558

    Post imported post

    +1 to kparker's reply.

    It's legal, but the city of Seattle seems to think they can "loophole" around the law by renting a public space to a private entity.

    This is one of those "carry at your own risk" type of situations.
    B.S. Chemistry UofWA '09
    KF7GEA

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    just_a_car wrote:
    +1 to kparker's reply.

    It's legal, but the city of Seattle seems to think they can "loophole" around the law by renting a public space to a private entity.

    This is one of those "carry at your own risk" type of situations.
    There is no loophole and it is not only in Seattle.

    There are many stadiums and convention centers around the state that restrict firearms because they are not operated by the municipality that they reside in. The firearm rule is made by the company leasing the facility because they enjoy private property rights.

    Re-read the Sequim decision again. There are pieces of it, I think, that are applicable in this situation.
    "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

  6. #6
    Regular Member just_a_car's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Auburn, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,558

    Post imported post

    joerocket, the Sequim decision was where the city was acting as the property owner, renting the property to a private entity and said that that entity couldn't have firearms on the property as part of the rental agreement.

    The court (erroneously, in my opinion) said that the city was acting as a private property owner in that instance and wasn't beholden to the laws restricting the government.

    In this instance, the city is leasing the property and it's the leasee that's declaring "no firearms", which is a different situation. My guess is that somewhere in their lease, they are required to follow state laws, which would open them up to lawsuit if they denied access to a lawful carrier. BUT, since I haven't seen said lease, I can't say for sure what the wording is or how things might turn out for someone that decided to carry there.

    Oh, and I never said there was a loophole, I said the city thought they could "loophole" around it, which they can't.
    B.S. Chemistry UofWA '09
    KF7GEA

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    just_a_car wrote:
    joerocket, the Sequim decision was where the city was acting as the property owner, renting the property to a private entity and said that that entity couldn't have firearms on the property as part of the rental agreement.

    The court (erroneously, in my opinion) said that the city was acting as a private property owner in that instance and wasn't beholden to the laws restricting the government.

    In this instance, the city is leasing the property and it's the leasee that's declaring "no firearms", which is a different situation. My guess is that somewhere in their lease, they are required to follow state laws, which would open them up to lawsuit if they denied access to a lawful carrier. BUT, since I haven't seen said lease, I can't say for sure what the wording is or how things might turn out for someone that decided to carry there.

    Oh, and I never said there was a loophole, I said the city thought they could "loophole" around it, which they can't.
    Agreed on the use of loophole.

    I don't think personally that it was an erroneous decision in the sequim case. I think when a municipality is leasing property to a company then it is sometimes in the best interest of the taxpayers to allow rules as a private property holder could.

    I think they did lay ground work for other instances of restrictions due to the wording of the decision. By allowing a rule at all because it does not affect the general public is what I was looking at.

    Perhaps you are correct but unfortunately I think only time and another suit will tell for sure.
    "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

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Gig Harbor, Washington, USA
    Posts
    286

    Post imported post

    just_a_car wrote:
    This is one of those "carry at your own risk" type of situations.
    Given that a person is concealing, let's say they somehow find out at the door that you're carrying. The worst they could do was ask you to leave, correct? It's not trespassing until they ask you to leave and you refuse, regardless of whatever signage they have.
    DISCLAIMER: This post may contain libertarian ideas and language that are consistent with the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, including a belief in liberty, rule of law, and natural rights. It may also contain opinions critical of government and the tyrannies being committed by such. If you are an authoritarian, statist, or other freedom hater, side effects of reading this post may include high blood pressure, loose stool, severe genital itching, and diarrhea of the mouth.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    kenshin wrote:
    just_a_car wrote:
    This is one of those "carry at your own risk" type of situations.
    Given that a person is concealing, let's say they somehow find out at the door that you're carrying. The worst they could do was ask you to leave, correct?
    That is the way I understand it to be.
    "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

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Gig Harbor, Washington, USA
    Posts
    286

    Post imported post

    joeroket wrote:
    kenshin wrote:
    just_a_car wrote:
    This is one of those "carry at your own risk" type of situations.
    Given that a person is concealing, let's say they somehow find out at the door that you're carrying. The worst they could do was ask you to leave, correct?
    That is the way I understand it to be.
    Gotcha, thanks.
    DISCLAIMER: This post may contain libertarian ideas and language that are consistent with the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, including a belief in liberty, rule of law, and natural rights. It may also contain opinions critical of government and the tyrannies being committed by such. If you are an authoritarian, statist, or other freedom hater, side effects of reading this post may include high blood pressure, loose stool, severe genital itching, and diarrhea of the mouth.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Deer Park, Washington, USA
    Posts
    69

    Post imported post

    Just to throw this out there. I have cc'd several times without incident at spokane's arena not so much as a what's that? With one of the coats I wear sometimes the barrel will sneak out the bottom, but not one issue. I would agree to carry at your own risk though, remember spokane is home to a civil rights busting pd.

Posting Permissions

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