• 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.

Guy looking for people to open carry at Bite of Seattle on Sunday

trevorthebusdriver

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2008
Messages
591
Location
Kent, Washington, USA
imported post

Hey guys, someone is looking for people to OC at Bite of Seattle on Sunday. If you want, give him a call. He posted this on the Seattle 2A Rights.

"I am trying to get a group together to open carry at Bite of Seattle this weekend at Seattle Center. It is a 3 day event so I was thinking maybe Sunday, because Mike is busy on Saturday, but I am open to any day. If you are interested please contact me, eric at 206-390-5200. Thanks. A right not exercised is a right taken away."
 

j2l3

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2007
Messages
871
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
imported post

Sgt Eagle is an upfront and solid guy. Fully supoprting our rights. He is correct about the lease thing. It is supported in court decisions involving the city of Sequim.

Someone help me with the citation please.

Does that make it right? Not really. Does it make it legal? Yes.
 

5jeffro7

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
172
Location
Mountlake Terrace, Washington, USA
imported post

I've been doing a lot of thinking about this "contractual language" loophole that mayor 5 pennies seems to use a lot...

I'm not an attorney, but....

it seems that by requiring the lesee to prohibit firearms that the city is, in effect dictating whether or not we can excersize our rights...this is what the preemption is all about, yet it seems that the legislature/courts are content to let the city continue to infringe upon our rights

doesn't seem like it would be upheld in court...and yes, I'm familiar with the sequim case...doesn't mean I'm happy with how the city is using this loophole....
 

Boo Boo

Banned
Joined
Jun 20, 2009
Messages
591
Location
, ,
imported post

could always grab a few hot dogs at costco then sit outfront of an entrance and have our own bite. since we would not be entering the venue they would not be able to say no
 

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,542
Location
Washington
imported post

j2l3 wrote:
Sgt Eagle is an upfront and solid guy. Fully supoprting our rights. He is correct about the lease thing. It is supported in court decisions involving the city of Sequim.

Someone help me with the citation please.

Does that make it right? Not really. Does it make it legal? Yes.
From the bolded part, no it's not.
To quote PNSPA v. Sequim
It follows that if the
city had authority to regulate possession of firearms in its
convention center under RCW 9.41.300, it also had
authority to regulate sales of firearms under RCW
9.41.300. The authority to regulate sales of firearms
flowed from its authority to regulate possession of
firearms under RCW 9.41.300.(fn4)
Note that the cited text does 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"... The important thing to this is that the first exemption is an individual exemption, meaning the city cannot act in a manner that restricts possession by an individual licensed under 9.41.070. Even in the oft-quoted "acting in a private capacity" section, the sequim decision states:
The preemption clause does not prohibit a
private property owner from imposing conditions on the
sale of firearms on his or her property. RCW 9.41.290.
Applying our reasoning in Cherry, it follows that a
municipal property owner like a private property owner
may impose conditions related to firearms for the use of
its property in order to protect its property interests. For
the same reason that a municipal employer may enact
policies regarding possession of firearms in the
workplace because a private employer may do so, a
municipal property owner should be allowed to impose
conditions related to sales of firearms on its property if a
private property owner may impose them. The critical
point is that the conditions the city imposed related to a
permit for private use of its property. They were not laws
or regulations of application to the general public.

Basically, the city cannot make it a part of the contract to prevent the general public from exercising their right to keep and bear arms. I think that it also means they cannot make a term of the condition a restriction upon the general public, simply upon those leasing the property. Those restrictions upon the lease cannot apply to showings, demonstrations, or lectures; this did not apply in the Sequim case, as the issue at stake was the sale of firearms.
 

5jeffro7

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
172
Location
Mountlake Terrace, Washington, USA
imported post

Tawnos wrote:
j2l3 wrote:
Sgt Eagle is an upfront and solid guy. Fully supoprting our rights. He is correct about the lease thing. It is supported in court decisions involving the city of Sequim.

Someone help me with the citation please.

Does that make it right? Not really. Does it make it legal? Yes.
From the bolded part, no it's not.
To quote PNSPA v. Sequim
It follows that if the
city had authority to regulate possession of firearms in its
convention center under RCW 9.41.300, it also had
authority to regulate sales of firearms under RCW
9.41.300. The authority to regulate sales of firearms
flowed from its authority to regulate possession of
firearms under RCW 9.41.300.(fn4)
Note that the cited text does 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"... The important thing to this is that the first exemption is an individual exemption, meaning the city cannot act in a manner that restricts possession by an individual licensed under 9.41.070. Even in the oft-quoted "acting in a private capacity" section, the sequim decision states:
The preemption clause does not prohibit a
private property owner from imposing conditions on the
sale of firearms on his or her property. RCW 9.41.290.
Applying our reasoning in Cherry, it follows that a
municipal property owner like a private property owner
may impose conditions related to firearms for the use of
its property in order to protect its property interests. For
the same reason that a municipal employer may enact
policies regarding possession of firearms in the
workplace because a private employer may do so, a
municipal property owner should be allowed to impose
conditions related to sales of firearms on its property if a
private property owner may impose them. The critical
point is that the conditions the city imposed related to a
permit for private use of its property. They were not laws
or regulations of application to the general public.

Basically, the city cannot make it a part of the contract to prevent the general public from exercising their right to keep and bear arms. I think that it also means they cannot make a term of the condition a restriction upon the general public, simply upon those leasing the property. Those restrictions upon the lease cannot apply to showings, demonstrations, or lectures; this did not apply in the Sequim case, as the issue at stake was the sale of firearms.

ooooooooookkkkkkkkkkkkk...now we just need an attorney to show up with us on sunday to explain it to the sheeple that they can't restrict our rights.
 

Dave Workman

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2007
Messages
1,874
Location
, ,
imported post

Tawnos wrote:
Basically, the city cannot make it a part of the contract to prevent the general public from exercising their right to keep and bear arms. I think that it also means they cannot make a term of the condition a restriction upon the general public, simply upon those leasing the property. Those restrictions upon the lease cannot apply to showings, demonstrations, or lectures; this did not apply in the Sequim case, as the issue at stake was the sale of firearms.

You are an attorney, are you?
 

Washintonian_For_Liberty

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

Tawnos wrote:
j2l3 wrote:
Sgt Eagle is an upfront and solid guy. Fully supoprting our rights. He is correct about the lease thing. It is supported in court decisions involving the city of Sequim.

Someone help me with the citation please.

Does that make it right? Not really. Does it make it legal? Yes.
From the bolded part, no it's not.
To quote PNSPA v. Sequim
It follows that if the
city had authority to regulate possession of firearms in its
convention center under RCW 9.41.300, it also had
authority to regulate sales of firearms under RCW
9.41.300. The authority to regulate sales of firearms
flowed from its authority to regulate possession of
firearms under RCW 9.41.300.(fn4)
Note that the cited text does 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"... The important thing to this is that the first exemption is an individual exemption, meaning the city cannot act in a manner that restricts possession by an individual licensed under 9.41.070. Even in the oft-quoted "acting in a private capacity" section, the sequim decision states:
The preemption clause does not prohibit a
private property owner from imposing conditions on the
sale of firearms on his or her property. RCW 9.41.290.
Applying our reasoning in Cherry, it follows that a
municipal property owner like a private property owner
may impose conditions related to firearms for the use of
its property in order to protect its property interests. For
the same reason that a municipal employer may enact
policies regarding possession of firearms in the
workplace because a private employer may do so, a
municipal property owner should be allowed to impose
conditions related to sales of firearms on its property if a
private property owner may impose them. The critical
point is that the conditions the city imposed related to a
permit for private use of its property. They were not laws
or regulations of application to the general public.

Basically, the city cannot make it a part of the contract to prevent the general public from exercising their right to keep and bear arms. I think that it also means they cannot make a term of the condition a restriction upon the general public, simply upon those leasing the property. Those restrictions upon the lease cannot apply to showings, demonstrations, or lectures; this did not apply in the Sequim case, as the issue at stake was the sale of firearms.
However, the lessee CAN restrict firearms at their event, and can ask you to leave... and if you don't, they can press charges for criminal trespass. The city can get by the laws by not making it a requirement of the lease.... and it is perfectly legal.

However, if it were made a condition of the lease, I'm sure that the 2A Rights group would fight it.

The best way to be able to carry at the event is work for their security detail.
 

jchen012

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2006
Messages
144
Location
Bellevue, WA, ,
imported post

Just to let you guys know, I was at the bite today and there are "No Firearms Allowed On These Premises" signs everywhere. I counted at least 10 of them and most of them are at the entrances. Just a FYI.
 

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,542
Location
Washington
imported post

Dave Workman wrote:
Tawnos wrote:
Basically, the city cannot make it a part of the contract to prevent the general public from exercising their right to keep and bear arms. I think that it also means they cannot make a term of the condition a restriction upon the general public, simply upon those leasing the property. Those restrictions upon the lease cannot apply to showings, demonstrations, or lectures; this did not apply in the Sequim case, as the issue at stake was the sale of firearms.

You are an attorney, are you?
Sorry to bump a month old topic (I apparently missed the followup), but Dave, can you add the "n't" where you meant it, above? That sentence could be either "You are an attorney, aren't you" or "You aren't an attorney, are you?"

Do you know that you're being quoted here: http://seattlepostglobe.org/2009/07/27/bite-of-seattle-almost-saw-pistol-packing-protests
to say
"A handful of these guys are exhibitionists," says Dave Workman, senior editor of Gun Week , which is published by the Second Amendment Foundation , a Bellevue-based gun rights group. "They do themselves and the gun community no favors at all."

I'm pretty sure that's out of context (if I recall correctly, you stated that being an exhibitionist does no favors, not just being an open carrier, but that's now it parses in quotes).
 
Top