• 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/Concealed Carry at Sports Stadiums

wjofwa

New member
Joined
Mar 23, 2009
Messages
2
Location
Pierce County, Washington, USA
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?
 

kparker

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Messages
1,326
Location
Tacoma, Washington, USA
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...)
 

heresolong

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

just_a_car

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

joeroket

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

just_a_car

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

joeroket

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

kenshin

Regular Member
Joined
May 15, 2008
Messages
285
Location
Gig Harbor, Washington, USA
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.
 

joeroket

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

kenshin

Regular Member
Joined
May 15, 2008
Messages
285
Location
Gig Harbor, Washington, USA
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.
 

tacmedic911

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2008
Messages
69
Location
Deer Park, Washington, USA
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.
 
Top