• 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.

Hayes v Spokane Public Facilities District - resolution

hadji

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2012
Messages
122
Location
Spokane
Hayes v Spokane PFD

BE AWARE: You are not the 'general public'.

As some of you are aware, and others can perhaps recall,
Jeff Hayes has been involved in a legal dispute with the
Public Facilities District over an incident in 2012.
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...rry-in-the-news-KHQ-interview-with-Jeff-Hayes


Hayes was attemtping to enter a 'Ron Paul Rally'
in the Spokane Convention Center, but was denied access
when security noticed that Hayes was open carrying.

Notable progress has been made;
Spokane Municipal Code 10.10.050 was revised to include
the exception noted in RCW 9.41.300 (2) (b) (i),
which states in relevant part:

(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

Additionally, a new training bulletin was issued by the Spokane City Police
regarding open carry, to include the guidelines regarding 'warrants alarm'.

The PFD switched tactics shortly into the dispute,
claiming that Sequim provided an exemption from the preemption statute.
Northwest Shooting Park Ass'n v. City of Sequim, 158 Wn.2d 342; (2006)

Sequim acknowledges that municipalites operate in either
a governmental capacity or a proprietary capacity.
When operating in a proprietary capacity,
a municipality retains the general rights of a landlord,
in that a municipality may set the conditions of use of the property.

The PFD asserts that when licensing the property to be used by a client,
the PFD is operating in a proprietary capacity.
Thus, the PFD can set the conditions of the license,
one of which is that the licensee must follow all of the rules and policies of the PFD.

One of the policies of the PFD is a 'no firearms' rule, without exception.

Chan noted that Sequim applies to the licensee, not to the general public.
Chan v. City of Seattle, 164 Wash. App. 549 (2011)

We were able to secure the services of both SAF
and one of the principal attorneys from Chan.

We have spent a few hours going over the case with them, over the last few weeks.

Note this well:
According to counsel, including SAF,
you are not the general public.


Here is why:

Since a licensee can set the conditions of entry into the facility that they have licensed,
those that are allowed to enter are a subset of the general public.

It may very well be that the licensee sets a very low standard for condition of entry,
such that everyone may enter, but the fact remains it is the licensee
that can set that policy to whatever they want.

Most licensees will require the purchase of a ticket to enter.
Some will prohibit cans, bottles, alcohol or knives on premise.
Every licensee is required to completely prohibit firearms in the venue.

The point being, since you must comply with the licensee conditions for entry,
you are no longer a member of the general public.

What does this mean to us?

Preemption applies to the general public.
If we are not the general public, preemption does not apply.

This is a very serious encroachment upon the concept of preemption.

Never-the-less, until Sequim can be clarified, or more strictly interpreted,
if you enter any place, building, land or area in which someone can place restriction upon entry,
preemption does not apply to you. If they say 'no carry', they can trespass you for carrying.
Because at that place and time, carrying is not a 'lawful condition'.


So, what about RCW 290/300 which states in relevant part:

(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

If access is conditional, Sequim renders preemption meaningless in those areas.

Be warned.

Considering the above, we have chosen to drop the case.

Comments?

hadji
 

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,670
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
so maybe we should enact a new preemption statute. in fact we can copy Orygun's

State preemption
(1) Except as expressly authorized by state statute, the authority to regulate in any matter whatsoever the sale, acquisition, transfer, ownership, possession, storage, transportation or use of firearms or any element relating to firearms and components thereof, including ammunition, is vested solely in the Legislative Assembly.


that would end this nonsense quickly. the WA legislature is unlikely to act on gun related legislation though until the two initiatives are resolved, that means it's essential that we defeat 594 and defeat it decisively so the legislature has a failed gun control ballot measure hanging above the decision process. also if 594 is defeated then we need to take the offensive and immediately offer pro gun initiatives to the ballot.
 

Grim_Night

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2012
Messages
776
Location
Pierce County, Washington
So basically, they are making an end run around 9.41.290/300 by #1 hot holding any events of any sort at the facility that are open to the "general public" and #2 requiring all licensees to add the "no firearms/weapons" clause into their entry requirements... This sounds a little like male cow manure to me...
 

Jeff Hayes

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
2,569
Location
Long gone
so maybe we should enact a new preemption statute. in fact we can copy Orygun's

State preemption
(1) Except as expressly authorized by state statute, the authority to regulate in any matter whatsoever the sale, acquisition, transfer, ownership, possession, storage, transportation or use of firearms or any element relating to firearms and components thereof, including ammunition, is vested solely in the Legislative Assembly.


that would end this nonsense quickly. the WA legislature is unlikely to act on gun related legislation though until the two initiatives are resolved, that means it's essential that we defeat 594 and defeat it decisively so the legislature has a failed gun control ballot measure hanging above the decision process. also if 594 is defeated then we need to take the offensive and immediately offer pro gun initiatives to the ballot.

That would not help in this case since the courts in Washington have ruled that when municipalities are acting as a private business the law does not apply them any more than it would to a private business. In Oregon this law does not apply to private business or private property.
 

Jeff Hayes

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
2,569
Location
Long gone
While there is a chance of winning this case there is also a chance of losing and having additional case law that would be a problem later.

Sequim is a great example of what we do not want to do. IMHO the Sequim case was argued incorrectly and because of that we now have case law to overcome and it has given Cities and Municipalities a way to circumvent the law. Part of the reason this is not being perused is so that we do not go backwards and add more bad case law.

I would like to thank Hadji between he and I we spent hundreds of hours researching this, meeting, talking to lawyers and reading case law.
Thank you Hadji for all the support and the kick in the backside I needed on occasion.

We are not completely done with the PFD, as other items come to fruition I will keep everyone informed.
 

Ajetpilot

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2007
Messages
1,416
Location
Olalla, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
Thanks for taking this on, Jeff and Hadji. The huge amount of work that the two of you did is remarkable. I am sorry that you lost this one, but I agree that we don't want more bad case law. Thank you both for all the time and effort you invested in maintaining our rights.
 

Lammo

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2009
Messages
580
Location
Spokane, Washington, USA
Thanks guys! I agree with the decision to avoid making bad law but have a half-formed (if not half-baked) idea about a way to fix this. The ridiculous result in Sequim comes from the "proprietary capacity" fiction. This allows a public entity to claim it's not a public entity. If this is somehow real then everything that comes with not being a public entity should follow. The public entity should not be able to hide behind claims requirements in order to be subject to legal action (and they should have to hire their own lawyers rather than being represented by the city attorney or county prosecutor). The public entity should have to pay taxes on any revenue derived from their "proprietary capacity". They should have to comply with all the same labor laws that apply to any other private business, etc. Not sure if/how/when anything can be made of this but the idea is to force them into claiming they are a public entity in some situation where they are trying to exercise the "proprietary capacity" in order to expose the fiction and, hopefully, to do it in a context that has nothing to do with firearms. Then, having dismantled the fiction, we can take another run at getting the firearms rules tossed. Hope this makes some sense.
 

hadji

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2012
Messages
122
Location
Spokane
Who does the Attorney General think the general public is?

Indeed it does make sense.

There is another potential vector;
the definition of the 'general public'.

We've been told that when we enter an event
where the licensee can set the conditions of entry,
we are no longer a member of the general public.

Even if the 'general public' is invited.


The AGO 2008 No.8 refers to the general public several times.

I am aware that, as a member of the general public,
I cannot request an opinion from the state Attorney General.
That request must come from... well... I do not know.

Is it possible to request an opinion from the AG that clarifies
whether I lose my membership to the general public
upon entry to an event on public property?

If we do not lose that membership, then the AG opinion on preemption stands.
If we lose that membership, then preemption is meaningless in this context,
and we must go after the proprietary capacity concept.

The case currently turns on the definition of the 'general public',
as used by the AG.

comments?
hadji
 

deanf

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2007
Messages
1,789
Location
N47º 12’ x W122º 10’
The case currently turns on the definition of the 'general public',
as used by the AG.


How can anything "turn" on an AG's non-binding opinion? The AG is just a lawyer with a special practice. He's not a judge, and he doesn't get to decide law. His writings and those of his staff are just opinions.
 

hadji

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2012
Messages
122
Location
Spokane
A, perhaps unfortunate, figure of speech.
It is probably worth noting that his 'opinion' was quoted by Chan.

If the AG gives an opinion that we do not lose our 'general public' status, we may consider pursuing the case.
 
Last edited:

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
Good for you guys for keeping up the fight.

So sad the "servants" have to engage in a tortured twisting of language to rule in their favor. It is "us vs them", when they do these things.
 

Jeff Hayes

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
2,569
Location
Long gone
Thanks guys! I agree with the decision to avoid making bad law but have a half-formed (if not half-baked) idea about a way to fix this. The ridiculous result in Sequim comes from the "proprietary capacity" fiction. This allows a public entity to claim it's not a public entity. If this is somehow real then everything that comes with not being a public entity should follow. The public entity should not be able to hide behind claims requirements in order to be subject to legal action (and they should have to hire their own lawyers rather than being represented by the city attorney or county prosecutor). The public entity should have to pay taxes on any revenue derived from their "proprietary capacity". They should have to comply with all the same labor laws that apply to any other private business, etc. Not sure if/how/when anything can be made of this but the idea is to force them into claiming they are a public entity in some situation where they are trying to exercise the "proprietary capacity" in order to expose the fiction and, hopefully, to do it in a context that has nothing to do with firearms. Then, having dismantled the fiction, we can take another run at getting the firearms rules tossed. Hope this makes some sense.

Agreed this sorta crossed my mind at one point a few weeks ago only I thought how can they tax us and then claim to be private at any time if we the tax payers are funding the venture.

I am up for backing up and regrouping and taking another swing at this from a different angle.
 
Last edited:

Jeff Hayes

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
2,569
Location
Long gone
A, perhaps unfortunate, figure of speech.
It is probably worth noting that his 'opinion' was quoted by Chan.

If the AG gives an opinion that we do not lose our 'general public' status, we may consider pursuing the case.

Did you mean quoted by the court in the Chan case?
 

Baked on Grease

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2011
Messages
629
Location
Sterling, Va.
Have you guys thought about contacting the original authors/sponsors or the Preemption law? I'd sure love to hear their thoughts on this situation and they may have some insight or political clout to help out. Like defining the relation between the local government and the entities they contract out for services... I seem to recall some states with preemption regard a got contractor to operate as though the government itself is providing that service. Specifically so that the govt can't contract out in order to bypass restrictions placed upon itself under the cla I'm that it's not them but a private company doing the service. I don't know if that pertains to you situation at all, just figured I'd throw it out there.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk
 
Top