Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 27

Thread: SLC Leasing Away the Constitution at Washington Square?

  1. #1
    State Researcher Kevin Jensen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Santaquin, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,313

    Post imported post

    I found this over at UCC. David Nelsonwrote:
    Almost two years ago, I was illegally detained, questioned, threatened with arrest and removed from the Salt Lake City Corp. public property of Washington Square, which surrounds the City & County Building, by a city Police Department law-enforcement officer when I attended the annual gay Utah Pride Festival events with my legal firearm. As the owner of a gay firearm group (http://www.stonewallshootingsportsutah.org/), my behavior wasn't intended to intimidate or harass.

    I pursued my complaint against the city for more than a year until city Attorney Edwin P. "Ed" Rutan II claimed finally that I wasn't a member of a state militia and, therefore, refused to act further on my complaint.

    This is the second year that the event producers have published a rule (http://www.utahpridecenter.org/utahpride/do-pride) which would prohibit all firearms, but it's the first time they've done so after the historic U.S. Supreme Court opinion about D.C. v. Heller (2008) which affirmed the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is an individual right of the people. So, I've complained again to elected city officials about the rule.

    The two city officials -- Council Vice Chairman JT Martin and Councilman Soren D. Simonsen -- who have replied to me claim that most events on city public properties are private and may restrict firearms as they choose. I believe that this opinion is wrong because state laws require that the city "may not enact, establish, or enforce any ordinance, regulation, rule, or policy pertaining to firearms that in any way inhibits or restricts the possession or use of firearms on either public or private property" "except where the Legislature specifically delegates responsibility" to do so. And, no state law authorizes the city to lease away, even temporarily, its responsibility to protect the possession of a legal firearm at city public properties.

    Regardless of your opinion about this particular event, I'm asking for your help before June 5. As city Council Vice Chairman Martin and Councilman Simonsen claimed, other events publish the same kind of rule and, as I learned firsthand, city law-enforcement officers are willing to enforce these rules no matter what the event is.

    Please take a moment now to 1) complain to the city officials, and Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff and Salt Lake County District Attorney Lohra L. Miller who have some city law-enforcement oversight about this matter, and 2) share my message with your family and many friends who also support our right to keep and bear arms.

    SAMPLE MESSAGE

    Mayor Ralph Becker <mayor@slcgov.com>,
    Council Chairman Carlton Christensen <carlton.christensen@slcgov.com>,
    Council Vice Chairman JT Martin <jt.martin@slcgov.com>,
    Councilman Van Turner <van.turner@slcgov.com>,
    Councilman K. Eric Jergensen <eric.jergensen@slcgov.com>,
    Councilman Luke Garrott <luke.garrott@slcgov.com>,
    Councilwoman Jill Remington Love <jill.love@slcgov.com>,
    Councilman Soren D. Simonsen <soren.simonsen@slcgov.com>,
    Council <council.comments@slcgov.com>,
    Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff <uag@utah.gov>,
    Salt Lake County District Attorney Lohra L. Miller <districtattorney@slco.org>,
    Salt Lake City Corp. Attorney Edwin P. "Ed" Rutan II <ed.rutan@slcgov.com>

    I am discouraged to learn that Salt Lake City Corp. has been leasing away our Constitution at city public properties when the city allows an event producer to restrict the right to keep and bear arms at the properties.

    Utah Code sections 63-98-102 and 76-10-500 prohibit the city from doing this "except where the Legislature specifically delegates responsibility" to do so. The laws require that the city "may not enact, establish, or enforce any ordinance, regulation, rule, or policy pertaining to firearms that in any way inhibits or restricts the possession or use of firearms on either public or private property" unless authorized specifically by law.

    And, no state law "specifically delegates responsibility" to the city to allow an event producer to restrict the right to keep and bear arms at city public properties. So, I believe that the city is violating state laws every time an event producer does so.

    Your oath of public office expects you to protect our Constitution and obey state laws. Please act immediately to correct the practice of allowing event producers to restrict the right to keep and bear arms at city public properties.

    END SAMPLE MESSAGE

    Thank you for helping to protect our right to keep and bear arms in Utah.
    "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." Robert A. Heinlein

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    West Jordan, UT, ,
    Posts
    98

    Post imported post

    Not an event I would plan to attend, however, just because I'm not into your thing doesn't mean your rights don't matter. I am suprised to not see more comment on this. I will be sending email and/or letters & phone calls on this to the council memebers and Mark Shutleff's office. I hope others will do the same.

  3. #3
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795

    Post imported post

    This is an interesting question.

    On the one hand, we certainly don't want to let government entities get around state preemption by leasing out facilities to private interests. OTOH, so long as government is in the business of owning and operating various facilities that might be rented for private events those private interests probably ought to be able to exercise very wide discretion over access to their events even if they choose to rent from a government entity rather than from a privately owned entity. Indeed, so long as government is in certain businesses, there will be few if any private options available. Try to find a private convention center, for example, that is as large as the South Town Expo center or Salt Palace.

    If I rent some or all of the South Town Expo center for a wedding, funeral, birthday party, political rally or fundraiser, concert, or other event I really ought to be able to control access to that event and the facility itself during the time for which I have rented it. Maybe an event is ONLY for close family and friends or other invited guests. Maybe it is only for those willing to pay $10,000 a seat. Maybe it is only for those who agree with my politics or religious views. I simply see no reason I should be required to admit anyone--or anything--contrary to my desires once I've properly rented a facility.

    Now, if SLC had rented out city hall, or a city owned rec center, to a private management firm and that firm was imposing a permanent ban on RKBA, I'd think this a serious matter. But that is not what happened.

    Rather, a private interest rented the grass around city hall for a weekend event and then set certain limits on who or what was welcome within their private activity. That they set different rules than I might is neither surprising nor grounds to get upset.

    If the city actually sponsored this event that would be different. Ditto if this were a permanent arrangement whereby city facilities were made off limits to RKBA via an end run around State preemption. Heck, if it were an even like a parade that covered several blocks of public streets and the area was generally open to the public I'd also object to any private policy against RKBA.

    But as I understand the facts, I just can't get all that upset. So a bunch of people lobbying for what they call "civil rights" for themselves are hostile to the basic human rights (self defense) of one of their own. Hardly shocking from what we've seen come out of the homosexal lobby since prop 8. It is hypocritical. But I'm not convinced yet it violates any laws or constitutional provisions.

    Charles


    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    West Jordan, UT, ,
    Posts
    98

    Post imported post

    If they were leasing private property, I would agree. I would also agree if it were a lease for residence. I might be convinced to agree if it were a lease of publicly owned private space, However, it is a lease for public space that is publicly owned. My space. Are my right to free assembly & free speech also able to be "leased away" by our public servants (masters) ?

  5. #5
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795

    Post imported post

    MuellerBadener wrote:
    If they were leasing private property, I would agree. I would also agree if it were a lease for residence. I might be convinced to agree if it were a lease of publicly owned private space, However, it is a lease for public space that is publicly owned. My space. Are my right to free assembly & free speech also able to be "leased away" by our public servants (masters) ?
    Are you suggesting then that if I rent the Salt Palace for some function that I have to let others protest and pass out leaflets inside the area I have leased? Taken to its logical limits, if the property is public property how can the city allow a renter to require purchase of a ticket in order to enter the property?

    Again, if government property is being placed off limits to RKBA on a permanent basis due to some lease agreement with a private management company that would be of real concern to me. But if the McFarlan family rents the expo center for a reunion and only wants to admit kilt clad family members I just don't see that as an abrogation of my rights. Ditto if the homosexals, democrats, Brady Bunch, etc, rent some piece of city property for a day to hold their event and impose limits and rules on who or what is welcome.

    We might well note that if the government were not in the business of renting property to private groups this would not be an issue. I'm not unsympathetic to such l/Libertarian views. But the reality is that government is in the convention business and just because government has effectivly undercut private competition is no reason to eliminate the rights of private interests who rent convention space to control access to their convention.

    And I freely admit some self interest here. I figure my odds of ever wanting to attend a private function run by those so anti-RKBA as to have a policy against it is much lower than the odds of someone wanting to come disrupt the private functions I might host. So I'll respect the rights of others to exclude me or my firearm from their private events hosted on property rented from government for some short period of time in exchange for securing my right to exclude those who annoy me from the events I sponsor.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    West Jordan, UT, ,
    Posts
    98

    Post imported post

    The complaint wasn't about a private event. It was a public event. No mention was made of buying entrance. That would indeed be a private event and subject to such restrictions. Again, your other examples are all *private events, and I admitted that that case might be made, but events open to the public on public property don't cut it. What is more, if I accept your logic, then the Hoogle Zoo could indeed ban firearms by simply "leasing" the city's property.

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Cottonwood Heights, Utah, USA
    Posts
    545

    Post imported post

    MuellerBadener wrote:
    The complaint wasn't about a private event. It was a public event. No mention was made of buying entrance. That would indeed be a private event and subject to such restrictions. Again, your other examples are all *private events, and I admitted that that case might be made, but events open to the public on public property don't cut it. What is more, if I accept your logic, then the Hoogle Zoo could indeed ban firearms by simply "leasing" the city's property.
    Except that Hogle Zoo is also funded by sales tax and ZAP tax. So unless those events are funded by taxes, then Hogle Zoo is in a different category.


  8. #8
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795

    Post imported post

    jaredbelch wrote:
    MuellerBadener wrote:
    The complaint wasn't about a private event. It was a public event. No mention was made of buying entrance. That would indeed be a private event and subject to such restrictions. Again, your other examples are all *private events, and I admitted that that case might be made, but events open to the public on public property don't cut it. What is more, if I accept your logic, then the Hoogle Zoo could indeed ban firearms by simply "leasing" the city's property.
    Except that Hogle Zoo is also funded by sales tax and ZAP tax. So unless those events are funded by taxes, then Hogle Zoo is in a different category.
    Exactly. Note that I drew a clear distinction between a private event simply renting property from the city for a short period of time and an event actually sponsored by the city and/or otherwise funded with tax money. I would also oppose allowing limits on RKBA at an on-going, permanent or semi-permanent facility on city owned property but run by a private management firm.

    So, for example, I'd very much oppose limits on RKBA at the taxpayer funded South Towne Expo center (or Real Stadium) generally. However, if some private group rents the facilities for weekend and wants to impose limits on who they admit to their event I don't really care whether they want to exclude guns, gays, men, women, children, mormons, etc, etc, etc.

    I'm not saying this is exactly what the law current does or does not allow. But I'm not convinced that current law prevents anti-gun policies being imposed by private parties renting, short term, government property for private use.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  9. #9
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795

    Post imported post

    MuellerBadener wrote:
    The complaint wasn't about a private event. It was a public event. No mention was made of buying entrance.
    As I understand it, the event WAS private as a private group was sponsoring it and eve paid a rental fee to the city to use the property in question. That is what makes the event "private" not what amount the group chooses to charge for entrance or whether they choose to impose any other limits on entrance.

    Every church service in this valley is a private event. But with the exception of LDS Temple services, most all of those services generally admit anyone who wants to show up. Some churches will choose to exclude guns. Others may require that you remove your shoes or cover your head in some way.

    Now, if the event was not sponsored and funded by a private group, but was instead city funded then I would completely agree that limits on RKBA would violate Utah's State preemption law. But given likely public outrage over tax dollars being used to promote certain sexual conduct, I'm pretty sure this was not a city sponsored event. I am open to corrections.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Decoligny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rosamond, California, USA
    Posts
    1,865

    Post imported post

    If the event is a private event, then it should be the event organizer who decides whether or not firearms are permitted at that event.

    For the city to enact a rule prohibiting firearms, and then claiming that most of the events are private events and would prohibit firearms anyway, is just a shell game where the city is trying to skirt the issue of their illegally infringing on your rights.

    Unfortunately, the Heller case has no standing yet in Utah as it hasn't been incorporated at the State level except in the 9th circuit jurisdiction.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    West Jordan, UT, ,
    Posts
    98

    Post imported post

    The Farmer's Market is (to my knowledge) privately arranged, but in pioneer park. So you feel they can ban RKBA?



    Churchs are not on public property, but private property, so can do as they please.

  12. #12
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795

    Post imported post

    MuellerBadener wrote:
    The Farmer's Market is (to my knowledge) privately arranged, but in pioneer park. So you feel they can ban RKBA?



    Churchs are not on public property, but private property, so can do as they please.
    That gets to be a tough question. To be clear, I'd rather that firearms not be banned.

    But exactly where to draw the line between a private event (held on rented government property) that can control access and an event that should not be allowed to control access is not exactly straight forward.

    It seems clear to me that if I rent a room at the country rec center to hold a birthday party, I ought to be free to limit access to that party on any, all, or no grounds whatsoever.

    On the flip side, if I get permits to hold a parade, race, or similar event on public streets I should NOT be allowed to ban firearms from my parade route, though I should probably be free to control the content of what is actually in my parade. The gays should not be required to let Miss California ride a float in their parade. And the Days of '47 parade should not be required to let anti-LDS messages be part of any floats in their parade. Both groups ought to be free to prohibit guns from among those actually participating in their events, but not from among the general public who may come watch the parade, or simply make use of public sidewalks to go about their business as the parade happens to be passing by.

    It is also clear to me that State Preemption prevents anti-gun policies (visitor/patron OR employee) at government run facilities like the zoo, equestrian center, rec centers, parks, trails, etc, etc, etc.

    If you have disagreement with any of the above, let me know and give me your best explanation and justification. But these two ends of the spectrum seem pretty clear and reasonable to me.

    Now, an event like the Farmers' Market where they are completely open to the general public, make no attempt to control access, and where there are basically unlimited numbers of people who may come through either to shop or just to walk through the park without regard to the farmers' market seems a lot more like a parade than a private birthday party to me. So I'd lean strongly toward NOT allowing them to ban guns, at least not among any except those who may be directly representing the market itself in some way; similar to how I'd allow a private parade to control the content of what is projected by the parade itself, but not allow them to limit the rights of mere spectators.

    A political convention, rally, fundraiser, etc looks a lot more like a private birthday party to me and so I'd lean more toward allowing full control of access.

    Concerts, ballgames, and other events held in government funded stadiums are a gray area for me. If one can legitimately claim the event is being partially funded out of tax money, then rights must be respected. If the event is paying fair market value to rent the facilities, one might be persuaded that the organizer ought to be free to control access in whatever way he wants. Of course, we know we'd never tolerate denying access for reasons of race or sex at such events, so maybe that points toward not allowing discrimination against legal gun possession.

    My long-winded point is that there are cases that are very clear to me. Call a reasonable man test. Truly private events where access is limited on some basis--family ties, political association, religious association, club membership, etc--ought to be free to limit access as they see fit. But as the event becomes less private and more a "place of public accommodation" then the case for allowing arbitrary limits on otherwise legal, non-disruptive items like a holstered firearm becomes weaker.

    Finally, I don't see any problem with the police keeping order by helping to enforce access controls based on whatever policy the organizer has set so long as those policies are permissible. If I call the police to have a trespasser removed from my back yard, the cops are not going to ask many questions about why I want him gone. The fact that I legally control that property and he is not welcome is all that matters.

    I don't know that I've resolved anything, but I hope I've at least clarified a bit my views on this topic.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  13. #13
    Regular Member thx997303's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lehi, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,716

    Post imported post

    i dont think that the police should have any power to enforce any restrictions made by event promoters and the like, when the action being restricted is not illegal, and the event is being held on public property, whether they are paying to use the property or not.

    Since it is merely temporarily leased/rented public property, a trespassing charge should not be able to stick. I also read the tresspassing law as saying that only the property owner or a representative of can make the call on who to kick out, which means that unless the people make the call (would be amazing if such a feat were to happen) Or a representative of such as an elected politician, then an individual is not legally trespassing. Also that individual is one of the owners.

    Little sidebar, I also dont believe that event security should be able to forcibly remove an individual that is not breaking any laws, but they merely want out. And if they do remove the indicidual forcefully, they should be liable for any injuries, and any laws broken while moving the individual against their will. I believe the proper term for that is kidnapping.

  14. #14
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,611

    Post imported post

    I fail to see how leasing public property to a private entity changes its status as public property. I further question how public property (accessible to all citizens) can even be leased and thereby restricted to all citizens - on a temporary basis or not.

    How would it work if the city leased your parks to a private organization every Sat & Sun, 52 weeks a year. Is the difference in the number of days or is it wrong because the parks are public. I see this as the same difference.

    If you accept it, they'll get away with it.

    Yata hey
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  15. #15
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    West Jordan, UT, ,
    Posts
    98

    Post imported post

    Gray Peterson wrote: Very interesting ruling. Seems the city is contrary to the 9th circuit. Not sure what that says for my arguement? :shock:

  17. #17
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    MuellerBadener wrote:
    Gray Peterson wrote: Very interesting ruling. Seems the city is contrary to the 9th circuit. Not sure what that says for my arguement? :shock:
    SLC is in 10th Circuit anyway.

  18. #18
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795

    Post imported post

    Grapeshot wrote:
    I fail to see how leasing public property to a private entity changes its status as public property. I further question how public property (accessible to all citizens) can even be leased and thereby restricted to all citizens - on a temporary basis or not.

    How would it work if the city leased your parks to a private organization every Sat & Sun, 52 weeks a year. Is the difference in the number of days or is it wrong because the parks are public. I see this as the same difference.

    If you accept it, they'll get away with it.

    Yata hey
    I think there are differences. Leasing out the entire park--especially to the same group--every weekend would certainly start to look like an end run around abiding public access.

    On the other hand, there are meeting rooms at the country rec center that are rented out on a regular basis and those who rent them get to exclude anyone they want for any or no reason. The WHOLE purpose of the government owned Salt Palace and South Towne Expo Center (the two convention centers in the SL area) is to rent out rooms to private interests that then control access, often by charging admission.

    There may well be a valid argument against allowing private interests that rent an entire park, or even pavilion from enforcing a no gun rule. But failing to recognize the obvious differences between a clear attempt to convert public property to private property full time and legitimate rental agreements involving publicly owned facilities that are DESIGNED for being rented to private interests undermines any attempt to make that point.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    West Jordan, UT, ,
    Posts
    98

    Post imported post

    utbagpiper wrote:
    I think there are differences. Leasing out the entire park--especially to the same group--every weekend would certainly start to look like an end run around abiding public access.

    On the other hand, there are meeting rooms at the country rec center that are rented out on a regular basis and those who rent them get to exclude anyone they want for any or no reason. The WHOLE purpose of the government owned Salt Palace and South Towne Expo Center (the two convention centers in the SL area) is to rent out rooms to private interests that then control access, often by charging admission.

    There may well be a valid argument against allowing private interests that rent an entire park, or even pavilion from enforcing a no gun rule. But failing to recognize the obvious differences between a clear attempt to convert public property to private property full time and legitimate rental agreements involving publicly owned facilities that are DESIGNED for being rented to private interests undermines any attempt to make that point.

    Charles
    I still think that the point of division is when the public is invited to attend. A wedding is a private event with a closed set of invitees. aif some one breaks the rules, then the invite is revoked and they are trespassing. However, if the general public is invited to attend (either by ticket or open admission) the organiser can't start conditioning who attends. It's not like they can invite the public and then add in " everyone but Latinos"/ If it's not ABSOLUTELY private, then tghe general rules of civic property still apply.

  20. #20
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795

    Post imported post

    MuellerBadener wrote:
    I still think that the point of division is when the public is invited to attend. A wedding is a private event with a closed set of invitees. aif some one breaks the rules, then the invite is revoked and they are trespassing. However, if the general public is invited to attend (either by ticket or open admission) the organiser can't start conditioning who attends. It's not like they can invite the public and then add in " everyone but Latinos"/ If it's not ABSOLUTELY private, then tghe general rules of civic property still apply.
    That is not an unreasonable line to draw. I may even have to agree. I might even support a law to that effect.

    And I hope nobody gets the impression I want to see any places made off limits to the lawful possession of guns.

    I just want people to stop and think about being on the other side of the coin. If I rent a facility--be it a room at a convention center, a BBQ pit or pavilion at a park, etc--that happens to be owned and run by some government agency I'd really like to be able to control access to my event. I doubt I'd ban guns. But I can think of any number of other activities, groups, or persons I may not care to have visibly attending. This is doubly true for a purely private event like a wedding. But I think it remains true for some fairly public events.

    Imagine a pro-gun rally that is generally open to the public. Does that FORCE me to allow the Brady Bunch to show up and protest? Show up and mingle within my even wearing T-shirts with messages that most of us find offensive?

    If the Quakers get parade permits do they have to allow war mongers to get a float in their parade?

    If the homosexuals rent a corner of a city park for a pride event do they have to allow that crazy preacher inside their event to call people names? Do they have to respect his free speech just because their event looks a little more open than a wedding?

    By the time an event is so large and diverse as not to have a specific message then I think rules banning guns or gays or crazy preachers or t-shirts that one particular group finds offensive are much harder to justify.

    But if the Baptists want to rent the Salt Palace (or even a chunk of Pioneer Park) and hold a conference that specifically excludes Mormons, I don't see a good reason to prevent that.

    Charles

    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  21. #21
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795

    Post imported post

    thx997303 wrote:
    i dont think that the police should have any power to enforce any restrictions made by event promoters and the like, when the action being restricted is not illegal, and the event is being held on public property, whether they are paying to use the property or not.

    ...

    Little sidebar, I also dont believe that event security should be able to forcibly remove an individual that is not breaking any laws, but they merely want out. And if they do remove the indicidual forcefully, they should be liable for any injuries, and any laws broken while moving the individual against their will. I believe the proper term for that is kidnapping.
    So if you show up at my kid's birthday party at the county rec center room I have rented I should not have any effective means of removing you because you were not invited?

    If I rent some portion of the public library to hold a wedding reception after normal business hours I should have zero effective means to actually enforce a guest list?

    If I get proper permits to host a parade on public streets I should have zero effective means to control the content of what is displayed in that parade and reflects on my sponsorship of the event??!?!?!?!

    If I rent a home instead of owning my own I can't get a trespassing conviction against someone refusing to get off my front porch because my residency in the home is temporary?!??!?

    Look 1/2 inch beyond the specific issue of RKBA and it is clear your position is wholly unworkable and contrary to every notion of property rights we hold basic in our society. Enforced as law the result would be, effectively, to prevent any renting of government owned/controlled land to any private interest that wanted to actually have any control over their event at all. How do you even charge admission to an event held on government property when you prohibit the police from enforcing the admission rule and effectively prevent private security from enforcing it either?

    RKBA is crucial. But others' rights must also be respected.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  22. #22
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Cottonwood Heights, Utah, USA
    Posts
    545

    Post imported post

    utbagpiper wrote:
    thx997303 wrote:
    i dont think that the police should have any power to enforce any restrictions made by event promoters and the like, when the action being restricted is not illegal, and the event is being held on public property, whether they are paying to use the property or not.

    ...

    Little sidebar, I also dont believe that event security should be able to forcibly remove an individual that is not breaking any laws, but they merely want out. And if they do remove the indicidual forcefully, they should be liable for any injuries, and any laws broken while moving the individual against their will. I believe the proper term for that is kidnapping.
    So if you show up at my kid's birthday party at the county rec center room I have rented I should not have any effective means of removing you because you were not invited?

    If I rent some portion of the public library to hold a wedding reception after normal business hours I should have zero effective means to actually enforce a guest list?

    If I get proper permits to host a parade on public streets I should have zero effective means to control the content of what is displayed in that parade and reflects on my sponsorship of the event??!?!?!?!

    If I rent a home instead of owning my own I can't get a trespassing conviction against someone refusing to get off my front porch because my residency in the home is temporary?!??!?

    Look 1/2 inch beyond the specific issue of RKBA and it is clear your position is wholly unworkable and contrary to every notion of property rights we hold basic in our society. Enforced as law the result would be, effectively, to prevent any renting of government owned/controlled land to any private interest that wanted to actually have any control over their event at all. How do you even charge admission to an event held on government property when you prohibit the police from enforcing the admission rule and effectively prevent private security from enforcing it either?

    RKBA is crucial. But others' rights must also be respected.

    Charles
    The next question is should the government be in the business of renting out facilities?

    In my perfect world, the government would be small enough that they wouldn't be able to afford permanent facilities except in rare situations. They would have to rent or lease space for their offices and facilities because they were only used part time or part of the year.

    Convention centers, soccer stadiums and such would be private and you would have to follow the rules set by the property owners.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Provo, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,076

    Post imported post

    utbagpiper wrote:
    So if you show up at my kid's birthday party at the county rec center room I have rented I should not have any effective means of removing you because you were not invited?

    If I rent some portion of the public library to hold a wedding reception after normal business hours I should have zero effective means to actually enforce a guest list?
    These are decidedly private events in an enclosed space. As such, yes you do and should have control over the guest list.


    If I get proper permits to host a parade on public streets I should have zero effective means to control the content of what is displayed in that parade and reflects on my sponsorship of the event??!?!?!?!
    This is not as cut and dried. If you invite the public to provide entries in the parade, you cannot exclude an entry simply because you disagree with its message. Sorry I cannot site the case because I don't have ready access to LexisNexis, but as I recall courts have ruled that a parade on public streets which invites public entries can only exclude entries based on objective standards applied to all entries.


    If I rent a home instead of owning my own I can't get a trespassing conviction against someone refusing to get off my front porch because my residency in the home is temporary?!??!?
    This is a matter of law giving you as a renter/tennant the same rights to peacable use of property as are granted to a property owner.


    Look 1/2 inch beyond the specific issue of RKBA and it is clear your position is wholly unworkable and contrary to every notion of property rights we hold basic in our society. Enforced as law the result would be, effectively, to prevent any renting of government owned/controlled land to any private interest that wanted to actually have any control over their event at all. How do you even charge admission to an event held on government property when you prohibit the police from enforcing the admission rule and effectively prevent private security from enforcing it either?

    RKBA is crucial. But others' rights must also be respected.
    This is one of the problems created when government oversteps it proper role. As a matter of principle, government has no business owning and operating such properties.

    Every place I can find where basic rights are enumerated, they are always in the order of life-liberty-property. While property rights are important, they are superceeded by the rights to life and liberty. The purpose of the RKBA is to protect those rights, partuclarly life.

    Common sense (at least to me) would say that any place or event that is generally open to the public should be bound by the requirement to uphold the basic civil rights, including the RKBA.

    Having spent many hours reading the Constitution and Bill of Rights, I find it very intersting that there is only one place where restrictions or demands are not qualified by who they apply to. Throughout the Consitution and Bill of Rights, it specifies the parts that apply to congress, the executive, the courts, the states, etc., with only one exception. That exception is the the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, where it simply says "... shall not be infringed". I would argue that would indicate that the application is unrestricted and therefore would apply to everyone.

  24. #24
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795

    Post imported post

    jaredbelch wrote:
    The next question is should the government be in the business of renting out facilities?

    In my perfect world, the government would be small enough that they wouldn't be able to afford permanent facilities except in rare situations. They would have to rent or lease space for their offices and facilities because they were only used part time or part of the year.

    Convention centers, soccer stadiums and such would be private and you would have to follow the rules set by the property owners.
    You won't get much disagreement from me on this one.

    But that isn't the world in which we live and isn't likely to be any time soon. So we start with where we are.

    Charles


    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    West Jordan, UT, ,
    Posts
    98

    Post imported post

    jaredbelch wrote:
    The next question is should the government be in the business of renting out facilities?

    In my perfect world, the government would be small enough that they wouldn't be able to afford permanent facilities except in rare situations. They would have to rent or lease space for their offices and facilities because they were only used part time or part of the year.

    Convention centers, soccer stadiums and such would be private and you would have to follow the rules set by the property owners.
    If government was doing what it should be doing, (And not doing what it shouldn't!)we wouldn't even need such a forum. But alas...........

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •